    [Senate Hearing 110-648]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                                                            S. Hrg. 110-648

                                                            Senate Hearings

                                     Before the Committee on Appropriations

    _______________________________________________________________________

    Department of the Interior,

    Environment, and

    Related Agencies

    Appropriations

                                                                Fiscal Year
                                                                       2009

                                             110th CONGRESS, SECOND SESSION

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

    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

    NATIONAL ENDOWMENT FOR THE ARTS

    GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE

    NATIONAL ENDOWMENT FOR THE HUMANITIES
         Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies
                             Appropriations, 2009
                         (H.R. 2643/S. 1696) --Part 1

    41-257 PDF

    2008

                                               S. Hrg. 110-648, Pt. 1 deg.

         DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, ENVIRONMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES
                      APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2009

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

                                    HEARINGS

                                    before a

                              SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE

                COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS UNITED STATES SENATE

                           ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS

                                 SECOND SESSION

                                   __________

                          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
    41-257 PDF                 WASHINGTON DC:  2008
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------
    For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
    Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov  Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
    Fax: (202) 512�092104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402�090001
                                   __________

                          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 4, 2008

                                                                       Page

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

                             Tuesday, April 1, 2008

    Department of Agriculture: Forest Service........................    49

                            Tuesday, April 15, 2008

    Department of the Interior: Office of the Secretary..............   159
    Nondepartmental witnesses........................................   221

         DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, ENVIRONMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES
                      APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2009

                                  ----------

                             TUESDAY, MARCH 4, 2008

                                           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, Leahy, Stevens, Craig, and
    Allard.

                        ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

    STATEMENT OF HON. STEPHEN L. JOHNSON, ADMININSTRATOR
    ACCOMPANIED BY:
            MARCUS C. PEACOCK, DEPUTY DIRECTOR
            BENJAMIN H. GRUMBLES, ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR, OFFICE OF WATER
            SUSAN PARKER BODINE, ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR, OFFICE OF SOLID
                WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE

                 OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR DIANNE FEINSTEIN

        Senator Feinstein. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen, and
    welcome to the Interior Subcommittee's hearing on the EPA
    agency's fiscal year 2009 budget.
        This one is a series of budget hearings that the
    subcommittee will be holding. But, I'd like to take a moment
    and set the stage for the challenges that this administration's
    request presents, before we begin with the EPA budget.
        The President has requested $25.715 billion in
    discretionary spending for the agencies and programs in the
    Interior budget. That's a cut of $842 million, or 3.2 percent,
    from the currently-enacted level.
        The real cut, of course, is much higher, when you factor in
    some $300 million in fixed costs that must be covered, an extra
    $200 million for fire suppression to meet the 10-year average,
    and approximately $150 million to cover increased health care
    costs for the services provided by the Indian Health Service.
        In short, this Interior budget is a very difficult one, and
    we are going to have our work cut out for us, as we proceed
    with this year's appropriation process.
        With respect to this morning's hearing the administration's
    request for the EPA's budget is $7.142 billion, a $329
    million--or a 4 percent cut--from the 2008 enacted level. This
    proposal calls for the smallest budget for EPA, since 1997. The
    smallest budget for EPA, since 1997.

                                GRANTS TO STATES

        Grants to States for environmental protection, in general,
    are slashed $304 million, a 10 percent cut, for a total of $2.6
    billion. As in previous years, the largest cut is to the Clean
    Water State Revolving Fund. The administration's request for
    this program is $555 million. That's a 20 percent cut from the
    2008 enacted level.
        Now, this happens despite the fact that EPA just released a
    report, citing a need for $20 billion to keep pace with clean
    water infrastructure funding in the United States over the next
    20 years.
        The budget proposes $186 million in State grants for
    reduction of air pollution--that's a 14 percent cut--and it
    eliminates $9.8 million in funds added to clean up air
    pollution in the San Joaquin Valley, and South Coast air
    districts of my State--the two most polluted air districts in
    the country.
        Finally, EPA budget cuts $14 million in funding for climate
    change programs--including the outright elimination of $3.4
    million added last year for a greenhouse emissions reporting
    rule. This comes, despite the fact that Congress has required a
    final rule on this by June 2009, and we know additional funds
    are badly needed to complete this important work. Under this
    budget, though, that money is just gone.
        We're here today to talk about more than the budget, too.
    As you know, I am strongly opposed to the administrator's
    decision last December to deny the State of California its
    authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from
    automobiles.
        I'm going to ask Administrator Johnson to justify how he
    could have reached this decision, that California's need to
    regulate greenhouse gases was not compelling or extraordinary,
    when his decision looks to be plainly contradicted by both the
    Clean Air Act, and by 40 years of agency policy.
        What's even more unprecedented, is that he has denied this
    waiver, without offering a shred of legal or technical evidence
    for this decision. Incredibly, EPA released its justification
    for the waiver decision just last Friday--more than 2 months
    after the decision was made. You would think it would be done
    before the decision was made. I want to know why.
        This issue is much bigger than California. Sixteen States
    around the country have asked to implement California's
    emission standards, and take action against climate change. The
    people in those States deserve answers to these important
    questions.
        I'd like to turn now to our distinguished ranking member,
    Senator Allard, for any opening comments you might make.

                   OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR WAYNE ALLARD

        Senator Allard. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
        Just to make a brief comment here, I want to thank you for
    holding this hearing, and I want to thank Mr. Johnson for
    joining us this morning to testify on the fiscal year 2009
    budget for the Environmental Protection Agency.
        EPA has one of the most important and difficult missions of
    all Federal agencies. The agency's jurisdiction ranges from
    responsibility for clear-up of Superfund sites, to funding
    clean water and drinking water infrastructure programs, to the
    enforcement of a long list of environmental laws.
        The administration has requested $7.1 billion in total
    budget authority for fiscal year 2009--this is $330 million
    below the enacted level.
        While I'm a supporter of this agency's--and the
    administration's--effort to curb spending, I am concerned that
    the bulk of the reduction in EPA's budget is in the form of is
    in the form of a $134 million to the Clean Water SRF.
        As I have mentioned in past years, I am uneasy with
    continued increases in enforcement budget at EPA. The $9
    million increase above the enacted level, $563 million total
    budget for enforcement. I hope that the agency will work in
    good faith with small and rural communities who do not always
    possess the expertise to comply with new regulations.

                        LEADVILLE MINE DRAINAGE TUNNELL

        Mr. Administrator, I am sure that you are familiar with the
    issues surrounding the Leadville Mine drainage tunnel in Lake
    County, Colorado. I am extremely concerned that Lake County
    officials were forced to declare a state of emergency on
    February 13, to prepare for a possible toxic flood as a result
    of water trapped in a collapsed drainage tunnel.
        Now, EPA is not the only entity that bears responsibility
    for the Leadville Tunnel, but I would like your word, Mr.
    Johnson, that your agency will continue to work toward a long-
    term solution for this situation, so that the residents of Lake
    County can rest easy.
        I was pleased that your representative in our Colorado
    meeting took the bull by the horn, so to speak, and came up
    with a short-term solution. So, we're talking about a long-term
    solution for this problem, and I am appreciative of him
    stepping forward at a time when we had a couple of agencies,
    sort of, knowing at each other, and you brought--you took some
    leadership out of your agency and brought about a consensus,
    and I appreciate that.
        Senator Feinstein, I do not necessarily agree on all
    aspects of the greenhouse debate, but I'm concerned by reports
    that the agency may have disregarded standard protocols in
    denying California's Clean Air Waiver Request.
        There are a number of States, including Colorado, which
    would have considered in California's footsteps to adopt a law
    to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from automobiles, if a
    waiver was granted to that State. As a supporter of States'
    rights, I am also troubled by the suggestion that the State of
    California's rights may have been curtailed.
        I'm confident that Senator Feinstein has a number of
    questions for you, Mr. Johnson, on this topic so I look forward
    to a healthy debate during the question round of this hearing.
        Mr. Administrator, thank you again for being here today,
    and I look forward to working with you on the many challenges
    you face at the helm of the agency.
        Thank you, Madam Chairman.
        Senator Feinstein. Thank you very much, Senator.
        I'd like to suggest this, that we hear from Mr. Johnson and
    then we have 10-minute rounds. Since it's the two of us, we go
    back and forth--if that's agreeable with you.
        Senator Allard. That sounds fine, thank you.
        Senator Feinstein. Good, thank you.
        Mr. Johnson.

                  SUMMARY STATEMENT OF HON. STEPHEN L. JOHNSON

        Mr. Johnson. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
        Chairman Feinstein, and Senator Allard and members of the
    committee, I'm pleased to be here to discuss the President's
    fiscal year 2009 budget request for the Environmental
    Protection Agency.
        This marks the 8th, and final, budget introduced by the
    President during his tenure. As the Bush administration sprints
    to the finish line, I believe this budget will keep EPA on a
    course for a cleaner tomorrow.
        At EPA, we are proud--our Nation's air is cleaner, our
    water is purer, and our land is healthier than just a
    generation ago. So, we appreciate the President's $7.14 billion
    budget proposal, which will help the EPA keep pace with the
    environmental challenges of tomorrow.
        One important challenge is in the arena of clean and
    affordable energy. With both demand and cost on the rise,
    innovators are moving forward to advance the clean power
    solutions. At the same time, industry is searching for new,
    domestic energy supplies, to help reduce the Nation's
    dependency on foreign oil.
        In doing so, we estimate that industry will explore
    thousands of new oil and gas wells on tribal and Federal lands
    alone, as well as proposing many energy projects.
        To ensure these projects move forward in an environmentally
    responsible manner, this budget requests $14 million to hire
    additional technical experts, and provide grants to our
    partners to increase their capacity to review and assess
    proposed projects.
        In addition, the budget contains sufficient funding to meet
    our commitment to addressing the serious challenge of global
    climate change. In order to advance clean air technologies, the
    President requested $49 million for EPA's diesel retrofit grant
    programs.
        Another challenge is to improve our Nation's aging drinking
    water and waste water infrastructure. The budget requests $842
    million to fund Drinking Water State Revolving Fund grants--an
    increase of $13 million from last year. This will help meet the
    President's commitment to achieve a $1.2 billion revolving
    level by 2018.
        For Clean Water State Revolving Funds, the President
    proposes an investment of $555 million in fiscal year 2009.
    This will enable the program to meet its long-term revolving
    target of $3.4 billion by 2015.
        In addition, we once again, propose to create Water
    Enterprise Bonds, as innovative financing tools for State and
    local partners to cost-effectively provide for resident's water
    needs.

                              WATER INFRASTRUCTURE

        As we address our water infrastructure, the budget
    continues to support EPA's collaborative work to protect
    America's great water bodies. It provides $35 million for the
    Great Lakes, $29 million for the Chesapeake Bay, and $4.6
    million for the Gulf of Mexico.
        As you know, EPA is not only a guardian of our environment,
    it is a guardian of our homeland. I'm proud of our response to
    Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, and to a number of other natural
    events in recent years.
        However, we recognize the need to expand our capabilities
    to respond to multiple, simultaneous, catastrophic events. So
    this budget requests an extra $32 million, for a total
    investment of $170 million to train staff volunteers, increase
    decontamination capabilities, and fully fund 5 water
    infrastructure security pilots. This additional funding also
    includes a $5 million increase to support our bio-defense
    research.
        In order to keep pace with the environmental challenges of
    tomorrow, we have a responsibility to advance the state of our
    science. In this budget, the President requested $15 million,
    to help EPA study nanotechnology, as well as $15 million for
    computational toxicology.
        At EPA, we're working with our community partners to pass
    down a healthier, more prosperous future. The President's
    budget provides over $1.2 billion for the Superfund Program--to
    continue transforming contaminated, hazardous waste sites back
    into community assets. This is a $10 million increase from
    fiscal year 2008.
        The President also requested $165.8 million for our
    successful Brownfields program. We project the grantees will
    help assess the renovation of 1,000 properties, and create
    leverage for more than 5,000 jobs.
        So, while cooperative initiatives are important, we must
    continue to vigorously enforce our Nation's environmental laws.
    This budget proposes the highest dollar amount for enforcement
    in EPA's history, $563 million, an increase of $9 million over
    fiscal year 2008.
        As EPA works to fulfill our responsibilities to the
    American people, I'm pleased this budget not only continues to
    deliver environmental results today, and keeps EPA on course to
    deliver a cleaner, healthier tomorrow.

                               PREPARED STATEMENT

        Bottom line--this budget represents good government. It
    helps EPA meet our environmental goals, while being responsible
    stewards of taxpayer dollars.
        Thank you, and I request that my full written statement be
    submitted for the record.
        Thank you, Madam Chairman.
        [The statement follows:]
                 Prepared Statement of Hon. Stephen L. Johnson
        Madam Chairman and members of the committee, I appreciate the
    opportunity to discuss our proposed fiscal year 2009 Budget request for
    the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) budget.
        The President requests $7.14 billion for fiscal year 2009 to
    support EPA's mission to protect human health and the environment both
    directly and through EPA's state, local and tribal partners nationwide.
    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. This budget continues this progress, supports the
    environmental commitments that the President and I have made and
    institutionalizes EPA's major management and performance improvements.
        In particular, the budget meets the major priorities that I've set
    for my final year of service:
      --Advancing clean, affordable and safe energy,
      --Safeguarding our nation through stronger homeland security,
      --Encouraging stakeholder collaboration to address energy and climate
            change issues,
      --Improving our water infrastructure and programs,
      --Continuing Superfund remediation of the most highly contaminated
            hazardous waste sites,
      --Encouraging economic development through revitalization with our
            successful Brownfields program,
      --Ensuring full compliance with the nation's environmental laws,
      --Building a stronger EPA for my successor--including strengthening
            our protection of human health and the environment through best
            available science, and
      --Demonstrating fiscal responsibility for all our successors.

                  ADVANCING CLEAN, AFFORDABLE AND SAFE ENERGY

        We all know that our Nation faces multiple challenges to assure a
    future of clean, affordable and safe energy. With both demand and costs
    on the rise, innovators are moving forward to propose cleaner power
    solutions that are good for our environment and good for our energy
    security. Industry is searching for many new domestic alternatives to
    help reduce our dependence on foreign energy. We estimate that over the
    next several years industry will propose drilling thousands of new oil
    and gas wells on Federal, state, and Tribal lands, apply to renew up to
    100 nuclear plant licenses, consider building dozens of new liquefied
    natural gas terminals, and propose many other projects. This budget
    recognizes that industry's increased efforts will mean a larger
    workload in our existing air and water permitting programs as well as
    our enforcement programs--especially out West.
        This budget includes an additional $14 million to help ensure
    environmentally sound decision-making--with proper permitting and
    review and in full compliance with the law. The $14 million will
    support our state and tribal partners' efforts to increase their
    capacity to review and assess all the proposed energy projects and pay
    for the additional technical experts the Agency needs to meet
    permitting, technical review, and NEPA requirements.
        One related clean energy initiative that I'm glad that we and the
    appropriating committees agreed upon is the Diesel Emission Reduction
    Act (DERA) program grants. In fiscal year 2009, $49 million will fund
    250-300 diesel retrofit grant programs that target older diesel engines
    which are not subject to the new regulations. A combination of
    strategies including engine retrofits, rebuilds or replacements,
    switching to cleaner fuels, and idling reduction strategies can reduce
    particulate matter emissions by 95 percent, smog forming hydrocarbon
    and nitrogen oxide emissions by up to 90 percent and greenhouse gases
    by up to 20 percent. These strategies will allow us to make continued
    progress in five sectors: freight, construction, school buses,
    agriculture and ports.

                               HOMELAND SECURITY

        Homeland Security continues to be one of EPA's top priorities. EPA
    has responded to five major disasters and catastrophic incidents in
    recent years, including response actions to the 9/11 terrorist attacks,
    the anthrax terrorist incidents, the Columbia Shuttle disaster and
    recovery efforts, the Ricin incident on Capitol Hill, and the Gulf
    Coast hurricanes. Our experience from these responses, coupled with
    EPA's externally driven mandates such as Homeland Security Presidential
    Directives and Emergency Support Function mission assignments, lead me
    to propose that EPA heighten its preparedness.
        This budget ensures that we can meet these commitments by proposing
    an additional $32 million over last year's enacted budget for a total
    of $170 million to advance the EPA's capabilities to respond to
    multiple incidents, strengthen bio-defense research, and continue to
    support the Water Security Initiative.
        As a part of this request, we remain committed to funding five
    Water Security Initiative pilots to secure a broad range of data so
    water utilities across the country will have the necessary information
    to install and enhance contamination warning systems. With the fiscal
    year 2009 request we will have initiated all five pilots and expect to
    complete them by 2012. EPA is also advancing its preparedness to
    respond to multiple, large-scale, catastrophic incidents, and in
    particular, potential chemical, biological and/or radiological agent
    terror attacks.

                                 CLIMATE CHANGE

        For fiscal year 2009, EPA requests a total of $114.7 million to
    continue to achieve real reductions of carbon dioxide, methane, per
    fluorinated compounds (PFCs) and other greenhouse gases, and continue
    research to better understand climate change and its ramifications.
        EPA will continue to achieve real reductions in greenhouse gases by
    promoting energy efficiency through partnerships with consumers,
    businesses and other organizations. We will continue to see real
    results in the home, building, industrial and transportation sectors by
    spurring our partners' investments in energy efficient and greenhouse
    gas saving technologies, policies and practices. Based on a historical
    analysis, we estimate that for every dollar spent by EPA on its climate
    change programs, greenhouse gas emissions are reduced by up to the
    equivalent of one metric ton of carbon.
        One cornerstone of our partnerships is the ENERGY STAR program,
    which has helped speed new lighting technologies to market, fostered
    development of more energy efficient computers, and increased
    Americans' understanding of how they can help the environment by
    purchasing cleaner and more efficient machines. To give one example,
    ENERGY STAR qualified light bulbs use 75 percent less electricity and
    last up to 10 times longer than traditional bulbs. If every American
    household switched just one traditional bulb to a high-efficiency
    ENERGY STAR bulb, America would save enough power to light more than
    three million homes . . . save $600 million in energy costs . . . and
    prevent greenhouse gas emission equal to more than 800,000 cars
    annually.
        A Washington Post article 2 weeks ago on how pollution can be blown
    to the United States from overseas reminded me that our international
    programs are essential to realizing American ecological goals. If we
    don't help China, India and other developing countries build energy
    efficient technologies into their infrastructure, their increases in
    greenhouse gas emissions will far out-weigh any reduction that we
    achieve here. That is why it remains essential that we move forward
    with the Asia Pacific Partnership, Methane to Markets and other
    international programs.
        In climate change research, EPA will invest $16.4 million to
    continue to better understand climate change and its ramifications. EPA
    will investigate how climate change affects air and water quality to
    protect the gains in public health made by the Agency. We will explore
    opportunities to anticipate the impacts and incorporate climate change
    considerations into regulatory processes. We will use research findings
    to support the development of a proposed rule on the geological
    sequestration of carbon dioxide to ensure that underground sources of
    drinking water are protected. We will continue to reach out to all our
    potential 300 million ``green'' partners by making available free,
    online decision support tools to enable resource managers to
    incorporate climate change considerations into their day-to-day
    operations.

                              COOPERATIVE PROGRAMS

        Our cooperative programs also provide an outstanding example of how
    we can find ``win-win'' solutions that make sense both environmentally
    and economically. They allow us to work with businesses and individuals
    to achieve environmental results while improving the bottom line. They
    allow EPA to start addressing environmental challenges as soon as we
    recognize them and give us the opportunity to test innovative
    approaches to meet today's challenging environmental problems. To date,
    our conservative estimate is that over 20,000 businesses and other
    groups across America have participated in cooperative programs. We are
    proud of the record of success of these programs and want to encourage
    our talented employees to continue to use their creativity in finding
    innovative ways to improve environmental results.

                         WORKING WITH FEDERAL PARTNERS

        Cooperation with Federal partners is also crucial for EPA to meet
    its mission. In the fiscal year 2009 budget, I want to highlight our
    efforts to work with Federal partners to better understand the
    environmental impact of the almost $2 trillion worth of imported goods
    coming into the U.S. annually. To meet this challenge, the President
    directed agencies with import/export responsibilities to work together
    to create an International Trade Data System (ITDS) within an expanded
    Automated Commercial Environment (ACE). EPA's $3.1 million investment
    in fiscal year 2009 will help build the linkage with ITDS to identify,
    track and confirm vital environmental details about imported goods in 6
    areas: (1) vehicles and engines, (2) ozone depleting substances, (3)
    fuels, (4) pesticides, (5) toxic substances, and (6) hazardous waste.
        This is not a pie-in-the-sky dream. It builds on a successful pilot
    test by our Office of Enforcement, which showed that accessing useable
    records lead to timely action. One pilot test identified imported
    engines in several planned shipments that did not meet U.S.
    specifications and allowed us to block their entrance. One bad engine
    can make a big difference in emissions of particulate matter. Another
    pilot test proved that even child's play can be harmful to the
    environment. Detailed records highlight many batches of innocent-
    looking ``silly-string'' which contained banned chlorofluorocarbons
    (CFCs). These tests make clear that prompt data retrieval translates
    into prompt protection.
        This is also an example of how our long term planning has paid off.
    EPA can efficiently link to ITDS because of the Agency developed a
    Central Data Exchange, a standard set of IT systems and protocols for
    sharing information among multiple partners.

                       WATER INFRASTRUCTURE AND PROGRAMS

        This President's budget meets our commitments to finance state
    revolving funds, proposes new financing options, continues WaterSense
    and other collaborative water-efficiency projects, strengthens our
    wetlands and watershed protection, and furthers our successful
    geographic initiatives.
        We propose $842 million for Drinking Water State Revolving Fund
    (DWSRF) grants, an increase of $13 million. This funding will help
    achieve the target of 445 additional infrastructure improvement
    projects to public water systems--and help reach a long term target
    $1.2 Billion revolving level. The DWSRF program supports states by
    providing low-interest loans and other assistance to water systems to
    help provide safe, reliable water service on a sustainable basis,
    protect public health and achieve or maintain compliance with the Safe
    Drinking Water Act (SDWA).
        For Clean Water State Revolving Funds (CWSRFs), we propose a fiscal
    year 2009 investment of $555 million to help meet the program's long
    term revolving target of $3.4 Billion. This program is able to meet
    EPA's $6.8 billion total capitalization goal for fiscal years 2004-2011
    with a reduced budget request due to higher than anticipated funding
    levels in previous years. The CWSRF program provides funds to
    capitalize state revolving loan funds that finance infrastructure
    improvements through low interest loans for public wastewater systems
    and other water quality projects.
        The President's fiscal year 2009 budget continues to support the
    Water Enterprise Bond Initiative that proposes financing wastewater and
    drinking water infrastructure projects using Private Activity Bonds
    (PABs) that are exempt from unified state PAB volume caps. We estimate
    this initiative will increase capital investment in the nation's water
    infrastructure by up to $5 billion per year over time through public-
    private partnerships. These bonds will complement local efforts to move
    towards full-cost pricing for wastewater and drinking water services,
    help localities become self-financing and minimize the need for future
    Federal expenditures.
        These financing proposals work together with our continuing efforts
    to increase efficiency, protect our wetlands and watersheds, accurately
    monitor the condition of our waters and wetlands and target vital
    geographic areas.
        For example, in June 2006 EPA launched the WaterSense program to
    reduce water use across the country by creating an easy-to-identify
    label for water-efficient products. The WaterSense label certified that
    products had been independently tested to meet strict efficiency and
    performance criteria. In less than two years, WaterSense has become a
    national symbol for water efficiency among utilities, plumbing
    manufacturers, and consumers. More than 125 different models of high-
    efficiency toilets and 10 bathroom faucets have earned the label and
    more than 600 manufacturers, retailers, utilities and professionals
    have joined the program as partners. In fiscal year 2009 EPA will
    continue supporting development of new products and working with
    utilities, retailers, distributors, and the media to educate consumers
    on the benefits of switching to water-efficient products.
        EPA's Wetlands Program supports the Administration's goals to
    achieve ``no net loss'' of wetlands in the Sec. 404 regulatory program
    and an overall increase in wetland quantity and quality. Wetlands
    provide numerous ecological and economic services: they help to improve
    water quality; recharge water supplies; reduce flood risks; provide
    fish and wildlife habitat; offer sites for research and education; and
    support valuable fishing and shellfish industries. In fiscal year 2009,
    EPA will work with its state and Tribal partners to promote up-to-date
    wetlands mapping tied with GIS (Geographic Information Systems)
    analysis, strengthen monitoring and assessment programs to report on
    wetlands condition, and improve data to better manage wetlands within a
    watershed context. Two key activities will be implementing the 2006
    Supreme Court decision in the Rapanos case, and working with our
    federal agency partners to accelerate the completion of the digital
    Wetlands Data Layer within the National Spatial Data Infrastructure
    (NSDI).
        Watershed protection runs through our budget and strategic plan as
    one of the overarching principles for clean and healthy communities.
    Our strategic plan, our daily activities and our proposed fiscal year
    2009 budget all reflect the importance of core regulatory and
    stewardship programs prevent water pollution and protect source waters.
    With our partners we launched a Green Infrastructure Strategy on
    January 17, 2008 to reduce sewer overflows and storm-water runoff. We
    also continue to urge Congress to enact targeted, bipartisan clean
    water legislation to encourage ``Good Samaritan'' cleanup of abandoned
    hard rock mines. This simple step will remove legal and bureaucratic
    obstacles, keep environmental safeguards in place, save tax payer
    dollars and help clean up watersheds.
        We continue to place a high priority on improving the states'
    ability to accurately characterize the condition of their waters. In
    fiscal year 2009, we will continue our water quality monitoring
    initiative by providing grant funding totaling over $18.5 million to
    states and tribes that participate in collecting statistically valid
    water monitoring data and implement enhancements in their water
    monitoring programs.
        The fiscal year 2009 budget continues funding for geographic
    initiatives, including:
      --In the Great Lakes, EPA's $35 million investment in the Great Lakes
            Legacy Act will give priority to working with states and local
            communities to achieve improvements in water quality and
            reducing the number of toxic ``Areas of Concern''. ``Areas of
            Concern'' include areas with damaged fish and wildlife
            populations, contaminated bottom sediments and past or
            continuing loadings of toxic and bacterial pollutants.
      --In the Chesapeake Bay, the $29 million investment will be committed
            to substantially accelerating the restoration of the Bay's
            aquatic habitat and achieving the pollution reduction targets
            for 2010.
      --For the Gulf of Mexico, EPA's $4.6 million investment will continue
            to support efforts to reduce nutrient loadings to watersheds.
            We will identify the top 100 nutrient-contributing watersheds
            in the Mississippi River Basin and use a computer model
            determine the location of major sources of nitrogen and
            phosphorus and where to target hypoxia- reduction efforts.

       SUPERFUND REMEDIATION OF HIGHLY CONTAMINATED HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES

        The President's budget requests a $10 million increase for a total
    of $1.264 Billion for the Superfund program to continue our progress
    cleaning up contaminated sites and strengthening our emergency
    preparedness and response capabilities. The vital goals of the
    Superfund program remain assuring the health and safety of neighboring
    citizens during cleanups and protecting human health and the
    environment in the long-term. Within this budget request, funding for
    Superfund clean-up remains at essentially the same level as enacted in
    fiscal year 2008.
        EPA takes seriously its responsibility to take actions to protect
    human health by controlling exposure to hazardous substances during
    clean ups. Before or during long-term remedial action, the Superfund
    program often completes removal actions to mitigate immediate health
    threats prior to completing investigations and starting long-term
    cleanup construction. For example, to date, EPA has provided more than
    two million people living near contaminated sites with alternative
    sources of drinking water, has completed more than 9,400 removals at
    hazardous waste sites to reduce the immediate threat to human health
    and the environment, and has conducted 351 emergency response and
    removal cleanup actions in fiscal year 2007 alone.
        Developed more than a decade ago, EPA's construction completion
    measure continues to show substantial progress in the Superfund
    program. As of the end of fiscal year 2007, cleanup construction had
    been completed at 1,030 of the National Priorities List (NPL) sites--66
    percent of the sites listed on the NPL. EPA plans to complete clean up
    construction at 30 sites in fiscal year 2008, and 35 sites in 2009.
    This will keep EPA on track to complete construction at 165 sites
    during the fiscal year 2007 to fiscal year 2011 time period--EPA's goal
    in the current Strategic Plan.
        To better measure long-term progress, the program added a Site-Wide
    Ready for Anticipated Use measure in 2007. This measure tracks the
    number of NPL sites where the remedy is constructed (construction
    complete) and all of the controls are in place to ensure that the land
    is protected for reasonably anticipated uses over the long term. EPA
    expects to make at least 30 sites ready for anticipated use in 2009,
    building upon its 2007 achievement of doubling the original goal of 30
    by making 64 Superfund sites ready for anticipated use.

                      BROWNFIELDS AND LAND REVITALIZATION

        The President's fiscal year 2009 budget request provides $165.8
    million for the Brownfields program, including $93.6 million to fund
    program assessment, cleanup, revolving loan fund, and job training
    grants. This will fund 129 assessment grants, 96 cleanup grants, 7
    revolving loan fund grants, and 12 job training grants. Through this
    work, we project that Brownfields grantees will assess 1,000
    properties, clean up 60 properties, leverage 5,000 cleanup and
    redevelopment jobs, and leverage $900 million in cleanup and
    redevelopment funding.
        Experience has taught us that one of the best ways to clean up
    contaminated sites and to address blighted properties in communities is
    to expressly consider the future uses of this land. The country has
    accepted the economic and ecological importance of recycling various
    consumer products--and our understanding of sound resource management
    must now also embrace the recycling of contaminated properties. In
    addition, by incorporating ``green'' and sustainable approaches into
    Brownfields redevelopment, we can further increase the environmental
    benefits from land revitalization. We remain committed to the goal of
    restoring our nation's contaminated land resources and enabling
    America's communities to safely return these properties to beneficial
    economic, ecological, and societal uses.

                                  ENFORCEMENT

        Experience has also shown that we cannot always rely on
    collaboration to attain all our goals. This budget doesn't neglect that
    lesson. Once again I request the largest enforcement budget in history,
    $563 million--an increase of $9 million--to maintain our vigorous and
    successful enforcement program.
        These dollars will prove to be a wise investment. Last year, EPA's
    enforcement programs succeeded in:
      --Having defendants agree to $10.6 billion in investments to reduce
            pollution;
      --Achieving private party reimbursements of $252 million for
            Superfund; and,
      --Reducing water pollution by 178 million pounds and air pollution by
            427 million pounds.
        This all-time record budget request includes a $2.4 million
    increase to a total budget of $52.2 million for criminal enforcement.
    These dollars are vital to help us increase the number of criminal
    investigators.

                          STRONGER EPA--SOUND SCIENCE

        As a 27-year Agency veteran, one of my most solemn duties is to
    leave behind an EPA that is stronger than when I came in. As both a
    scientist and a long time manager--I am convinced that the only way
    that a technical, regulatory agency can meet its mission is by doing a
    lot of hard thinking to ensure that we keep our technical, legal and
    scientific base strong--and that we hone our management goals and
    measures to guide our efforts. This budget builds on the progress we've
    made by strengthening our workforce, sharpening our management and
    performance measurement and increasing our scientific knowledge.
        First, as a scientist, I want to continue to provide strong support
    for research addressing our nation's and our world's critical and
    increasingly complex environmental issues. In fiscal year 2009, I
    propose that EPA invest extra resources to understand two critical,
    growing areas: nanotechnology and computational toxicology.
        For nanotechnology, I ask for an additional $4.5 million, for a
    total budget of $14.9 million to strengthen understanding of health and
    ecological implications arising from new routes of exposure and/or
    toxicities associated with exposure to these novel materials. We must
    identify and develop risk assessment methodologies for use by risk
    assessors, and evaluate the adequacy of current exposure assessment
    approaches. We will coordinate this research closely with the
    President's National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI), which emphasizes
    the need for the government to understand which processes govern the
    environmental fate of nano-materials and what data are available or are
    needed for accurate nano-material risk assessment. This includes
    determining the release potential of nano-materials in the environment,
    researching the state of science for sampling and measuring nano-
    materials in environmental media. We must also study effects on human
    and ecological receptors and determine which technologies and practices
    minimize risk.
        I also remain strongly committed to improving our computational
    toxicology work and ask for a $2.7 million increase--for a total budget
    of $14.9 million for this vital area. In fiscal year 2009, we want to
    improve EPA's ability to more efficiently understand chemicals'
    toxicity through advanced modeling. One aspect of this work that is
    particularly important is that it can reduce the need to use animals
    for toxicity testing.
        To help further these initiatives and ensure EPA's ability to
    attract and retain the highest caliber scientists, the budget proposes
    expanded special authority that will allow EPA to hire up to 40
    scientists quickly and competitively.

                    STRONGER EPA--PERFORMANCE AND MANAGEMENT

        As a manager, I want to make sure that we focus on something we can
    all take pride in--delivering results. And I'm proud to tell you about
    what we've accomplished to date in the planning and management fields.
    EPA:
      --Scored ``green'' in the President's Management Agenda on all
            initiatives in the first quarter of fiscal year 2008--one of
            only a few agencies to reach that goal, and
      --Improved outcome measures to more directly link the results of our
            work and resources to environmental, on-the-ground, results.
        We've addressed specific challenges as well. For the first time in
    ten years we've succeeded in removing grants management as a
    ``management challenge'' or ``material weakness''. We've fixed problems
    identified by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) and the Office
    of Inspector General (OIG) and built a system of internal controls
    fully integrated into the grants management process that includes:
      --Improved mandatory training,
      --Heightened grants performance standards,
      --Quarterly management close-out reviews,
      --New post-award monitoring orders, and
      --EPA's new grants management system.
        Finally, as I conclude my tenure at EPA, I want to fulfill my
    responsibility to cultivate the next generation of EPA leaders. This
    budget includes funding for a Leadership and Professional Development
    rotation program to ensure that our talented GS-13, 14 and 15 employees
    can expand knowledge and expertise, develop leadership skills and
    enhance professional growth through short term rotational assignments.
    For more senior leadership, we propose to continue our SES mobility
    program to make sure that we populate the highest levels of the agency
    with proven managers.

                                   CONCLUSION

        Madam Chairman, when I look at the candidates who are getting the
    opportunity to broaden their skills in these programs, I am heartened
    that I'll be leaving the agency in good hands. I look forward to
    working with you to enact this budget.
        I am confident that this budget gives them an excellent basis on
    which to build. I hope that together we can see prompt action on these
    budget proposals so that we can implement your funding decisions.
        Thank you. I will be happy to respond to any questions you may
    have.

        Senator Feinstein. Thank you very much, Mr. Johnson. Let us
    begin.

                               CALIFORNIA WAIVER

        The legal justification for denying California's waiver
    rests heavily on your view that in 1967, Congress intended that
    waivers would only be issued if California had a unique
    problem. The waiver decision cites 1967 committee reports and
    floor statements 9 times.
        If the pollutant is global, and therefore exists to a
    similar extent in other States, you conclude that this is
    grounds for a waiver denial.
        Well, in 1977, Congress amended the Clean Air Act, changing
    both the words, and intent, of section 209. The House committee
    report from 1977, explains the section 209 revisions by saying,
    and I quote, ``The committee amendment is intended to ratify
    and strengthen the California waiver provision, and to affirm
    the underlying intent of that provision, i.e., to afford
    California the broadest possible discretion in selecting the
    best means to protect the health of its citizens and the public
    welfare. The Administrator, thus, is not to overturn
    California's judgment lightly. Nor is he to substitute his
    judgment for that of the State. There must be clear and
    compelling evidence that the State acted unreasonably, in
    evaluating the relative risks of various pollutants in light of
    the air quality, topography, photochemistry, and climate in
    that State, before EPA may deny a waiver.''
        Your waiver justification document does not mention
    congressional intent in 1977. Why?
        Mr. Johnson. Well, Madam Chairman, as I evaluated the
    petition from California, as you correctly point out, I am
    bound by section 209 of the Clean Air Act, and there are three
    very specific criteria.
        I did not make judgment on two of the criteria. The one
    that I did was that California does not need such California
    standards to meet compelling and extraordinary conditions.
    Again, based upon the record and the evidence before me.
        Clearly, we looked at legislative history--as you pointed
    out--but again, as I point out, even with affording California
    the broadest possible discretion, evaluation under section 209
    does not mean a rubber stamp. It does not mean that it's a
    popularity contest, it means that I need to thoughtfully and
    carefully think evaluate the data that are before me under
    section 209, and in this case, I determined that California did
    not need its own greenhouse gas standards to meet compelling
    and extraordinary conditions.
        Senator Feinstein. Even though that same section allows
    other States to accept California's standards? I mean, it seems
    to me if Congress intended for waivers to be limited to
    problems unique to California, why did it give other States the
    right to adopt the same standards?
        Mr. Johnson. Well, you raise a very good point, Madam
    Chairman, and in fact the section 209, and the law and the
    criteria by which I am to judge the standard does not allow me
    to consider what other States may or may not do--it's very
    specific to California.

                            GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS

        As I pointed out, and I think it's worth pointing out
    here--that the more States that believe that greenhouse gas
    emissions is a problem, are in fact, making the very point that
    California is not unique--it is not exclusive in its need for
    addressing greenhouse gas emissions.
        Rather, it is a national problem, requiring a national
    solution, and that's certainly what my 48-page decision
    document goes through, very carefully, and addresses.
        Senator Feinstein. Thank you.
        According to the Washington Post, you made the decision to
    deny the waiver over the unanimous recommendation of your legal
    and technical staff. Here's the question. When you went around
    that room full of staff, and asked each person's recommendation
    last October, did a single one of your legal and technical
    staff support a flat denial of the waiver?
        Mr. Johnson. Well, when I met with and had a--literally
    hours of briefings with my technical and legal staff, which
    included career as well as my policy staff, as well, they
    presented me with a wide range of options, ranging from
    approving the waiver, to denying the waiver. They were all
    presented to me as legally defensible option.
        Yes, I did seek their comments, I appreciate the ability to
    have that candid input to me. But, according to the Clean Air
    Act, and certainly I take the responsibility very seriously,
    the decision rests with me, and me alone, and I made the
    decision as is evidenced in our final agency decision document.
        Senator Feinstein. Yeah, let me understand, then. You are
    saying that technical staff, and legal staff, gave you a
    recommendation to deny the waiver, is that correct?
        Mr. Johnson. The technical and legal staff presented me
    with a range of recommendations, which included improving the
    waiver, and included denying the waiver. That, based upon their
    input, based upon my evaluation, thoughtful and careful
    consideration of the record before, and what the requirements
    are under the Clean Air Act under section 209, I determined
    that California did not meet the waiver criteria.
        Senator Feinstein. Did you ask them what they thought? As
    individuals?
        Mr. Johnson. I--generally it is my approach on all agency
    decisions to ask for input, and if people want to give their
    person input, that's fine. If they choose to pass, that's fine.
    But I routinely, at least what I recall--as routinely as for
    all major decisions, seek input.
        Senator Feinstein. Well, I mean, we've been told,
    informally, that none of the staff was for denying California's
    waiver.
        Mr. Johnson. Well, as I said, I received a range of
    options----
        Senator Feinstein. I understand, it's not what I'm asking.
        Mr. Johnson [continuing]. I also, I also----
        Senator Feinstein. I receive a range of options on many
    things--here's the best case this way, here's the best case
    that way--but what do you think? Is my question.
        Mr. Johnson. Well, I----
        Senator Feinstein. Did any of the legal or technical staff
    believe you should deny the waiver? You can say yes, if yes is
    the answer.
        Mr. Johnson. Well, again, I appreciate the ability to have
    candid comments from my staff, and I want to protect that
    ability to, for them to give me candid advice. What I said is,
    is that I received a--not only a wide range of options, clearly
    as both the record indicates, and certainly the press
    indicates--there's a wide range of opinions. It's not--my
    decision is not based upon, again, a popularity contest of the
    opinions. It has to be based--and was based--on what the law
    directs me to do.
        Senator Feinstein. Bottom line, Mr. Johnson, you're not
    answering my question. But there's nothing I can do, other than
    to believe what a non-answer to the question means.

         DETERMINE WHETHER CARBON DIOXIDE CONTRIBUTES TO CLIMATE CHANGE

        Let me go on. You are under remand from the United States
    Supreme Court to determine whether carbon dioxide contributes
    to climate change, and endangers public health and welfare, and
    I would like to know by when you intend to respond. You have
    missed your own deadline of completing this finding by the end
    of 2007. In January, you told the Senate Environment and Public
    Works Committee that EPA's reaction to the Supreme Court's
    remand had been delayed by passage of the Energy Independence
    and Security Act, even though this new law did not amend
    section 202 of the Clean Air Act which governs your decisions
    regarding endangerment.
        We are rapidly approaching the 1-year anniversary of that
    landmark decision. Will you commit that your agency will
    respond to the remand of the highest court in the land, by the
    anniversary of this ruling, which is April 2, 2008?
        Mr. Johnson. Well, Madam Chairman, what I will commit to is
    we will be responding to the Supreme Court decision. As, I
    believe I have indicated--or staff have indicated in
    correspondence with you regarding funding issues for this year,
    is that right now I am in the process and, if you will, to have
    taken a step forward and said, we have, obviously, the Mass v.
    EPA decision that is pending before the agency. We also have
    the implementation of the Energy Independence and Security Act
    and again, congratulations, Madam Chairman and Senator Allard,
    for great work, for--and certainly the President signing that.
        We are looking to, and working on the implementation
    regulations for that. We also have a number of pending
    petitions before the Agency, as well as a number of corridor
    deadlines.
        One of the unique things is----
        Senator Feinstein. Excuse me, my time is--all I'm asking of
    you is when might we expect this, which was due in 2007?
        Mr. Johnson. Well, what I was--as I've communicated with
    you, I don't have a date, but I can assure you we will be
    responding to the Mass v. EPA, and that what I was beginning to
    try to explain is that we have many pending actions before the
    agency, and I'm assessing those before I make a final
    determination as to what the next steps are on all of them--
    including Mass v. EPA.
        Senator Feinstein. My time is up.
        Senator.
        Senator Allard. Thank you. As I mentioned in my opening
    remarks, I have some concerns about enforcement from the
    perspective that I hope that EPA's approach to many of the
    infrastructure problems that we have in meeting some of your
    rules and regulations will take more of a helpful approach to
    small communities, because they don't have the staff and the
    expertise--as opposed to just a strict enforcement approach.

                                 ARSENIC LEVELS

        We have a couple of issues in Colorado where this is
    brought--one of them is the arsenic levels which was passed by
    the Congress, and you don't have a lot of flexibility in that--
    but we do have communities that have--they're small
    communities, so they don't have a large tax base--are faced now
    with the increased arsenic levels of reducing that arsenic
    level in their drinking water.
        Now this is a natural background level, it's been there for
    years, we've tightened it up, and now they have to spend the
    money to improve that water over and beyond what the natural
    background level of arsenic would be. Yet those standards are
    below the public health requirements, but the Congress felt
    necessary to go below that. So that creates a real problem for
    small communities, and I'd like to know what you're doing to
    help them out.
        You have--you just promulgated or are working on a radon
    rule. Again, it's a small community problem, Colorado has a lot
    of uranium in their soil, naturally, the background radiation
    in Colorado is higher than most States, and so radon is around,
    but what they need is help in developing the technology and
    being able to afford this, as opposed to straight enforcement,
    because it's naturally in the background level. There's no
    industry in that water stream, that stream, that's causing the
    problem, it's there naturally.
        So I'd like to have you comment as to what you're doing to
    assist small and rural communities in meeting new regulations,
    instead of just imposing fines.
        Mr. Johnson. Senator, thank you. There are really three
    things that I would like to point out. One is that a request
    for increased funding for the Drinking Water State Revolving
    Loan Fund of $13 million, that will help. Obviously, we think
    other steps will help, whether it is Good Samaritan legislation
    to help with these abandoned mines, or private activity bonds--
    all of those will help from a financial standpoint, and
    environmental.
        Second is, we have been investing--and again, thanks for
    your collective support--of new technologies; technologies that
    help, that are particularly focused on small communities, and
    actually I have some statistics, I'd be happy to share with
    you.
        Then the third is what you started out with, is the
    importance of flexibility. We want to make sure, and ensure,
    that small communities are able to meet the new health
    protective standards, but we want to be able to do so in a way
    that recognizes the limitations that may exist at a community,
    small community level--local level--and the need for
    flexibility to achieve those is very important.
        Senator Allard. Now, I have a small community that wants to
    find out about these technologies--how do they go about getting
    that information from the Environmental Protection Agency?
        Mr. Johnson. Well, you've just asked, and we'd be happy to
    respond.
        Senator Allard. Okay, thank you.
        [The information follows:]

        EPA has developed a set of user-friendly multimedia products to
    help small drinking-water utilities meet revised regulations to control
    arsenic. The tools will provide owners and operators with information
    to guide them in making treatment decisions. The anchor product of this
    suite of tools is the Arsenic Virtual Trade Show, a learning portal for
    arsenic-treatment technology. The website features a database of
    vendors, a treatment ``decision tree,'' and tips for evaluating and
    selecting treatment options. Other products on the website include:
        1. A brochure, Evaluating Arsenic Treatment Providers: A Guide for
    Public Water Systems, which includes a checklist of questions that
    owners and operators of small utilities should ask treatment providers.
        2. A CD-ROM disk, Interactive Workshop on Arsenic Removal from
    Drinking Water, features commentary from the nation's top experts. The
    disk is a companion to 11 arsenic-training events EPA held across the
    country during 2005.
        3. A DVD collection of videos, the Arsenic Treatment Technology
    Showcase, which highlights arsenic treatment technologies currently
    being pilot-tested through EPA's Arsenic Treatment Technology
    Demonstration Program.
        The website is located at www.arsenictradeshow.org

        Mr. Johnson. Just to give you--we've been doing
    demonstration projects through our Office of Research and
    Development, that, in fact, are now 37 sites that have
    treatment systems that have been installed. Twenty-seven
    completed projects and systems are now being installed for
    those. We have 14 sites that are under development, we have 15
    different technologies that we've been evaluating, and as a
    result--at least as of the most recent data that I have, which
    is August 2007--about 2,400 of the estimated 4,100 effective
    systems are now meeting the new standard of 10 parts per
    billion.
        So, we want to continue and certainly have our commitment
    to continue to work with your State and all States and local
    communities to see that the health protective standard is met
    in a flexible and appropriate way.
        Senator Allard. I appreciate that last paragraph on your
    comments, I appreciate the willingness to be able to work with
    those small communities.

                               ENERGY DEVELOPMENT

        Let me move on to the energy development--I'm pleased that
    the administration included the additional $14 million for EPA
    to meet the Nation's need for clean and affordable energy
    development and production.
        Can you tell me how the agency intends to use the
    additional $14 million for energy development if the dollars
    are appropriated?
        You know, we have a lot of energy development systems that
    happens at the Department of Energy.
        Mr. Johnson. Yes.
        Senator Allard. So what are you doing that would be
    separate from what they're doing in the Department of Energy,
    or if it is what they're doing, and you're doing similar--what
    effect is that having, an added effect on your efforts?
        Mr. Johnson. Sure, and again, I appreciate the--your
    interest in this, and certainly appreciate the President's
    recognition and support for this additional $14 million.
        There are three offices that will be within EPA, will be
    the principal recipients of these additional monies. In
    addition to monies made available to States and tribes, our
    Office of Air has responsibilities for permanent application
    NEPA reviews, our Office of Water is working on carbon
    sequestration regulations, as we speak, and also has NPDS
    Permit responsibility, and our enforcement Office also has
    responsibilities under the NEPA program, as well.
        So, those are the three areas which are unique. In
    addition, out of that $14 million, I think it's approximately
    $6.3 million has been identified to help support State, local,
    and tribal activities in this area, and the permitting area.
        So, we think it's a well-rounded proposal that helps us at
    EPA, but also will help our partners at the State, local, and
    tribal level.
        Senator Allard. I want to cover the Leadville Mining
    Drainage Tunnel again, that's another issue that I alluded to,
    in my remarks.
        On February 21, in Colorado, I hosted with the staff from
    the EPA's regional aid office, and the Bureau of Reclamation, a
    meeting on the Leadville Mining Drainage Tunnel problem.
        As you well know, this situation had reached untenable
    proportions and required immediate attention, and I'm
    cautiously optimistic about the briefing that I received from
    the folks in the Region 8 office. Can you give me an update on
    how things are progressing since the briefing we received out
    in Colorado?
        Mr. Johnson. Well, yes, sir. Again, thank you for your
    leadership on this very important issue. In fact, on February
    27, EPA began pumping water from the shaft, to help to relieve
    some of the pressure. We've been working on a new well that
    would be in the tunnel. I'm told that we're--that effort is
    underway. I'm also told that by March the 7th we will have a
    more permanent pump in place that will help.
        Again, I appreciate the good comments about Robbie Roberts,
    our Regional Administrator--he's been doing a fantastic job of
    helping to stay on top of it, and certainly you have my
    assurance, to stay on top of it and to do everything that we
    can.
        Senator Allard. Is this going to require a new treatment
    plant, or expansion of that current treatment plant there?
        Mr. Johnson. I'm not aware of, certainly, what I've been
    told that some of the early analysis of the water that's being
    pumped was okay, from an environmental standpoint. But, I think
    we'll, you know, that's something we need to continue to
    monitor and watch.
        Senator Allard. So, they talked about cadmium and zinc and
    those two and, let's see, another product that they thought
    might be elevated, but you didn't pick up any of that in the
    water that you pumped out?
        Mr. Johnson. My understanding, at least in the initial
    sampling we did not, but that's something, we certainly will go
    back and continue to watch.
        Senator Allard. Good. All right, now, I guess, again I hope
    that you would continue to work on a long-term solution, I hope
    we can get a commitment to work on that long-term solution to
    that--the way that water's trapped in there. It probably will
    just be a matter of time before that tunnel is going to break
    open, which was caused by collapse of the tunnel and then so
    we've got about a billion gallons of water backed up in that
    system of tunnels. So, again, I think it's important to work on
    a long-term solution, we have your commitment on that?
        Mr. Johnson. Yes, yes.
        Senator Allard. Okay, thank you.

                                ABANDONED MINES

        Mr. Johnson. Yes. Senator, if I might, just to add one
    other comment that--what we're finding around the United States
    is some number approximating 500,000 abandoned--key word--
    abandoned mines. That we have a citizen army of volunteers that
    want to go in and help to clean these up--again, key word,
    abandoned--and they are reluctant, in fact, won't, because of
    liability concerns.
        We see the Good Samaritan as a wonderful legislative fix to
    allow Good Samaritans to go in and help clean up these
    abandoned mines, and certainly would encourage you and the
    members of the Committee to strongly consider Good Samaritan
    legislation, because it makes sense--it make sense for the
    environment, it certainly makes sense for water, water quality
    and also----
        Senator Allard. Those States like Colorado that have a lot
    of abandoned mines, and you're right--abandoned--there's no
    interest in there, nobody--there's no ownership of them,
    they're just a hole in the ground that are causing pollution
    problems, there are people that would like to have those mining
    sites for various reasons, but they won't--most of it--and in
    order for them to use it for whatever reason they want to, they
    have to clean it up.
        You don't have the discharge into the river, which causes
    problems for wildlife and quality of the water. I think it's
    kind of a common sense piece of legislation, and I'm hoping the
    Congress will see that--it's no loophole for any kind of
    solution, and I'm glad to hear you agree with that, it's a
    common sense solution, where we can get a volunteer group out
    there, working in cleaning up the pollution from these old
    abandoned mines.
        So, I appreciate your comments in this regard.
        Mr. Johnson. Thank you.
        Senator Allard. Thank you, Madam Chairman, I see my time's
    expired.
        Senator Feinstein. Thank you very much, Senator.
        We are joined by Senator Leahy--it's great to have you
    here, Senator, we're on 10-minute rounds.
        Senator Leahy. Thank you.
        Senator Feinstein. At the present time, so I'll recognize
    you.
        Senator Leahy. Thank you. Appreciate it, and I appreciate
    your holding this hearing. I think it's very important,
    certainly the questions you've raised on California's efforts--
    a very commendable efforts--to protect the environment are
    significant.

                               MERCURY POLLUTION

        I'm going to just divert just a moment, Administrator, from
    the budget proposal, I want to talk about an issue that's
    extremely important, also, in my State, and I've been working
    on it for years, for decades, actually, and that's mercury
    pollution.
        Your agency had the Clean Air--what you called the Clean
    Air Mercury Rule to regulate mercury admissions from power
    plants, it turned out that part of it was just written by the
    lobbyists from same power plants--somehow the fox got in the
    chicken, came to mind.
        I said at the time that I thought it was wrong, I raised
    that question with you that it was wrong, urged that there be a
    change, and on February 8 this year the U.S. Court of Appeals
    for the D.C. Circuit--a very conservative, Republican-oriented
    court--agreed with my position, they struck down EPA's Mercury
    Rule as insufficient to protect public health. I think if your
    agency had been willing to listen to some us on the Hill, it
    could have saved taxpayers an awful lot of legal fees.
        Now, there are cost-effective technologies today that can
    dramatically reduce mercury emissions from power plants, far
    beyond what your administration has proposed. So, I'm asking,
    does EPA, under your leadership now, plan to abide by the Clean
    Air Act, will it abide by what the Court said, will it issue a
    mercury regulation that will follow the law, will protect human
    health, and the environment from this harmful neurotoxin?
        Mr. Johnson. Well, Senator----
        Senator Leahy. Are you going to follow the law, in other
    words?
        Mr. Johnson. Thank you for the question. Yes, and I always
    follow the law, sir.
        In the case of the mercury decision, we--both EPA and
    Department of Justice are currently evaluating the decision you
    refer to. We haven't decided what our next steps are. Having
    said that----
        Senator Leahy. An easy one--an easy one would be simply to
    follow the law as the decision said.
        Mr. Johnson. Having said that, that we--we also recognize
    that because of the--another rule that I put in place, the
    Clean Air Interstate Rule, which controls SOX and
    NOX emissions, upwards to 70 percent, also have
    early reductions of mercury--which we certainly think that
    that's a good thing.
        However, saying that--we are disappointed, in face this is
    the first regulation of mercury from coal-fired power plants in
    the Nation's history that would have achieved a 70 percent
    reduction.
        Senator Leahy. Well, I think----
        Mr. Johnson. The Court decision did not get into the merits
    of cap-and-trade or using section 111 as the vehicle. It was
    focused on the delisting.
        Senator Leahy. Well, the Court----
        Mr. Johnson. Regardless, we're evaluating that now.
        Senator Leahy. You'll have to issue new regulations now,
    based on that Court--the Congressional Review Act will come in
    place, if they're not strong enough, but I'm also thinking the
    Court based their actions on what they heard from the
    arguments. During that hearing the EPA represented to the Court
    that States could adopt more protective mercury provisions,
    should they wish, and EPA would not disapprove of those plans
    solely on the basis that the States opted out. Made it clear
    that they're not going to threaten the States.
        But then, the Associated Press now reports that EPA
    officials had threatened States with disapproval for adopting
    more protective mercury control programs, or the Department,
    EPA's approach that they use a more protective way. They said
    it's not their job to pressure States, that's what they said in
    court, but it appears that they had. Now, I'll ask that--not
    only is it appropriated, but wearing another hat as chairman of
    the Senate of the Judiciary Committee, if there is a
    misrepresentation by the government to the Federal Courts in
    this area, that becomes a fairly serious matter, as you can
    well imagine. Has anyone with the EPA ever pressured any State
    against instituting more restrictive mercury regulations
    because they conflicted with the agency's mercury rule?
        Mr. Johnson. I'm unfamiliar with the Associated Press
    report, and I don't have any firsthand knowledge of what you
    speak, but----
        Senator Leahy. No, I'm asking you a very specific question,
    has anyone at the EPA ever pressured any State against
    instituting more restrictive mercury regulations?
        Mr. Johnson. As I said----
        Senator Leahy. Because they conflicted with your rule?
        Mr. Johnson [continuing]. I don't recall having any
    firsthand knowledge of that. What I was going to say----
        Senator Leahy. I'm not asking you if you have any
    firsthand--do you know whether they have, yes or no?
        Mr. Johnson. I don't know that they have, no. I don't know.
        Senator Leahy. Okay, well then let me ask for the record,
    will you go back and check. Remember it's very--you're in a
    congressional hearing, will you tell me whether EPA has ever
    pressured any State against instituting more restrictive
    mercury regulations because it conflicted with what we now see
    by the Court ruling, was a flawed mercury rule from your
    agency?
        Mr. Johnson. I'd be happy to respond, for the record.
        [The information follows:]

                             State Mercury Programs

        EPA did not pressure any State to not institute mercury regulations
    because they restricted mercury emissions more than the agency's
    mercury rule.
        The environmental stringency of a State program was never an issue
    for us as long as the State was at least as stringent as CAMR. If a
    State chose to participate in the multi-state CAMR trading program, its
    program was required to be consistent with certain core requirements in
    the rules promulgated in 2005 that did not prevent them from being more
    stringent. These core requirements were included in the rules to ensure
    that the trading program would work correctly.
        Unfortunately, that has apparently been misinterpreted by some--as
    reflected in the AP story--as an EPA effort to discourage States from
    providing stronger, more protective programs, as they are entitled to
    under the Clean Air Act. That was never our intent, and I believe the
    record of our review of state programs bears that out.
        States were permitted to be more stringent than the Federal
    requirements. States could, and some did, seek greater emission
    reductions than CAMR required and were in the process of approving
    those plans.
        EPA offered States considerable program flexibility to meet their
    assigned mercury budgets. In addition to the option of joining the
    multi-state emissions trading program that we offered to run, states
    could have source-specific control requirements, have intrastate
    trading, combine trading with source-specific controls, or go from
    trading to source-specific controls over time.
        If a state did not adopt EPA's multi-state trading program, EPA
    evaluated the State's plan to ensure it was at least as stringent as
    EPA's trading program. This evaluation included determining whether the
    mercury emissions from all of the state's EGUs would remain at or below
    the annual state emissions cap each year, and ensuring that these
    emissions would be measured and reported using specific rigorous
    protocols. Based on this type of evaluation, EPA proposed approval of
    Pennsylvania's stringent source-specific control program and was
    working towards approval of source-specific controls in final state
    plans in seven additional States.
        If a state chose to participate in the multi-state trading program,
    there were certain core provisions that we required that they adopt.
    These core requirements were intended to ensure the program was
    environmentally- and cost-effective. For example, allowances had to be
    allocated and available sufficiently ahead of compliance deadlines, and
    had to be freely transferable, so that companies could use allowance
    trading where it would be cost-effective and would result in compliance
    with the emissions cap.
        EPA had issued final approval of trading programs for Louisiana,
    Iowa, and Missouri and proposed approval of the Kansas trading program.
    EPA was working toward approving trading programs for 18 more States, 8
    of which had either added source-specific control requirements or had
    tightened the emissions cap by not distributing all the state's
    allowances. This latter group of 8 State programs was more stringent
    than CAMR would have been. At the time of the court decision, 36 States
    had adopted rules and 2 others were in the rule development process.
        Sixteen of these State plans were more stringent than CAMR and we
    were in the process of approving them when the court decision was
    issued.

        Mr. Johnson. I was going to point out that you raise
    another important issue, in our evaluation, is given the recent
    court decision, not only what are our next steps as an agency
    working with the Department of Justice, but then, what does
    that mean with respect to State programs? That's another
    important question that I don't know the answer today, but
    certainly, we're working on.
        Senator Leahy. Okay, well, I appreciate that, and I would
    like to know the answer, because if the Associated Press is
    correct, then the EPA gave misleading information to the
    courts, which would be an extremely serious matter, the courts
    would consider it extremely serious, the Judiciary Committee
    would consider it a very, very serious matter. I'm sure that
    the lawyers doing it would value their licenses, probably
    consider it serious.
        Now, you also adopted the Mercury Trading Rule in 2005, and
    you committed to--you, EPA--committed to remedying mercury hot
    spots. There's a 2006 peer-reviewed study co-authored by EPA
    scientists who found that coal combustion was the dominant
    contributor to mercury deposition, in an enhanced monitoring
    site in Steubenville, Ohio. Then a meteorological analysis
    found that a majority of the mercury deposition found at the
    site was due to local and regional sources.
        In the 2007 peer-reviewed study documented biological
    mercury hot spots in fish and wildlife, in the Northeastern
    United States, in the area I'm from, and I live in. Do you have
    a plan to address these, and other documented hot spots?
        Mr. Johnson. Well, again, that's another important question
    that has come up as, post the publication of our final rule. Of
    course, we haven't decided what we're doing with the final
    rule, at this point, given the court decision. Obviously
    there's science--which we certainly support--continues to
    evolve and get a better understanding.
        Certainly, at that time it was our belief that given the
    way the cap-and-trade program would work for mercury that it
    was likely that those--if there were potential hot spots, that
    they would be the first ones that would be addressed, just by
    the nature of how companies sign up to cap-and-trade, but
    that's certainly an important question as the science has
    continued to evolve.
        Senator Leahy. But, if you know of hot spots now, do you
    have a plan to take the known hot spots and address them?
        Mr. Johnson. Well, again, that's part of our--what are our
    next steps, given the court decision, we haven't decided yet.
        Senator Leahy. Will you let us know when you decide?
        Mr. Johnson. Yes, sir. We will be happy to.
        Senator Leahy. The court matter, I would like a detailed
    response on that, because if the court wasn't misled, it's one
    thing. If they were misled--and I'm asking you the question
    because I don't know, if they were misled as the story appears,
    then I think we'd all agree that we have a very, very serious
    matter. But I'd be happy to hear your response.
        Mr. Johnson. Thank you.
        Senator Leahy. Thank you.
        Thank you, Madam Chair.
        Senator Feinstein. Thank you very much, Senator and we're
    joined by Senator Craig.
        We are in 10-minute rounds, Senator, so----
        Senator Craig. Thank you.
        Senator Feinstein. Please proceed.
        Senator Craig. Thank you, Madam Chairman, and Administrator
    Johnson, it's good to see you again. Serving at EPW, we get two
    bites at you----
        Mr. Johnson. So to speak.
        Senator Craig. So to speak. So today I won't chew quite as
    hard.

               NEW STANDARDS FOR LARGE ANIMAL CONFINED OPERATIONS

        But I do want to come back to an issue that I discussed
    with you at EPW as it relates to your new standards for large
    animal confined operations, and what you plan to do as it
    relates to change. I know--I sense there are steps in the right
    direction, however, I believe some media reports might have
    misconstrued the rule, particularly in making references to
    changes in the Clean Air Act requirements.
        Can you clarify the scope of the regulations and perhaps
    correct the record so, as to what will be continued to be
    required of these animal operations, versus what no longer will
    be required?
        Mr. Johnson. Well, it a very important issue, or the KFOE
    issue, as it's known.
        Senator Craig. Yes.
        Mr. Johnson. We are working to finalize regulations that
    will move forward. Our intent is we--as I think you're well
    aware--next year we do have compliance dates that are in place.
        Senator Craig. Right.
        Mr. Johnson. So, we want to keep those compliance dates in
    place while we work to finalize the regulations.
        In addition to that, I think as you're well aware, and
    certainly appreciate everyone's support of, the National
    Academy of Sciences' recommendation, and that was to conduct
    the first-ever nationwide study of air emissions, particularly
    from poultry and dairy and swine, from the animal feeding
    operations. It's a 2-year monitoring study I believe last year
    was the first year that the actual monitoring began.
        So, as we get that information and certainly as we move to
    look at the final regulations, and we move to ensuring
    compliance, all of this will help better inform our approach on
    this important issue.
        Senator Craig. Well, timeliness is going to be very
    important here, I think the industry is anxious to move toward
    compliance, and the flexibility to get there is going to be
    important, I think, as we get there. So, your urgency on this
    is appreciated.

                            BLUEGRASS FIELD-BURNING

        Let me become very regional or parochial at this moment, if
    I can. A very big industry in my State is bluegrass seed. And
    one of the only ways to get rid of the stubble and to stimulate
    next year's crop into a level of production that's profitable
    are to burn the fields. Field-burning, of course, has become a
    very difficult issue for Idaho, in an area that is not only the
    largest bluegrass seed raising area in the Nation, it is also a
    beautiful recreation destination location.
        Now, after lengthy processes and lengthy issues, we've come
    to an agreement, between EPA Region 10 and the State of Idaho,
    the State legislature is now moving to implement the necessary
    policy language--it's going to be extremely helpful for Region
    10 to expedite the evaluation and the approval of the newly
    negotiated State Implementation Plan so that the burning in
    some areas under this Plan can resume.
        It is just a big chunk of a very important economy, at the
    same time, it is controversial, there's balance been struck, so
    I guess that's not a question as much as it is a flag going up.
    All things are moving in the right direction, at the moment to
    most everyone's satisfaction, including your office in Seattle,
    and in Region 10. So, timeliness, again, there--once the State
    has acted--is going to be important.
        Mr. Johnson. Well, again, thank you. It's an issue that I
    am aware of and I know that we have had a very cooperative and
    collaborative working relationship with State officials to be
    able to make sure that air quality is being maintained at the
    same time, recognizing the use of field burning to be able to
    produce high-quality bluegrass seed. I will be happy to get
    back to you for the record as to what our, what we believe are
    the next steps, and a sense of the timing for that. Again,
    understand the importance of the issue.
        [The information follows:]
                             Bluegrass Seed Burning
        EPA is expecting to receive new regulations from Idaho allowing
    burning within the next several months. We are working closely with the
    State of Idaho to coordinate the schedule for processing the State's
    regulations, taking every opportunity to expedite the process.
    Specifically we are dedicating extra resources to work with the State
    upfront during its development of its regulations and for expedited
    processing once the regulations are received. Once the regulations are
    submitted, EPA will process them under the Federal Clean Air Act, which
    requires a 30-day public comment period and EPA to respond to all
    comments before it takes final action. The time it takes to finish the
    process will depend in part on the level of public interest.

                 DECREASE OF CLEAN WATER STATE REVOLVING FUNDS

        Senator Craig. Okay, thank you very much. Last question,
    Madam Chairman, I didn't get a chance to ask it, although it
    was discussed and I understand that Senator Allard had
    mentioned it in his comments--what was your reason behind the
    decrease of the Clean Water State Revolving Funds by such a
    large amount? They have been so critical to States like mine
    and others--Colorado and California, I think, has similar
    problems?
        Mr. Johnson. Well, first, we recognize that there is a
    significant need. In fact, Madam Chairman, you spoke of $20
    billion, in fact our clean water survey actually showed $202
    billion, is my recollection. So, there's no doubt a large need.
        What the President has done is said, ``Look, we recognize
    there's a large need. Here is the commitment, and the
    commitment for the Clean Water State Revolving Loan Fund was to
    achieve a revolving level of $3.5 billion.'' So the budget
    reflects that commitment, in fact, it does reflect that we did
    receive higher-than-anticipated levels in enacted prior year
    budgets.
        It's, again, here's the target, what the commitment is--and
    again, it's $3.5 billion. But at the same time, we recognize
    both for clean water, as well as for drinking water, the needs
    are large. They are in the, literally, hundreds of billions of
    dollars.
        So, that's why, yes, SRF plays an important role, but all
    steps that we can take--whether it's private activity bonds,
    whether it's helping clean up abandoned mines, whether it is
    other steps that we can take, like we're doing with our Water
    Sense program, helping consumers to make better choices, such
    as we have for Energy Star on the energy side--all of those add
    up, and of course as a rate-payer, rate-payers also have a
    responsibility, as well.
        Senator Craig. Understanding all of that--how lenient will
    you be? When there's a good effort on the part of a location to
    respond and comply, but it's obviously--you said there's a need
    but here's all we can do, here's what we will sustain, when
    maybe it ought to be over here. Because it is a Federal
    mandate, where in almost every instance compliance is being
    struggled with and there are other costs involved--when there's
    reasonable due diligence on the part of the locale, depending
    which the issue--how's the lenience going to fit into that if
    the government says, ``This is all we can do, get in line, it
    may be 5, 10 years before you get there.''
        Mr. Johnson. Well, we want all of the communities to be
    able to meet the health protective standard of whatever the
    contaminant might be--arsenic or radio nucleides or whatever it
    might be. But we also recognize that we have to be flexible in
    achieving that. An unintended consequence would be if there's a
    small community water system that is working to achieve that,
    if it's forced so quickly--to quickly--and the community water
    system is shut down, people still need water, and they dig
    wells, and then the water quality hasn't changed.
        So, we recognize that we need to one, do everything that we
    can to help communities achieve the health protectiveness, but
    do so in a reasonable and flexible way. That's what we have
    been working on, and that's what we will continue to work on.
        Senator Feinstein. Thank you very much.

                               CALIFORNIA WAIVER

        Let me see a couple of things on the California waiver.
    We've--my staff has reviewed all of the documents and I believe
    very clearly that your legal staff and your technical staff
    were in favor of a waiver, unless you tell me that is not the
    case, that is what we have found.
        My question is--did anyone outside of EPA, part of this
    government, weigh in with you against the waiver?
        Mr. Johnson. Well, Madam Chairman----
        Senator Feinstein. The answer to that is yes, or no.
        Mr. Johnson. I received many opinions, the point is, is
    that under the Clean Air Act it was my decision, my decision
    alone, nobody directed me to make the decision I made, I made
    the decision, on my own, and the record will indicate that,
    does indicate that and it's the right decision. I know you
    disagree, and I know that there are others that would
    disagree----
        Senator Feinstein. Did you discuss it with the White House?
        Mr. Johnson. As I have said in previous testimonies, yes, I
    discuss major issues with the White House, I think that's good
    government, I discuss it with my colleagues across the
    administration. But, again, the decision, the final decision,
    rests with me, and I made the decision--mine, mine alone--and I
    recognize that people disagree with it, as I've said earlier,
    the 48 pages goes into great detail as to how I came to the
    decision I did, on the scientific basis, as well as what the
    legal rationale is for making that.
        Senator Feinstein. Well, candidly, I read the 48 pages, and
    I find them not at all impressive. But, that's your view. I
    obviously very much regret it. I think it is harmful--not only
    to our State, but to our country. I think the recalcitrance
    with respect to global warming is harmful to the people's
    health of this country.
        I'd like to go back to the remand. You have not given me a
    firm date, I have asked in writing, I'd like to enter those
    records into the--those letters into the record.
        I'd also like to enter a letter to Mr. Bookbinder of the
    Sierra Club, in which you again say you do not have a specific
    time, and I'd like to read you the Supreme Court decision on
    this subject.
        ``Under the clear terms of the Clean Air Act, EPA can avoid
    taking further action only if it determines that greenhouse
    gases do not contribute to climate change, or if it provides
    some reasonable explanation, as to why it cannot or will not
    exercise its discretion to determine whether they do.
        ``To the extent that this constrains agency discretion to
    pursue other priorities of the administration, or the
    President, this is the Congressional design.''
        So, as I read this--and I believe as your lawyers will
    probably tell you--this is the decision of the Supreme Court. I
    don't understand--you've got 4 people working on this, you've
    had one thing or another as to why you can't do it. The only
    conclusion that I can draw, is that you are under pressure not
    to do it.
        Mr. Johnson. Well, I'd like to----
        Senator Feinstein. I find this unbelievable, on behalf of
    what is called an Environmental Protection Agency, not an
    Administration Protection Agency, but an Environmental
    Protection Agency.
        Mr. Johnson. Well, I respectfully----
        Senator Feinstein. There's a finding of the United States
    Supreme Court telling you to do something.

                                 CLEAN AIR ACT

        Mr. Johnson. Well, Madam Chairman, I respectfully disagree
    that this is an easy decision. In fact, when the Supreme
    Court--and if you refer back to, I think, Justice Scalia,
    actually set it us as, in essence, a three-part test for me,
    and this would be my brief summary. That is, if the Agency
    finds--if I find that there's endangerment, then under the
    Clean Air Act I must regulate. If I find that there is not,
    that's test one. If I find that there is not endangerment then
    I should not regulate. Or third, if there are other
    circumstances, including--and then goes through some
    description of that.
        What I have found is I have looked at and continue to
    evaluate the issue of endangerment. It's that it's not only
    just the science of, and the endangerment, but it's also--what
    is the potential impact of that decision?
        The way that the Clean Air Act operates, is that a decision
    in the area of mobile sources, could have a significant impact
    on what happens in stationary sources. That is all part of the
    reason why I'm taking time, I think appropriate--I know people
    are anxious for me to get on with business, but I believe that
    it's important--this is an issue that's been debated since
    1978. It's clearly--as I said, climate change is a serious
    issue, and it's one that I'm carefully considering. Mass v.
    EPA, the issue of endangerment, but also we have a number of
    pending petitions before the Agency, including airlines,
    including off-roads, including marine, including stationary
    sources, including NSPS, including PSD, and I can go on and on.
        I have a responsibility----
        Senator Feinstein. Let me ask you this. All right, let me
    ask you this question--how many personnel, right now, are
    working on the endangerment finding.
        Mr. Johnson. I don't know how many people, specifically, at
    this time, how many people are or are not working on specific
    pieces of our work.
        Senator Feinstein. Well, we've been told no one is working
    on it, currently.
        Mr. Johnson. Well, I would have to check with----
        Senator Feinstein. Well, if you would ask your staff, I
    would appreciate knowing what the answer is.

                            RENEWABLE FUEL STANDARD

        Mr. Johnson. Well, I know that we are focusing our
    attention on the moment on several parts. One is, working on
    the regulation to implement what the Congress and the President
    signed on the Energy Independence and Security Act, the
    renewable fuel standard. Working with----
        Senator Feinstein. Is anyone working on this, at the
    present time, Mr. Johnson? This isn't a question I shouldn't
    answer, this is a question to which I'm entitled to know the
    answer.
        Mr. Johnson. Well, we are--I know I am working on what are
    the next steps, what's the framework that I should be
    evaluating the endangerment issue, as well as, as has been the
    traditional practice, of endangerment, and what the regulatory
    approach would be, and that's what I'm currently evaluating.
        Senator Feinstein. How many members of your staff are
    currently working on this?
        Mr. Johnson. I don't know the answer to that.
        Senator Feinstein. Does anybody know the answer? You have
    numerous staff in this room, somebody must--this is a Supreme
    Court finding--you quote the dissenter, not the majority
    opinion.
        Mr. Johnson. As I said, we are evaluating--I am currently
    evaluating what are the next steps that the agency should take,
    in response to the Supreme Court, in response to the Energy
    Independence and Security Act, in response to the myriad of
    petitions that are pending before the agency. That
    responsibility rests with me, and as I make the decision as to
    what the next steps are, then we will be deploying staff--as I
    said, I know I have staff that are working on a myriad of
    issues, from renewable fuel standard to carbon sequestration
    and injection under the UIC program. I know we have people who
    are working on the major economies, I know that we have people
    that are reviewing McCain-Lieberman legislation, the scientific
    piece of that--we have a lot of activities, important
    activities, not the least of which, you mentioned, the
    greenhouse gas registry that we're working on, as well. So, we
    have a lot of activities that our staff are working on.

                                  STONEWALLING

        Senator Feinstein. Well, the answer that I deduce from your
    answer is that you have no one currently working on it. I want
    the record to reflect that, unless some--and I give you every
    opportunity to change that, to give me a number. If you can't
    give me a number, on something that is a Supreme Court finding,
    and that has asked you to respond, then I've got to believe
    you're stonewalling. I want the record to reflect that.
        Mr. Johnson. Madam Chairman, I am not stonewalling, I've
    shared with you very openly and candidly of the importance of
    the issue of endangerment, not only in the mobile source
    context, but in the context of the Clean Air Act, and that we
    are--since the Energy Independence and Security Act which
    again, complement--it's been 32 years since the CAFE standard
    has been changed--that's significant and very important. But
    we're looking at--I am looking at--all of these, and then
    determining what our best steps should be in deploying our 2008
    resources. That's what I'm working on.
        Senator Feinstein. Okay.

                               EMISSION REDUCTION

        I think, let me ask this--at my request, Congress included
    $9.8 million in funding last year for emission reduction
    projects for the San Joaquin Valley, and the South Coast air
    management districts. These districts face an almost-impossible
    task of meeting Federal air quality standards for particulate
    matter and ozone, including requirements to be in attainment
    for particulate matter by no later than 2015. They are not
    going to be able to meet that standard, which triggers some
    very complicated and special things which can have disastrous
    economic impacts on both of these districts.
        Last year at this hearing, you gave me your commitment that
    you would work with me to come up with solutions to help these
    districts, and yet, your budget now eliminates this funding to
    help these regions improve their air quality. Why was it not a
    priority for EPA to continue this funding?
        Mr. Johnson. Well, Madam Chairman, as has been routinely
    the case, certainly my 27 years at EPA is that the President's
    budget does not carry over congressionally-directed funding,
    the so-called earmarks, from year to year----
        Senator Feinstein. Yes, this is an earmark, I admit it, and
    I put it in.
        Mr. Johnson. This was, and this is the reason.
        Now, having said that--having said that, we recognize, and
    certainly the President recognized the importance of dealing
    with diesel emissions, and that's why the President is asking
    for $49 million.
        Further, we believe that it's very important for us to
    focus attention on the ports, and as you know, because I've had
    the great pleasure of visiting the Port of Los Angeles area and
    the need for helping, particularly in the ports.
        So, we have identified $15 million of the $49 million, to
    focus on ports, and help in this area.

                              EARMARKS ELIMINATED

        Senator Feinstein. So, you are saying to me that because
    this was an earmark, you've taken it out, and you're not going
    to do it. Have you taken every earmark out of this budget?
    Because you'll be sure--you can be sure of one thing, that I'm
    going to find that out.
        Mr. Johnson. I am told by our budget staff, the answer is
    yes.
        Senator Feinstein. So, any congressional add, is
    essentially eliminated from your budget.
        Mr. Johnson. Every earmark has been eliminated.
        Senator Feinstein. That's a congressional add. That's the
    only way we can add.
        Okay, that should be very interesting. Well, let me give
    you another one--$8 million in the fiscal year 2008 omnibus to
    accelerate cleanup activities at the Hunter's Point Naval
    Shipyard. EPA must continue to work with the Navy to ensure and
    do everything in its power to ensure that this site is cleaned
    up. Have those funds been transferred to the Navy yet, so they
    can be used promptly?
        Mr. Johnson. Well, Madam Chairman, I know we have been
    working very diligently with the city of San Francisco and the
    Navy in establishing both a timetable, as well as a cleanup
    strategy of construction of either a football stadium, or
    commercial and/or residential use. The $8 million, I'm told,
    will be transferred from EPA to the Navy very soon, and I'd be
    happy to keep you posted on that.
        Senator Feinstein. I would appreciate it.
        Thank you very much, my time is up.
        [The information follows:]

        The agency is currently engaged in the apportionment approval
    process for the $8.0 million in funding for the Hunters Point Naval
    Shipyard site along with other agency funding. There were several legal
    and technical issues to resolve regarding this new account, and we are
    working to finalize the apportionment in order to transfer the funds to
    the Navy as soon as possible.

        Senator Feinstein. Senator Allard.

                             CLEAN AIR MERCURY RULE

        Senator Allard. Mr. Chairman, I just have three more
    questions and they have been--those issues have been asked to a
    certain degree, I want to follow up on those three areas a
    little bit more and then I will wrap up what questions I have
    for the Administrator.
        It's been a year now since Colorado submitted a program
    which meets EPA's Clean Air Mercury Rule, and provides--in our
    view--a cost-effective mercury reduction for coal-fired
    powerplants, and you approved that.
        So, then the court has overturned that. So, where does that
    put States like Colorado's proposal? That wasn't clear, and
    Senator Leahy was focusing more on the legal argument, we're
    focusing more on the practical aspect--so where do we stand? Do
    we--does that rule for the State continue to stand until you
    come out with a new one, or do we have to consider--we'll be
    in--will we be in a position where we have to re-do that rule?
        Mr. Johnson. Well, you're asking the very question we're
    asking ourselves. Given the court's decision, what does this
    mean for the State programs? Either ones that have been
    approved, or ones that are pending. I don't know the answer to
    that, and that's certainly part of the conversation that we're
    having, is in light of the Court's decision, what should be our
    next step? As I've already mentioned, that EPA and Department
    of Justice are looking at that to determine what our next steps
    are, and then that may or may not impact where States are.
        So, it's an important question we're looking at, and
    obviously the clock continues to tick, and we will--we are
    expeditiously looking at that, and I hope to have a response,
    soon.
        Senator Allard. These mercury levels do become kind of an
    industry issue, between soft coal and hard coals--perhaps
    you're aware. I know, States like Colorado, we have hard coal,
    and we market a lot of our hard coal to the East, because they
    burn soft coal and there's a lot of discharge, and so we clean
    up the air by burning our coal, and then if you have a mercury
    requirement on that--how does that impact those cities that
    have to require, on the hard coal, to meet the Clean Air
    standards?
        Mr. Johnson. Well, again, we think that mercury is a
    problem, we are disappointed in the court's decision, because
    it's the first time in the Nation's history that we've
    regulated mercury from coal-fired power plants, and our program
    was designed to eliminate 70 percent. So, we believe that it's
    a neurotoxin, we need to deal with it. Again, our next steps,
    we're not sure.
        I did want to point out, I did have the opportunity,
    because mercury is not just from coal-fired powerplants, but if
    you own an automobile that was before the vintage of about
    2003--not every one, but many--had little mercury switches,
    about the size of a pencil eraser. Working with industry and
    the environmental community and others--put together a program
    to actually collect these.
        Senator Allard. I remember that.
        Mr. Johnson. I had the opportunity last week to pull the
    millionth switch from an automobile. Doesn't sound like much,
    but just the switches alone in all of these old automobiles
    account for about 75 tons of mercury that would have otherwise
    gotten into the environment.
        Senator Allard. Well, we under----
        Mr. Johnson. So, we take our responsibilities very
    seriously, and whether it is dealing with the air issue or
    mercury switches, we need to continue to eliminate these.
        Senator Allard. I don't think anybody's arguing with you on
    the toxicity of mercury. You know, we've pretty well
    established that.
        Mr. Johnson. I trust not.
        Senator Allard. You don't see mercury thermometers anymore.
        I just, my question was, you know, it does have an economic
    impact on some of those communities that have to use hard coal
    to burn their soft coal. Is mercury a problem to those
    communities that have to use that coal for, to reduce air
    pollution?
        Mr. Johnson. We believe, and certainly in our final
    regulation, believe that a cap-and-trade program was the most
    efficient way of eliminating mercury, and that our experience
    indicated that those communities that may have had more of a
    problem were ones likely--that those industries would have
    adopted the newest technology to help with that.
        Again, we're now evaluating this court decision, and
    deciding what's our next step.

                           DIESEL EMISSIONS REDUCTION

        Senator Allard. Now, again, this is another program that
    was mentioned--it's your Diesel Emissions Reduction Grant
    Program. You clarified that $15 million of the $49 million
    requested for DERA has been set aside for EPA's Sustainable
    Ports Initiative. I'd like to have you explain in more detail
    how this $15 million is going to be used, that was appropriated
    for a new initiative?
        Mr. Johnson. In the 2009 budget, what our plan is, is to
    actually run a competitive program among the ports, and that is
    obviously, will be designed once we are sure that we have those
    appropriated funds.
        But, we recognize that diesel emissions are a challenge and
    one that is a great opportunity for improving the environment.
    One of the statistics is to bulldozers, which I think--
    certainly I have grandchildren, and they--grandsons--that
    understand a bulldozer--but to retrofit 100 bulldozers--just
    retrofitting 100 bulldozers, eliminates 16 tons of pollution
    every year.
        Senator Allard. That's particulate matter, because usually
    diesel, because the----
        Mr. Johnson. It's that black puff of smoke that we're all
    very familiar with.
        Senator Allard. It's the visible part of air pollution, not
    the invisible.
        Mr. Johnson. It is, it is the visible part that you see.
    So, we recognize that investment in clean diesel--whether it's
    retrofitting, whether it's replacing--is a great investment in
    protecting public health.

                                  CLEAN WATER

        Senator Allard. Okay. Let me move on to the Clean Water, to
    the State Revolving Fund, I think Senator Craig brought that
    up. Again, in light of what I mentioned here, on my first
    question, about some of these mandates that are requiring
    problems for small communities to comply with--can you tell me
    how EPA intends to help rural and poor communities maintain
    sewage plants and mitigate non-profit source pollution, in the
    face of those reductions in the State Revolving Fund?
        Mr. Johnson. Well, again, we believe it's multiple
    approaches. One is through support of the SRF; two, for
    continuing to provide flexibility in implementation; three,
    research and development; four, through a variety of--what I
    would characterize as--innovative approaches, whether it's,
    again, dealing with runoff from these abandoned mines to
    private activity bonds, which we have seen very successful
    implementation, to the technology that we're continuing to do
    our research and development.
        Again it's--unfortunately----
        Senator Allard. Now, if----
        Mr. Johnson. We do have a challenge. It's going to take all
    of those pieces coming together to really, I believe,
    accelerate the progress that we all want to make.
        Senator Allard. If the Congress puts more money in the
    State Revolving Fund, how are you going to treat those dollars?
        Mr. Johnson. Well, I support the President's budget, and
    look forward to continuing to work with you and other Members
    of Congress as you consider the fiscal year 2009 request.
        Senator Allard. What was the commitment that you said that
    you had made, you would just fund a certain percentage of that,
    and that has been met, and you felt that justified a reduction
    this year in the State Revolving Fund because they put extra
    money in there in previous years. So, how do you--so, again, if
    we put more money in there, what happens to that money--does it
    just sit there, does it end up getting diverted over to another
    program, or does it stay in the State Revolving Fund and you
    spend it out?
        Mr. Johnson. Again, all dependent upon how--if you Members
    of Congress made a decision to appropriate funds to that
    account, it is at least my experience that we recognize that
    and honor that commitment.
        Again, look forward to working with you, the President's
    budget recognizes that there's a need, the President's budget
    recognizes a commitment that he's made to achieve a revolving
    loan fund, both in drinking as well as safe water----
        Senator Allard. I understand----
        Mr. Johnson. Also recognizes that as the Madam Chairman has
    pointed out--it's a challenge.
        Senator Allard. I understand the President wanting to stay
    to the bottom line figure, but----
        Mr. Johnson. It would just go to the States with the rest
    of the money.
        Senator Allard. Okay, yeah. Yeah, I understand the
    President's need to try and reach the balance, you know, that
    total budget figure for your agency, or agencies. I understand
    that, but, you know, we can shift money around a little bit, we
    can take--we can get money someplace else and put in here and
    do those kind of things.
        So, I just wanted to know how you would treat that.
        Thank you.
        Mr. Johnson. Thank you.
        Senator Allard. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        Senator Feinstein. Thank you very much, Senator.

                           PERCHLORATE CONTAMINATION

        I have three questions, they are California-related
    questions. The first relates to perchlorate. As you know, it's
    a by-product of rocket manufacture, it leeches into the ground,
    it contaminates ground water. We have many drinking water wells
    that are contaminated.
        The small city of Rialto has 22 of them, has had to declare
    water emergencies. Santa Monica has had half of its water
    supply contaminated by perchlorate, and we have a half million
    residents in San Bernardino now who, for 6 years, have had
    additional charges on their water bill, to try to clean up
    perchlorate.
        Local water people--both locally elected officials as well
    as water contractors have requested that EPA seek replacement
    orders that require that parties who contaminated the water, in
    the first place, to help provide a solution. However, EPA does
    not appear to have taken any significant action.
        In 1999, I worked with EPA, other Members of Congress, on
    this similar situation in Santa Monica, and EPA did issue a
    water replacement order against Shell Oil Company. That was an
    effective solution, it cleaned up the MTBE contamination in
    Santa Monica. So, there's a track record of success, using this
    mechanism.
        I've been asked, by the locally-elected officials, and by
    the water contractors, to ask you to sit down with us and see
    if we can't work out a solution. It can't go on the way it's
    going, because there is so much insecurity about water, and the
    need to increasingly have water emergencies in this area--
    particularly in San Bernardino County. So, I'd like to ask you
    if you would be willing to do that.
        Mr. Johnson. Madam Chairman, I would be pleased to have our
    staffs sit down. Again, I appreciate the great collaborative
    work that we have enjoyed through the years, and you certainly
    have my commitment. We will sit down and see if we can identify
    a solution.
        Senator Feinstein. All right, I would appreciate that, very
    much.

               MARINE DIESEL AND LOCOMOTIVE EMISSION CONTROL RULE

        Now, the press has reported that OMB has approved the final
    Marine Diesel and Locomotive Emission Control Rule. Is that
    true? If so, when can we expect the final rule to be released?
        Mr. Johnson. It is my understanding that, in fact, the
    Marine Diesel Rule--a very important rule, as you're well
    aware--is just cleared Interagency Review, and we and the
    Agency are now--and particularly my team--are looking at
    communication and rollout strategy for that. I expect us to be
    able to roll out that final rule soon, within the next few
    weeks.
        Senator Feinstein. Oh, good. Good. That's the first good
    thing I've heard, thank you.
        Mr. Johnson. Well, thank you.
        Senator Feinstein. Now, under Federal law, the deadline in
    South Coast to attain the annual particulate matter 2.5
    national ambient air quality standard is 2015. So, the district
    is thus required to demonstrate that attainment in the year
    2014.
        I'm informed that the district needs advance control of
    nitrogen oxides created by locomotives, i.e., Tier 4 standards,
    to comply with this deadline. I also understand that the Draft
    Locomotive Rule EPA issues, only requires such advanced
    controls for locomotives first sold in 2015. This is after the
    Federal attainment deadline. What will the final rule do to
    speed up this schedule to ensure that Southern California can
    meet Federal attainment deadlines?
        Mr. Johnson. Well, Madam Chairman, as you correctly point
    out, that was what our proposal was, of 2015, and that's also
    one of the issues that did come up during the public comment
    period for the agency, and that will be addressed in our final
    rule. So, a very important issue, and I look forward to moving
    our final rule in this area, again, because the diesel
    emissions, we understand the significant opportunity to advance
    public health protection. So, that issue will be addressed in
    our final rule.
        Senator Feinstein. All right.

                          SUSTAINABLE PORTS INITIATIVE

        Your budget includes a new proposal to target $15 million
    of the $49 million you request for Diesel Emissions Reduction
    Act grants toward a Sustainable Ports initiative. This
    initiative will provide a low-cost way for ports to pay for
    diesel retrofits, or other emission controls.
        As you know, California is home to some of the world's
    busiest ports--L.A. Long Beach has 40 percent of the container
    traffic coming into the Nation, coming into this port. Goods
    movement through these ports is a major contributor to ozone
    and particulate matter.
        How will these new funds be spent? How will EPA prioritize
    those funds so that the lion's share will reach ports like Long
    Beach L.A., because they handle so much of the traffic?
        Mr. Johnson. I thank you for the opportunity to actually
    visit the L.A. port, and I've had the opportunity to visit
    other of our Nation's busiest ports, as well. It was very clear
    to me of a need and an opportunity and that's why we have
    designated $15 million, to help in this arena.
        Our plan is to develop a competitive program that, when
    they--would enable us to get these advanced technologies,
    whether it's replacing or new equipment or retrofitting, and to
    look at those areas that both have the greatest need and the
    opportunity for making a difference. Making a difference, not
    only from an environmental, but from a public health
    standpoint. So, we're still working on what the criteria would
    be for competitive, but that's the general area.
        Certainly, there is a need and an opportunity. We're going
    beyond that, because we're also, certainly, recognize the
    opportunity internationally, and we're working as part of the
    IMO arena, in the International Marine Organization and others,
    of what steps can be taken both in the area of clean diesel
    fuel, as well as in the technology for these large, ocean-going
    vessels.
        Certainly we have funded as an agency--through Congress'
    support, and the President's support--some innovative
    approaches in helping to reduce that air pollution. So we're
    going to continue on that front, as well.
        Senator Feinstein. Well, I appreciate that.
        I'd just like to add, and you probably know this--that
    people living in areas related to this now have a 1 in 500 risk
    of achieving cancer from air pollution. I want you to know that
    it is a very serious problem in the area, that the asthma rate
    is going up, and that if you ask people in the Los Angeles
    area, this is going to be one of their major environmental
    concerns.
        We're joined by Senator Stevens, and Senator, I think
    everybody has come and gone, so I'll turn it over to you for
    any questions you might have.
        Senator Stevens. As Senator Simpson said once,
    ``Everything's been said, but not everyone's said it.''

                          ALASKA NATIVE VILLAGE GRANTS

        I've come by from--we've just had a hearing with Homeland
    Security in the other subcommittee, and I've come by to discuss
    some of the problems that we've got in Alaska, and in
    particularly, I want to raise the question to you of the Alaska
    Native Village grants--this is part of the Alaska Native Rural
    Program.

                             ANTI-EARMARK SYNDROME

        We had hoped that we could go forward with that list of
    priorities--there's now an anti-earmark syndrome around here,
    as you know, but it seems this budget has been written with the
    idea that we would increase several items, because in the past
    we've done that.
        Did you take into account, at all, the probability that the
    various earmarks that members have put in, in the past, would
    probably not be achievable this year?
        Mr. Johnson. Well, Senator, as we prepared the budget, and
    certainly as the President made decisions as to what the budget
    should look like across the government, we as an agency--and
    that's certainly been my experience, as I've commented earlier
    to Madam Chairman--as an agency, we don't carry over
    congressionally directed funding, or so-called earmarks, and we
    did not in the 2009 budget, as well.
        Then, we constructed the budget based upon where the
    priorities are, where we think there is significant opportunity
    for delivering results to the American people.
        Senator Stevens. Do you carry over the funds if you don't
    spend them?
        Mr. Johnson. Many of our funds are 2-years funds, and so
    those funds--for example, like the Greenhouse Gas Registry--in
    the omnibus appropriation, we have $3.5 million this year--
    those are 2-year funds, and so we'll use those this year for
    working on the Registry, as well as next year as we move
    forward in developing one. So, that's just an example.
        Senator Stevens. Well, we--I thought we had an
    understanding, sort of a plan with the administration going
    back to 2007, when there'd be a target for 92 percent coverage
    for drinking water and sanitation in rural Alaska villages.
    Last year, for 2008, we had a request for $15.5 million, we
    raised that $9 million. We're still not going to achieve the
    goal of having even 92 percent of the villages of Alaska have
    water and sewer facilities.
        There was the Federal Government--if they don't have water
    and sewer, they have higher costs, basically, of medical costs,
    frankly. We've traced a lot of the diseases that the children's
    had to bad disposal systems for sewage, we call them ``honey
    buckets.'' Now, this budget goes back to $15.5 million.
        Did you spend the money we gave you last year? Have you
    obligated it for 2008?
        Mr. Johnson. I'll have to check with our--I don't believe
    that we've obligated it, Senator Stevens. I also just want to
    make sure, because the staff have pointed out that the Alaska
    Native Village Funding increase is not considered an earmark,
    however, we did not sustain the 2008 increase in the budget.
        Senator Stevens. Not considered an earmark? Do you have a
    definition for earmarks that I don't know of? I raised a budget
    item in this subcommittee from $15.5--I raised it $9 million
    last year.
        Mr. Johnson. I think the current funding of the 2009
    President's budget is----
        Senator Stevens. Fifteen point five.
        Mr. Johnson. Fifteen point five.
        Senator Stevens. That's what it was last year, and we added
    $9 million on top of that. I don't think it was spent, but
    beyond that, we had a target of--hopefully of trying to reach
    100 percent of the villages to be covered by 2011, currently
    your--by the way, when we started this we were at about 41
    percent--we've done pretty well with the program, and people in
    the area are very appreciative. But it looks like we're
    abandoning the program. It's not going to keep up the level we
    had last year.
        Now, how did you--you said that was not considered an
    earmark? When I asked the subcommittee, and they did increase
    that by $9 million, that wasn't an earmark?
        Mr. Grumbles. Senator, it was an increase, however, we
    didn't sustain that 2008 increase as we went through and made
    tough budget decisions.
        Senator Stevens. What do you mean, you mean you didn't even
    plan to spend it?
        Mr. Johnson. No, no. Whatever has been appropriated we will
    spend, and spend as directed.
        Senator Feinstein. Excuse me, you just told me you weren't
    going to spend any money that was an earmark.
        Mr. Johnson. No, no--there was a--let me make sure that
    it's clear--my Deputy, Marcus.

                             ALASKA NATIVE VILLAGES

        Mr. Peacock. Well, I have some familiarity with this
    program, although this budget, not recently. It's a
    longstanding program, as you know, Senator, to as you pointed
    out to help the Alaska Native Villages. We've kept the funding
    flat despite the fact that it was increased last year, in our
    proposal for 2009. As you pointed out, it has been successful
    but we have had problems in the past, in terms of getting the
    money spent, once it was obligated.
        Senator Stevens. Well, you have trouble getting the money
    spent if you don't put it up and give it to the area office.
        Mr. Peacock. The vast majority of it has been obligated--
    not all of it--for this year. But the vast majority of it has
    been obligated for this year.
        Senator Stevens. Well, am I to report to my people that you
    decided that 2011 is not the target for 100 percent of water
    and sewer for these villages?
        Mr. Peacock. Within the budget constraints, we think the
    same amount that was, that we requested last year is sufficient
    for 2009.
        Senator Stevens. That's not my question. Have you abandoned
    2011 for 100 percent of all of these villages having water and
    sewer?
        Mr. Peacock. I think our goal has remained the same, but
    we'll have to get back to you after we talk to the Office of
    Water. We do try and, of course, what we want to make sure is
    that not only Alaskan villages, but that all of the water
    systems throughout the country eventually reach the goal of 100
    percent.
        Senator Stevens. Well, eventually is, you know, I'm trying
    to seek reelection right now, but 6 years is 6 years. You know?
    We've been involved in this one for longer than 6 years,
    already. I do not understand why it's been reduced.
        I would like to have you put in the record what you
    consider to be the date for completion of the water and sewer
    facilities for Alaska rural villages under this program. Our
    target was 100 percent, at one time. Is that--put in the
    record--is that still your target? If so, what's the date for
    that?
        Mr. Peacock. We'll get that information to you, Senator.
        [The information follows:]

        EPA and the State of Alaska estimate that the EPA Alaska Native
    Village infrastructure program will be able to provide 100 percent of
    ``serviceable'' rural Alaska homes with access to drinking water and
    wastewater services by the end of fiscal year 2018. This fiscal year
    2018 end date is based on current EPA and USDA funding levels.
    (Unserviceable homes are defined as residences that cannot be serviced
    due to reasons such as being structurally unsound, seasonally occupied,
    or located in areas that are too costly to serve. In addition, whole
    communities may be unserviceable due to the dangers of erosion and
    flooding or because they are financially unable to operate water/
    wastewater systems due to local economic constraints or limited
    community size.)

        Senator Stevens. All right.
        I'm a little concerned about the $134 million reduction in
    the Clean Water State Revolving Fund, could you explain that to
    me?
        Mr. Johnson. Yes, sir. As you said, this issue has come
    up--the President's budget invests $555 million, and that it
    meets the President's commitment to achieve $3.4 million----
        Senator Stevens. You guys put the President--what did you
    ask the President for?
        Mr. Johnson. As I said, this represents----
        Senator Stevens. What did you ask the President for? On
    this item?
        Mr. Johnson. This is what I represented to the President,
    this is again, meeting the President's commitment, and----
        Senator Stevens. Don't tell me that.
        Mr. Johnson. I support the President's budget.
        Senator Stevens. What was the amount you requested from the
    Office of Management and Budget for this account?
        Mr. Johnson. As I said, I support the President's budget,
    and this is an important area----
        Senator Stevens. Are you going to answer my questions,
    Mister?
        Mr. Johnson. Well, as I said, this is the President's
    budget, it doesn't----
        Senator Stevens. I didn't ask you that. I asked you, what
    did you ask OMB for?
        Mr. Johnson. Senator, may I ask Ben Grumbles to come to the
    table? He's head of our water program.

                        CLEAN WATER STATE REVOLVING FUND

        Mr. Grumbles. Senator, in the process, through the Chief
    Financial Officer in the engagement and the development of the
    2009 budget, what was agreed to back in 2004 was a long-term
    plan for the Clean Water State Revolving Fund that would be
    reflected in each of the President's budget requests, including
    fiscal year 2009. So, when we engaged with the OMB in terms of
    the national water program, we looked at what Congress had
    previously appropriated, and measured that against the level,
    and that's how we came up with the $555 million.
        But, we didn't have a separate dollar amount, other than
    looking at, well, the previous year we had asked for $600
    million in the 2008 President's budget request we had requested
    $688 million. We then looked at what Congress had appropriated
    for the fiscal year 2008 budget and based on that, and the
    math--taking into account the 2004 commitment to provide $6.8
    billion through 2011--that's how we came up with the $555
    million. Jointly with OMB, Senator.
        Senator Stevens. What I'm hearing you to say is that you
    set a target back several years ago----
        Mr. Grumbles. Yes, sir.
        Senator Stevens. This year, you looked at how much had been
    appropriated by Congress, so far, toward that target?
        Mr. Grumbles. That's correct.
        Senator Stevens. You asked for the balance, is that right?
        Mr. Grumbles. That's the way it would work out, yes.
        Senator Stevens. Did you--that's the amount now, I asked--
    you know, I sat at those tables when I was with the Eisenhower
    administration. I know what you're under in terms of what you
    can and can't do. But you can tell me what you requested of OMB
    for this year, can't you? There's no par on that.
        Mr. Grumbles. Right. We----
        Senator Stevens. How much did you ask OMB for this year?
        Mr. Grumbles. We requested--when we went to OMB, we
    requested the amount that would be consistent with our 2004
    commitment that we reached with OMB, in terms of the
    administration's $6.8 billion request. So, we went to OMB
    saying, ``Let's do the math, and figure out what the
    appropriate level is.'' So, that's how we jointly got----
        Senator Stevens. Was that amount, that 2004 level, was that
    approved by Congress?
        Mr. Grumbles. No, it was part of the present--the
    administration's vision on how much continuing seed money to
    put into the Clean Water SRF and each budget request since then
    has been consistent with that. Budget requests have declined
    over the last several years, taking into account----
        Senator Stevens. What you're telling me, I hope you're
    hearing this, Madam Chairman, because they decline based on how
    much we put up--you reduce the next year by the amount we added
    to the previous year, in effect.
        Mr. Grumbles. That, coupled with the vision on sustainable
    infrastructure and the innovative technologies, and the full-
    cost pricing--that has been the approach on the State Revolving
    Fund to get to a final level that revolves at $3.4 billion a
    year.
        Senator Stevens. This is not a spending program, this is a
    loan program. You understand that, don't you?
        Mr. Grumbles. Yes, sir.
        Senator Feinstein. Senator, what the staff just informed
    me, is that we have never agreed to this. They just arbitrarily
    did it.
        Senator Stevens. I understand that. We've never agreed to
    it, and as a matter of fact, until last year, we didn't even
    know about it. But this policy of having an ongoing--the more
    Congress adds, the more it's reduced in succeeding years is an
    additional--it really forces earmarks. Because you're saying,
    in order to maintain the same level that we had last year,
    we've got to earmark the additional monies. I've never heard of
    it.
        I really think--if you'll pardon the phrase--it's
    bureaucratic arrogance. Having served a, you know, 8 years in
    the administration--another administration--I want you to know
    I don't appreciate that. We didn't have that kind of arrogance,
    and I really think you ought to listen to what Congress is
    doing, in terms of setting national goals.
        It sounds to me like your 2004 decision was sacrosanct as
    far as the Federal Government was concerned--nothing Congress
    can do about it, you just keep reducing down by the amount we
    increase. It's a crazy system.

                            GREENHOUSE GAS REGISTRY

        Now, let me ask you about another one, though. That is the
    Greenhouse Gas Registry. The White House proposed no funding
    for this new program, it was put into the appropriations bill
    in December, Senator Klobuchar came and talked to me, as a
    matter of fact, and others about it. But--why didn't you put
    money in for the Greenhouse Gas Registry? There's so much talk
    about this, but without such a Registry, no one is really going
    to know what they're talking about.
        Mr. Johnson. Well, we have $3.5 million this year as part
    of the omnibus appropriation. We are working on a draft
    regulation, we intend to meet the omnibus, congressionally
    directed schedule, which we expect that by the--September of
    this year, that we will have a proposed regulation on
    Greenhouse Gas Registry.
        We've also begun the work with the States--there's
    California, plus, I believe either 6 or 7 other States that
    have, or are developing, registries, and we think that's a good
    thing. But we're working on developing--and intend to have a--
    proposed regulation by what the schedule that was in the
    omnibus appropriations was, as I recall, September.
        Senator Stevens. Let me tell you--is there any direction
    Congress would give you with regards to spending money, you
    would follow?
        Mr. Johnson. Well, we are, sir. We're following the
    direction and----
        Senator Stevens. I haven't heard any so far.
        Mr. Johnson. Well, we're working on----
        Senator Stevens. What you're saying is, the money we put up
    for 2008, you take into account as you reduce 2009.
        Fully understanding that there is a new paradigm, no add-
    ons. No earmarks. So, that under the rules here, that program
    is going to have to be slashed.
        Senator Feinstein. Senator, you're right--I put in the $3.5
    million last year. It takes 2 years. So, they need $3.5 million
    this year, assuming they're doing it.
        Senator Stevens. I agree.
        Senator Feinstein. So that would have to be, I guess, an
    earmark, which they are now saying, they won't follow.
        Senator Stevens. That's right.
        Mr. Johnson. Madam Chairman, just to make clear for the
    record, we area working on a draft regulation, and I intend to
    make sure that we meet our mandate of having a proposal, and I
    believe the date is September.
        Senator Stevens. Did you know how the Congress dealt, no,
    the administration--Congress dealt with an administration
    official that wouldn't follow their suggestion, back in the old
    days, the Bureau of Land Management? The next bill, they just
    eliminated the job of the person that would refuse to obey
    their direction.
        Senator Feinstein. Well, I'll tell you, this budget is
    disastrous when you look----

                        LAND PROTECTION AND RESTORATION

        Senator Stevens. I've never seen such arrogance as there is
    in this EPA budget, as a matter of fact. The Land Protection
    and Restoration line item for oil spills response was slashed
    by $183,000 for 2009. Why?
        Mr. Johnson. Are you referring to our----
        Senator Stevens. The Land Protection and Restoration line
    item for oil spills response was reduced by $183,000.
        Mr. Johnson. Let me ask Susan Bodine who heads up our
    program.
        Ms. Bodine. Yes, we believe we can still--we can carry out
    the program within the requested amounts. So, we don't
    anticipate----
        Senator Stevens. What led you to that belief? What led you
    to believe that we don't need money for land response for oil
    spills?
        Ms. Bodine. We have funding for the oil spill program.
        Senator Stevens. But you reduce it by $183,000 over 2008.
        Ms. Bodine. That's correct, but----
        Senator Stevens. But what was the rationale for bringing it
    down?
        Ms. Bodine. The rationale was that we believe we can carry
    out our responsibilities within the requested amount of
    funding.
        Senator Stevens. I don't know, I'm really disturbed at some
    of the things they're doing, because the administration is
    taking the position that you can't have earmarks, we're not
    supposed to make add-ons. But at the same time, they're using
    formulas which punish us for past earmarks, and past add-ons.
    And it puts us in an absolutely untenable position as to
    maintaining a level of ongoing programs that we've funded in
    the past.
        Senator Feinstein. I was thinking the same thing. I
    outlined the percent cuts. The percent cuts in critical
    programs are very large. This means there is no way for us to
    restore those cuts, if they're going to ignore any
    congressional add, which they call an earmark.
        I don't even know if we want to pass this budget, if that's
    the case. I mean, at some point, you've got to the conclusion,
    why run for the Senate of the United States, why sit as an
    appropriator--I come from a State that gives far more in taxes
    than it gets back in services. If you've got a major
    environmental problem in the State--and we have several, I've
    outlined the non-attainment standards for Fresno, and for the
    Los Angeles area, the port problems--yet we can't add money to
    solve those problems. So, why put out--why put our names on a
    budget that we know is going to fail to accomplish the purpose?
    I think that's the problem we have.
        Senator Stevens. Well, that's the conclusion that's got to
    be reached, that we're better off under the 2008 budget. We're
    better off not to give you anything for 2009, and just to
    travel on a continuing resolution into October 2009. The
    programs that affect my State would be better off under 2008,
    than they would under 2009. Did you ever think about that?
        Mr. Johnson. Again, we believe that this budget is a good
    budget, it balances the needs of moving forward with the pace
    of environmental protection, at the same time recognizes that
    we have to be good stewards of taxpayers dollars.
        Senator Stevens. I don't have any more questions. I don't
    think it's--you might carry back the message that, in all
    probability, if the Senate follows my advice, we'll give the
    President a continuing resolution for 2009.
        Senator Feinstein. You know, it's very hard, because we
    have a 20 percent cut in the Clean Water State Revolving Fund,
    a 10 percent cut in grants to States for environmental
    protection, a 14 percent cut in State grants for reduction of
    air pollution, and it goes on and on and on.
        I, you know this--for the first time he's said, in so many
    words, ``We're not going to recognize any congressional add.''
    Well, maybe we join the issue, and we don't pass a budget.
    Because I don't know why you'd want to run for the United
    States Senate--particularly, I come from 37.2 million people--
    and not be able to do anything that benefits a real need of my
    State.
        If the President doesn't do it, then what you're saying,
    the President conditions all spending, and the Congress has no
    voice. So, we don't even need an Appropriations Committee, if
    that's the case.
        Senator Stevens. They ought to read the Constitution.
    That's for sure. Well, we can talk and talk but I share your
    feelings about this, and I think there is a total breakdown in
    regard to the process that we're involved in. I've been through
    this process now for well over 30 years, and I've never seen it
    in worse shape. But, it's because of what we're getting from
    downtown. You refuse to recognize what we've done in the past,
    which was approved by the President. What you do is, then,
    offset that against a goal you set in 2004? Notwithstanding,
    all the goals we set in, we established in legislation and the
    President signed in 2005, and 2006, and 2007 and 2008. That's
    arrogance. Pure arrogance.
        Senator Feinstein. Well, I--no, I think there is no
    jointness with this administration. There is no real
    consultation with the Congress. There is no real understanding
    that the Congress plays a role in all of this. It's that we're
    to be a rubber stamp for the President's request, and----
        Senator Stevens. It's really not the President.
        Senator Feinstein. Well, Mr. Johnson pointed out, over and
    over again during this hearing, ``This is the President's
    budget.''
        Senator Stevens. He's says that, but I don't think the
    President even knows of some of these items, I'm sure he
    doesn't it is the OMB and the Assistant Secretary in each
    Department dealing with this budget process.

                         ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS

        Senator Feinstein. 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 agency for response subsequent to the
    hearing:]

                Questions Submitted by Senator Dianne Feinstein

              CALIFORNIA WAIVER DECISION/GREENHOUSE GAS REGULATION

        Question. The ``Federal Register Notice of Decision Denying a
    Waiver of Clean Air Act Preemption for California's 2009 and Subsequent
    Model Year Greenhouse Gas Emission Standards for New Motor Vehicles''
    (The Notice of Decision) concludes that Congress intended that waivers
    would only be issued if California had a ``unique'' problem, based on
    both Committee Reports and Floor statements from 1967. In 1977,
    Congress amended the Clean Air Act, changing both the words and intent
    of section 209. The Federal Register notice does not mention
    congressional intent in 1977.
        a. Did you consider the intent of Congress in 1977 when making your
    decision?
        b. If so, why didn't the Federal Register Notice discuss this
    intent?
        c. Is it correct to infer that you do not find the 1977 amendments
    relevant to your decision to deny a waiver to California?
        Answer. In 1977, Congress amended section 209, but did not change
    section 209(b)(1)(B), the waiver criterion at issue in this waiver
    decision. The decision document describes in detail the bases for the
    decision including the legislative history of section 209(b)(1)(B). The
    decision document discusses the issue of deference to California's
    judgments, at 73 FR 12158 and 12162, noting that EPA's role in applying
    section 209(b)(1)(B) is not to substitute its judgment for California's
    on the value or benefit that might be derived from a specific set of
    greenhouse gas standards, and noting that with respect to sections
    209(b)(1)(A) and (C) EPA is not addressing or changing its approach to
    deferring to California's policy judgments on the best way to protect
    the public health and welfare of its residents. This discussion of
    deference is based in part on the 1977 legislative history behind
    section 209.
        As explained in the decision document, EPA appropriately exercised
    its own judgment in determining the limits or confines of state
    authority established by section 209(b)(1)(B). This does not change
    EPA's consistent view that within such confines it should give
    deference to California's policy judgments.
        Question. The Notice of Decision asserts that in 1967 Congress
    intended waivers to address problems ``unique'' to California. But in
    1977, Congress added section 177 to the act, which allows other States
    to adopt California's standards. If Congress intended for waivers to be
    limited to problems unique to California, why did it give other States
    the right to adopt the same standards?
        Answer. The decision document discusses in detail EPA's
    interpretation of section 209(b)(1)(B), including the legislative
    history of that provision. That waiver criterion was not amended by
    Congress in 1977. In the 1977 amendments, Congress did afford States
    the option of adopting and enforcing California's motor vehicle
    emission standards, under section 177, if certain conditions were met.
    The legislative history indicates that section 177 was added to give
    States more flexibility in determining how to ``protect public health
    while still permitting reasonable new growth Still another element of
    flexibility for States that is afforded in this section is the
    authority for States with nonattainment areas for automotive pollutant
    pollutants (other than California) to adopt and enforce California new-
    car emission standards if adequate notice is given . . . this should
    pose no significant burden to the manufacturers. It permits the State
    to decide whether or not such standards should be adopted in order to
    permit more stationary source growth and jobs in the State.'' [Report
    by the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce (95th Congress, 1st
    Sess. Report No. 95-294, at pgs. 213 and 310-311)].
        Question. In 1984, EPA Administrator William Ruckelshaus issued a
    waiver decision that stated, in part:

        ``Motor Vehicles Manufacturing Association, Auto International
    Association, General Motors and Volkswagen also argue that in order to
    be granted a waiver for its particulate standards California must have
    a `unique' particulate problem; i.e., one that is demonstrably worse
    than in the rest of the country. However, as CARB points out, there is
    no indication in the language of section 209 or the legislative history
    that California's pollution problem must be the worst in the country,
    for a waiver to be granted.''

        The Notice of Decision asserts that the legislative history of
    section 209 requires that California's pollution problem must be
    ``unique.'' Upon what legal basis have you rejected the precedent set
    by the 1984 ruling?
        Answer. EPA's waiver decision discusses in detail the 1984 waiver
    decision at 73 FR 12159-12160. As stated in the 1984 waiver decision,
    the phrase ``compelling and extraordinary conditions'' refers to
    ``certain general circumstances, unique to California, primarily
    responsible for causing its air pollution problem,'' like thermal
    inversions, topography, and California's motor vehicle population.
    Thus, in 1984, EPA reasoned that the term compelling and extraordinary
    conditions ``does not refer to the levels of pollution directly.''
    Instead it refers primarily to the factors that tend to produce higher
    levels of pollution--``geographical and climatic conditions (like
    thermal inversions) that, when combined with large numbers and high
    concentrations of automobiles, create serious air pollution problems.''
    73 FR 12160.
        EPA's waiver decision concerning California's greenhouse gas
    standards does not reject the focus of the 1984 decision on the factors
    that cause air pollution. EPA's decision document describes the 1984
    waiver decision, which addressed a local or regional air pollution
    problem like ambient levels of particulate matter and discusses in
    detail the appropriate way to implement section 209(b)(1)(B) in the
    very different context of a global air pollution problem, like elevated
    concentrations of greenhouse gases. In the context of greenhouse gases,
    EPA determined that the appropriate criteria to apply is whether
    emissions of California motor vehicles, as well as California's local
    climate and topography, are the fundamental causal factors for the air
    pollution problem of elevated concentrations of greenhouse gases, and
    in the alternative whether the effect in California of this global air
    pollution problem amounts to compelling and extraordinary conditions.
    73 FR 12162.
        Question. Mr. Johnson, you are under remand from the United States
    Supreme Court to determine whether carbon dioxide contributes to
    climate change and endangers public health and welfare. I have
    requested that you set an internal deadline by which you intend for EPA
    to respond, and you have refused.
        a. Please provide a detailed list of benchmarks that EPA must meet
    before it can respond to the Supreme Court's remand.
        b. Please determine how many of these benchmarks have been
    completed to date.
        c. Please state how many EPA staff members are working on each
    remaining benchmark at this time.
        d. Please provide an explanation for why you stated in your March
    3, 2008 letter that ``I am currently unable to provide you and the
    Committee with the `detailed timeline' requested.''
        e. Please explain what impedes the EPA from setting a timeline for
    completion of this work.
        f. Please explain why it was possible for EPA to set such a
    timeline in 2007, but it is not possible to set a timeline today.
        Answer. As you know, EPA had previously planned to issue a proposed
    endangerment finding and vehicle GHG standards under the Clean Air Act
    (CAA) by the end of last year. However, after enactment of the Energy
    Independence and Security Act in December, it was appropriate for the
    agency to consider the impact of the new law, with its requirement for
    tighter vehicle fuel economy standards, on EPA's regulatory plans.
        As I explained in my March 27, 2008 letter to you, I have decided
    that the best course of action for responding to the Supreme Court's
    remand is to issue an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR)
    later this Spring. That notice will build on the agency's work to date
    on a potential endangerment finding and vehicle GHG standards under
    Clean Air Act section 202. It will also explain the broader Clean Air
    Act implications of taking such actions. My letter describes some of
    those implications and explains why it is important to consider them in
    developing a strategy for potentially regulating GHGs under the CAA.
        I have asked my staff to develop an ANPR for publication by late
    Spring. Because of the breadth of issues the ANPR will cover, including
    the regulatory implications for stationary sources if the vehicle GHG
    standards are set under the act, staff from several offices within the
    Office of Air and Radiation as well as staff from the Office of General
    Counsel are involved in drafting the notice. They are drawing from, and
    in some cases adding to, the information that was developed and
    compiled last year as part of EPA's efforts to respond to the Supreme
    Court's decision and the President's 20-in-10 Executive order.
        The ANPR will give the public an important opportunity to comment
    on the many issues that need to be considered in moving forward with
    any Clean Air Act regulation of GHGs. Following the public comment
    period, I will assess how best to respond to the Supreme Court's
    decision in light of the comments received. While I cannot give you a
    detailed timeline for issuance of the ANPR or for next steps following
    receipt of public comments, I can assure you that I intend to proceed
    expeditiously and lay a solid foundation for future decisions on
    addressing climate change.

                        AIR POLLUTION IN NATIONAL PARKS

        Question. EPA recently participated as the science lead in the
    Western Airborne Contaminants Assessment Project (WACAP) to determine
    the levels and sources of airborne pollutant deposition in ecosystems
    that are traditionally regarded as the most pristine and intact
    ecosystems in the America: western national parks. The National Park
    Service recently released the results of this study and they are
    alarming: over 70 different contaminants, including toxic heavy metals
    like Mercury and pesticides such as DDT, were found at significant
    levels in parks from Sequoia-Kings in California to Glacier in Montana
    to Denali in Alaska.
        In many parks, the toxicity levels in native fish in high mountain
    lakes exceeded the recommended consumption guidelines, not only for
    humans, but for other mammals and birds that rely on fish as a key
    source of caloric intake. These contaminants are weakening the
    ecosystems of national parks and a potential danger to human health.
        1. What are the implications of the WACAP study in terms of the
    ability of current regulations to effectively prevent air pollution,
    not only in our national parks, but across our country? Do these
    results not suggest additional action to improve air quality is
    warranted?
        2. Will EPA present policy recommendations for Congress and/or the
    Administration in the wake of these results? Please provide details.
        Answer. EPA commends the National Park Service and the interagency
    contributors for the WACAP study. This valuable research has
    demonstrated that a number of environmental contaminants are more
    persistent and widely distributed than previously understood. The study
    also showed that, for many contaminants, local and regional sources may
    contribute more to contamination in the western parks, outside of
    Alaska, than international or intercontinental transport of airborne
    contaminants.
        All of the contaminants identified by the study as being of highest
    concern are the subject of existing regulations or on-going regulatory
    actions under the Clean Air Act, the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide,
    and Rodenticide Act, and the Toxic Substances Control Act. In addition,
    most of the contaminants identified in the study as being of potential
    concern are subject to existing regulations or are being considered for
    further regulation under these statutes. Many of these contaminants and
    their sources are also subject to state and local controls. EPA is
    aware that the National Park Service is working at the level of
    individual parks to address the few local sources identified in the
    study. While the study did not address how the levels of contamination
    in the parks would be affected by further environmental regulations,
    EPA will evaluate this study, as well as other recent and ongoing
    studies (e.g., EPA's Great Waters program and newly-initiated National
    Academy of Sciences study on the significance of the international
    transport of air pollutants), in determining future research and
    regulatory needs for these pollutants.
        Many of the contaminants identified by the study are the subject of
    international cooperation, through bilateral and trilateral
    relationships with Canada and Mexico and through multilateral
    institutions, such as the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic
    Pollutants (POPs) and the United Nations Environment Programme's
    Mercury Programme. The United States' ability to address some of the
    contaminants of concern, particularly those that are no longer used in
    this country, would be significantly enhanced if Congress were to
    complete legislation enabling the United States to ratify the Stockholm
    Convention, as well as the Rotterdam Convention on the Prior Informed
    Consent Procedure for Certain Hazardous Chemicals and Pesticides in
    International Trade (PIC) and the Convention on Long Range
    Transboundary Air Pollution POPs Protocol (LRTAP POPs), and to work
    through these institutions to reduce their use globally.
                                     ______

                    Questions Submitted by Senator Jack Reed

        Question. Recently, the Rhode Island Treasurer, the Rhode Island
    Department of Health, and the Rhode Island Clean Water Finance Agency
    contacted my office regarding a proposal by the EPA Office of the
    Inspector General to prevent states from using revenue bonds to provide
    the necessary 20 percent match for the State Revolving Funds. Is EPA
    considering changing this policy? If so, what process is EPA using to
    evaluate if this change is necessary?
        Answer. The fiscal year 2009 President's budget continues the
    policy of allowing States to use revenue bonds repaid from interest
    earnings to provide the State match for the State Revolving Funds. No
    decision has been made on how or whether to change this policy.
        Question. For over 10 years, EPA has failed to issue a final rule
    to protect children from lead poisoning during home renovation and
    remodeling in target housing, despite a 1992 congressional mandate to
    adopt a rule by October 28, 1996. The fiscal year 2008 Consolidated
    Appropriations conference report included language requiring EPA to
    finalize its Renovation, Repair, and Painting Rule by March 31, 2008,
    and encouraging that the rule be at least as protective as HUD's Lead-
    Safe Housing Rule. What progress has EPA made towards finalizing the
    Renovation, Repair, and Painting Rule by the deadline at the end of
    this month, and what are the plans for implementation of the rule in
    fiscal year 2009? Specifically, how does the agency plan to provide
    sufficient training and outreach opportunities within the bounds of the
    current budget request?
        Answer. EPA finalized its Renovation, Repair, and Painting Program
    rule on March 31, 2008 (available at: http://www.epa.gov/lead/pubs/
    renovation.htm). Implementation of this program is a priority for our
    lead poisoning prevention program. We expect many States to seek
    authorization to run the program and will be working with our State
    partners to develop efficient approaches to implementation.
        EPA will work with a broad range of stakeholders, including States,
    community groups, trade associations and other industry groups in
    conducting outreach and training. Central to this outreach is the
    pamphlet Renovate Right: Important Lead Hazard Information for
    Families, Child Care Facilities and Schools. This brochure, which is
    jointly sponsored by EPA and the Department of Housing and Urban
    Development (HUD), provides renovation-specific lead hazard information
    for persons who contract for or perform renovation, repair and painting
    projects in pre-1978 target housing and child-occupied facilities. EPA
    is also developing information specifically for contractors, including
    the brochures Contractors Lead Safety During Renovation and Steps to
    Lead-Safe Renovation & Remodeling. To effectively conduct outreach and
    training within the current budget request, the agency will build on
    the infrastructure and successes of its outreach and training program
    for abatement activities.
        EPA will facilitate having training providers for abatement expand
    their training courses to include formal training of renovators by
    developing a model training course for renovators required by the
    regulation. In addition, EPA will continue to encourage the training of
    a broad range of stakeholders, including community groups, in the use
    of lead-safe work practices.
        Question. The fiscal year 2008 Appropriations language encouraged
    the EPA Renovation, Repair, and Painting Rule to be at least as
    protective as HUD's Lead-Safe Housing Rule. What steps has the agency
    taken to respond to concerns about the proposed rule, in particular,
    the fact that the proposed rule did not ban dangerous lead practices
    (such as dry sanding), and did not include requirements to test for
    lead dust at the end of a renovation, painting or repair job involving
    lead-based paint in older housing?
        Answer. The final rule prohibits or restricts the use of dangerous
    practices such as removing lead paint by power sanding, use of a torch
    or by the use of a high temperature heat gun. EPA is allowing the use
    of dry hand sanding based on the results of a study the Agency
    conducted of renovation activities. In this study, when the work
    practices being required by EPA's rulemaking were used, including
    containment and specialized cleaning, renovation activities involving
    dry hand sanding did not result in lead levels above EPA's regulatory
    hazard standards.
        The work practices required by this rule have been demonstrated to
    be effective at protecting children from the lead-based paint hazards
    generated by renovation activities. Renovations covered by this rule
    will be performed in many homes all over the country. They will be
    performed for many reasons, most of which have nothing to do with lead-
    based paint or lead-based paint hazards. Moreover, EPA has determined
    that the work practices in the final rule, including containment and
    specialized cleaning effectively minimize exposure to lead-based paint
    dust generated during renovations. Thus, EPA has determined that
    requiring dust clearance sampling and clearance, which is required for
    abatements in which all lead hazards must be removed, is not warranted.
    In addition, dust clearance sampling and clearance would not provide
    added value in terms of protecting children to balance the time and
    effort and the cost to home and building owners associated with
    requiring this additional step to the work practices.
        Question. Last year the Supreme Court ruled that the Clean Water
    Act only applied if there was a ``significant nexus'' of jurisdictional
    waterways. This test put a significant onus on the agencies to make a
    determination of what waters were or were not under the protection of
    the Federal Pollution Control Act. In response to this the U.S. Army
    Corps of Engineers increased the amount of funding to go toward these
    jurisdictional judgments, but no increases have been seen in the EPA's
    budget for this additional work. How is the agency addressing these
    increased demands and where is the funding coming from to deal with the
    increased bureaucratic burden?
        Answer. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is given the primary
    responsibility under the Clean Water Act (CWA) for work related to the
    issuance of section 404 permits. These responsibilities include
    conducting CWA jurisdictional determinations and review and issuance of
    permits. It is these activities where workload has increased the most
    in recent years as a result of, for example, recent court decisions.
    While EPA's workload has increased somewhat as a result of these same
    factors, EPA expects to be able to continue to meet our
    responsibilities under the CWA by adjusting the level of resources
    applied to the 404 regulatory program from within the available
    wetlands protection resources.
                                     ______

                  Questions Submitted by Senator Wayne Allard

     DELAY IN IMPLEMENTING A SOLUTION TO THE LEADVILLE MINE DRAINAGE TUNNEL

        Question. We now have a locally declared emergency situation in
    Leadville involving a Superfund Site declared in 1983, 25 years ago.
    Why is this the case 25 years after recognizing the need for a
    solution?
        Answer. The California Gulch Superfund Site (Site) was listed on
    the National Priorities List (NPL) in 1983 to address hazardous
    releases associated with historic mining activity. The Site is
    comprised of approximately 17.9 square miles of mountainous terrain in
    and around the Town of Leadville in Lake County, Colorado. Since 1983,
    this large and complex Site has been divided into 12 separate Operable
    Units (OU). EPA has conducted studies, removal actions and remedial
    actions at various OUs, and many of the OUs have been completed in part
    or in full. Two OUs have been deleted from the NPL and EPA is in the
    process of deleting parts of other OUs. The emergency situation
    referenced in your question is a relatively new development. Since
    2001, additional investigations have indicated that groundwater and
    mine pool levels are increasing over time, and are likely due to
    blockages in the Leadville Mine Drainage Tunnel (LMDT). Over the last
    three years, EPA, the State and local community have become concerned
    that the increasing mine pool levels may cause an uncontrolled release
    of contaminated water.
        In view of the recent concerns of rising groundwater and mine pool
    levels, EPA, in coordination with the Bureau of Reclamation and the
    State of Colorado, is now conducting a removal action. This work
    commenced in February 2008 and includes two major activities. EPA
    installed a pumping system in the Gaw mine shaft and has been pumping
    at a rate of 450 gallons per minute since late February. This action
    may lower water levels in the mine pool. In addition, it appears to
    have diminished seeps and springs that had recently appeared in the
    lower California Gulch. Second, EPA is taking steps to drill a relief
    well into the LDMT to lower the level of water in the LMDT and mine
    pool. EPA plans to have the relief well, pump and pipe to the LMDT
    installed and ready to operate in Summer 2008.
        Question. As you know, the Bureau of Reclamation is responsible for
    the Leadville Mine Drainage Tunnel and the EPA is responsible for the
    Superfund site. In your view, what has prevented the various involved
    entities (EPA, Bureau of Reclamation, the State of Colorado, locally
    elected officials) from fixing this well known problem?
        Answer. EPA issued a Record of Decision (ROD) in 2003 for Operable
    Unit 6 (OU6) of the California Gulch Superfund Site (Site). Part of the
    remedy included addressing the Leadville Mine Drainage Tunnel (LMDT).
        Specifically, the OU6 ROD called for:
      --Installing an engineered plug, approximately 4,300 feet from the
            LMDT portal.
      --Installing dewatering wells in the tunnel to manage tunnel and
            hydrologically connected mine pool water levels behind the
            engineered plug.
      --Installing a pumping system to deliver water to the LMDT treatment
            plant from the dewatering well.
        The LMDT is owned by the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation), as is
    the LMDT treatment plant.
        In view of the recent concerns of rising groundwater and mine pool
    levels, EPA, in coordination with Reclamation and the State of
    Colorado, is now conducting a removal action \1\ to install dewatering
    wells in the tunnel and a pumping system to deliver water to the LMDT
    treatment plant. EPA, Reclamation and the State are working on a plan
    to implement a long-term solution to address these concerns and long-
    term operation and maintenance.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ While Section 111 of CERCLA limits EPA's authority to expend
    Superfund dollars to carry out remedies (i.e., remedial actions) at
    federally owned facilities, EPA's authority to conduct certain removal
    actions under CERCLA is not limited. However, the Federal agency that
    owns the facility is required to provide reimbursement pursuant to
    Executive order 12580, section 9(i) ``Funds from the Hazardous
    Substance Superfund may be used, at the discretion of the Administrator
    or the Coast Guard, to pay for removal actions for releases or
    threatened releases from facilities or vessels under the jurisdiction,
    custody or control of Executive departments and agencies but must be
    reimbursed to the Hazardous Substance Superfund by such Executive
    department or agency.''
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Question. Why is the EPA, rather than the Bureau, now the lead
    Federal agency on the Leadville situation? Who made that decision and
    for what reasons?
        Answer. That decision has not been made. EPA is the lead Federal
    agency with respect to the California Gulch Superfund Site. EPA, the
    Bureau of Reclamation and the State are working on a plan to implement
    a long-term solution to address the high water levels in the mine pool
    and the Leadville Mine Drainage Tunnel. Among the items under
    discussion is what authority to use to implement that solution.
        Question. What can the EPA do to permanently fix this mine drainage
    problem?
        Answer. EPA, acting alone, cannot permanently fix this problem.
    EPA, the Bureau of Reclamation and the State are working on a plan to
    implement a long-term solution to address the high waters in the mine
    pool and the Leadville Mine Drainage Tunnel.
        Question. When is the mine pool (elevated ground water) going to be
    at a level that is not a threat to residents, local water supply and
    the environment? What level is considered a safe level?
        Answer. The Bureau of Reclamation is conducting a risk assessment
    that may help determine the appropriate mine pool level. Lowering the
    elevation of the groundwater will decrease risk to residents, the local
    water supply and the environment.
                                     ______

                Questions Submitted by Senator Pete V. Domenici

                   ARSENIC STANDARDS AND COMMUNITY ASSISTANCE

        Question. In January 2006, the EPA began enforcing a new arsenic
    standard that requires public water systems to reduce arsenic levels to
    10 ppb, down from 50 ppb. My home State of New Mexico has high levels
    of naturally occurring arsenic in its volcanic soils which filter into
    the water supply. New Mexico is also one of the poorest states in the
    Union, with high levels of poverty.
        The costs of compliance facing New Mexico run upwards of $500
    million. According to the New Mexico Bureau of Geology and Mineral
    Resources, 20 percent of the State's municipalities will have to treat
    their drinking water to meet the standard. The new arsenic standard
    disproportionately impacts my State because only 5.5 percent of
    municipalities nationwide will have to treat their drinking water to
    meet the standard.
        Of the communities in New Mexico requiring water treatment, 93
    percent of them are small communities that probably cannot afford the
    cost associated with meeting this new standard. Indeed, for the average
    New Mexican, meeting the standard could increase the cost of water by
    $50-$90 per month.
        Would you discuss what resources, if any, are being marshaled by
    EPA to assist communities faced with the extraordinary costs in meeting
    the new arsenic standards?
        Answer. EPA has promoted the use of the Drinking Water State
    Revolving Loan Fund (DWSRF) for arsenic projects, and has worked with
    The Department of Agriculture's Rural Utilities Service to make arsenic
    treatment a priority for their funding programs. Currently 167 loans,
    totaling approximately $380 million, have been made for arsenic
    compliance through the DWSRF. Together with the Rural Utilities Service
    loan program, nearly $500 million as been made available to communities
    for arsenic compliance.
        To help reduce water utility costs for arsenic treatment, the
    Agency has developed a toolkit that facilitates decision-making,
    including choosing the most cost-effective technology. The kit includes
    websites (epa.gov/safewater/arsenic and arsenictradeshow.org), a print
    brochure, a training CD and a treatment technology DVD. Program
    managers and scientists at EPA have collaborated to promote the latest
    high-performing, cost-effective advancements in arsenic treatment
    technologies, particularly through EPA's Office of Research and
    Development's Arsenic Treatment Technology Demonstration Program. In
    addition, EPA has partnered with technical assistance providers such as
    the American Water Works Association (AWWA), National Rural Water
    Association (NRWA) and Rural Community Assistance Partnership (RCAP) to
    provide training opportunities and innovative outreach materials.
        Question. Would it be appropriate to try and assist those
    communities faced with debilitating costs in trying to meet the high
    standard through some legislative means, perhaps in targeted assistance
    in treatment facility construction?
        Answer. We believe that Congress has already provided an
    appropriate vehicle for assistance through the Drinking Water State
    Revolving Loan Fund (DWSRF). Since 1997, the EPA, through the DWSRF,
    has leveraged approximately $8.1 billion in federal grants to States
    into $14.4 billion in funds available to assist with drinking water
    infrastructure needs, including compliance with new arsenic standards.
    Through these funds, over 5,300 loans for over $12.6 billion have been
    made to projects to address the public health goals of the Safe
    Drinking Water Act. Almost all of these loans are provided at a reduced
    interest rate and almost 600 with some principal forgiveness. Nearly 75
    percent of loans go to communities with 10,000 people or fewer.
        Question. Because New Mexicans do not exhibit a higher rate of
    cancer due to the States higher levels of arsenic, and because studies
    released after the EPA issued its new arsenic standard do not tie the
    new arsenic standard to reduced health impacts, have you considered
    reviewing whether this more stringent arsenic drinking water regulation
    is appropriate?
        Answer. The agency is currently performing its second review of
    existing drinking water standards and we expect to release the
    preliminary results by summer of 2009. One of the key steps in our
    review uses a final, peer-reviewed health risk assessment. While
    arsenic is one of the 70 plus drinking water regulations included in
    the second review effort, the Agency is currently updating the arsenic
    risk assessment and it is not expected to be complete in time to
    consider for this review.
        For the revised risk assessment, EPA is considering all relevant
    studies published since the 2001 Arsenic Regulation. We presented the
    draft cancer assessment to EPA's Science Advisory Board (SAB) in
    September 2005. EPA is considering the SAB's June 2007 final report \2\
    and public comments as the Agency works to update and finalize the
    arsenic risk assessment.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ Available at http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/
    EADABBF40DED2A0885257308006741EF/$File/sab_07_008.pdf.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Question. What conclusions has the EPA drawn from the two studies
    conducted by Dr. Steven Lamm and published by the NIH, which challenge
    the data from Taiwan used by EPA to establish the current standard?
        Answer. Dr. Lamm presented his findings to EPA's Science Advisory
    Board (SAB) in September 2005. And the SAB record of the arsenic
    advisory meetings, report development and public meetings \3\ contains
    Dr. Lamm's subsequent comments and responses (to SAB), representing his
    2003, 2005, and 2006 studies.\4\ The final 2007 SAB report \5\ directed
    EPA to identify criteria to evaluate all relevant human studies and
    include information on the factors that affect the risk estimates. EPA
    is considering the 2007 SAB report and public comments as the Agency
    works to update and finalize the arsenic risk assessment.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \3\ Available at http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/
    WebProjectsbyNameBOARD!OpenView.
        \4\ Lamm SH, DM Byrd, MB Kruse, M Feinleib, and S-H Lai. (2003).
    Bladder Cancer and Aresnic Exposure: Differences in the Two Populations
    Enrolled in a Study in Southwest Taiwan. Biomedical and Environmental
    Sciences 16:355-368.
        Lamm SH and MB Kruse. (2005). Arsenic Ingestion and Bladder Cancer
    Mortality--What do the Dose-Response Relationships Suggest About
    Mechanism? Human and Ecological Risk Assessment, 11:433-450.
        Lamm SH, A Engel, CA Penn, R Chen, and M Feinleb. (2006). Arsenic
    Cancer Risk Confounder in Southwest Taiwan Data Set. Environmental
    Health Perspectives 114:1077-1082
        \5\ Available at http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/
    EADABBF40DED2A0885257308006741EF/$File/sab_07_008.pdf.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     ______

                   Questions Submitted by Senator Harry Reid

        Question. EPA's budget request only briefly mentions the
    environmental standards that the Agency is required by statute to
    develop for the proposed Yucca Mountain Project. In 2004, a Federal
    Court of Appeals rejected the EPA's original standards. Over three
    years later, EPA still has not promulgated final radiation standards.
    When will EPA release its final standards?
        Answer. The radiation standard for Yucca Mountain has not yet been
    determined and is the subject of ongoing rulemaking proceedings. There
    are many complex issues involved in establishing regulations applicable
    for up to one million years that make it difficult to predict when
    these rulemaking proceedings will conclude. EPA continues to review
    public comments on its proposed rule and participate in the interagency
    review process pursuant to Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, EPA is
    not in a position to state when its final rule will be promulgated.
        Question. What is EPA's reason for not finalizing the radiation
    standards?
        Answer. The radiation standard for Yucca Mountain has not yet been
    determined and is the subject of ongoing rulemaking proceedings. There
    are many complex issues involved in establishing regulations applicable
    for up to one million years that make it difficult to predict when
    these rulemaking proceedings will conclude.
        Question. Where is the EPA's final radiation standard in the
    rulemaking process?
        Answer. EPA continues to review public comments on its proposed
    rule and participate in the interagency review process pursuant to
    Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, EPA is not in a position to state
    when its final rule will be promulgated.

                              SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS

        Senator Feinstein. Well, let me sum up by saying, this is a
    very unhappy budget, and we'll have to consult among ourselves,
    and come up with a course of action.
        I thank you very much. The subcommittee will stand in
    recess.
        [Whereupon, at 11:55 a.m., Tuesday, March 4, 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 2009

                                  ----------

                             TUESDAY, APRIL 1, 2008

                                           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, Domenici, Bennett, Craig,
    Allard, and Alexander.

                           DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

                                 Forest Service

    STATEMENT OF HON. MARK E. REY, UNDER SECRETARY FOR
                NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT,
                DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
    ACCOMPANIED BY:
            ABIGAIL KIMBELL, CHIEF, FOREST SERVICE
            LENISE LAGO, BUDGET DIRECTOR, FOREST SERVICE

                 OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR DIANNE FEINSTEIN

        Senator Feinstein. The subcommittee's oversight hearing on
    the administration's fiscal year 2009 budget request for the
    Forest Service will come to order.
        I would like to welcome Mark Rey, the Under Secretary of
    Natural Resources and Environment at the USDA, and Forest
    Service Chief Gail Kimbell. They are accompanied by Lenise
    Lago, the Budget Director for the Forest Service. Thank you,
    three of you, for joining us, and we look forward to hearing
    your testimony.
        Because the Forest Service manages 20 percent of the land
    in my State, California, this agency and its budget are
    incredibly important to the State from an environmental
    protection, recreation, and public safety perspective. Keeping
    that in mind, I would like to note that overall the
    administration's request totals $4,109,000,000. Now, that's a
    cut of $379 million. Now, that's a full 8 percent from the 2008
    level. In reality, though, the cuts are much deeper.
        If you factor in the $77 million needed to fund fixed
    increases, and the $148 million needed to increase needed to
    cover the 10-year fire suppression average, and the Forest
    Service budget is $600 million less than what is needed just to
    do that, bottom line here is that under the administration's
    proposal, the way we look at it, the Forest Service is being
    cut nearly 15 percent.
        I might say for me, and what we look at as the future in my
    State, that's unacceptable.
        Specifically, firefighter readiness is cut 13 percent;
    hazardous fuels reduction work is cut 4 percent; Law
    Enforcement programs are cut 12 percent; capital improvement
    and maintenance programs are cut 14 percent; recreation
    programs are cut 8 percent; and research programs are cut 10
    percent.
        I don't know how anyone could really consider this a
    serious budget proposal, so rather than take time here to go
    through the budget line by line, let me say for the record that
    I hope to work with my distinguished ranking member, Senator
    Allard, and the other members of the committee, including
    Senator Domenici, who has had such a long-standing interest in
    this. The three of us all come from States that are critically
    affected by this budget.
        I hope we can undo these cuts, and I hope we can restore
    the Forest Service budget to a reasonable level.
        I'd like in my questions to talk about what progress the
    agency is making on Lake Tahoe restoration; what's happening
    with respect to firefighter retention, particularly in the
    southern California effort, and what can be done to overcome
    the challenge of implementing the Quincy Library Group pilot
    project. Those are three big issues in my State, and, as you
    know, a Governor's commission has just found that the three
    forests adjoining Lake Tahoe are in immediate threat of
    catastrophic fire. So we have big problems.
        I would like to turn to our distinguished ranking member,
    Senator Allard, for any opening remarks he might care to make.

                   OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR WAYNE ALLARD

        Senator Allard. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I agree with
    many of your comments that you made. I would also like to just
    take this opportunity and welcome the Under Secretary for
    Natural Resources and Environment, Mark Rey, and the Chief of
    the Forest Service, Gail Kimbell, to the subcommittee today.
        I hate to get too sour about this budget but to tell you
    that I do feel that is a budget that has me very deeply
    concerned. The proposed fiscal year 2009 budget for the Forest
    Service is more troublesome to me than any other in the bill,
    and my record on fiscal restraint I think is pretty clear;
    however, I believe the proposed reductions in the Forest
    Service just simply are not justified.
        We're facing a forest health crisis in this country unlike
    anything I've ever seen in my lifetime; however, your budget
    proposes to reduce the forest health programs of the agency by
    nearly half. The issue, of course, health, is very personal to
    me and to my constituents. We have a pine beetle epidemic in
    Colorado that is beyond description. You simply have to see it
    with your own eyes to understand the magnitude of the
    devastation.
        Experts say that within 5 years all of Colorado's remaining
    lodgepole pine forests could be wiped out--that's 6 million
    acres--over the next 5 years. I simply can't support a budget
    that slashes support for programs that address these problems.
        Mark, I appreciate that you have agreed to testify at a
    field hearing in Colorado that this subcommittee will hold in
    May on the pine beetle epidemic, and I hope that we can come up
    with some better strategies for dealing with the forest health
    problem than those that are reflected in this budget.
        Other proposed cuts in the agency's budget are similarly
    without merit to me. For example, the Fire Preparedness is cut
    by $77 million. The real cut in terms of program delivery is
    actually $88 million because you have not provided for
    mandatory salary increases and other fixed costs that must be
    paid.
        With fire seasons becoming worse each year, I can't
    understand why we would reduce the funds that go to train and
    equip our firefighters. This will lower the agency's initial
    attack capability and lead to more catastrophic fires. It is
    essential that we have a robust initial attack capability to
    catch fires when they are small so that they don't escape
    containment and become the catastrophic fires that we see on
    the nightly news every summer. It is these large fires that end
    up consuming the lion's share of the fire budget. In my view,
    reducing the preparedness budget will ultimately increase
    costs.
        I also don't understand why your budget documents how you
    can cut fire preparedness by 13 percent, yet claim that through
    efficiencies you will maintain the same number of firefighters,
    hot shot crews, and engines in the field. I'm all for
    efficiency, but I've watched firefighting costs skyrocket over
    the last few years. So forgive me if I am a bit skeptical and
    you've suddenly found this level of efficiency in your
    operations.
        I could go on with the litany of all of the cuts in this
    budget that I find objectionable, but I won't take up the
    committee's time. To me, the crux of the problem with the
    Forest Service budget boils down to this: There is a
    fundamental difference in the way that the Office of Management
    and Budget treats the Forest Service compared to other land
    management agencies at the Department of the Interior.
        The Bureau of Land Management, the Fish and Wildlife
    Service, the National Park Service are not singled out
    consistently for dramatic cuts each year as the Forest Service
    continues to be. I believe this disparate treatment is
    explained by the fact that as the tenure average for the Forest
    Service firefighting program rises, this year by $148 million,
    OMB has taken the position that these costs must be borne on
    the back of the agency's other programs.
        Apparently, OMB believes that this will provide incentives
    for the agency to reduce its firefighting costs, and I,
    fundamentally, disagree with this approach. No one would
    disagree that the Forest Service fire program could also strive
    to maintain costs, but escalating costs shouldn't come at the
    expense of the agency's other programs.
        Indeed, many of these increasing costs can be traced to
    issues that are beyond the control of the agency: More
    development adjacent to Forest Service lands, persistent
    drought in the West, forest health programs like the pine
    beetle that have reduced entire forests to tinderboxes and the
    lack of active forest management caused by endless lawsuits.
        Perhaps even more troubling is that OMB slashing of other
    agency programs to fund firefighting has led to many well-
    intentioned, but in my view misguided, proposals in Congress to
    move parts of the fire program off budget. As an appropriator
    and as a fiscal conservative, I find these proposals
    unacceptable. Moving parts of the fire program off budget is
    tantamount to giving the agency a blank check which will lead
    to abuses and take away any incentive to control costs. There
    is no reason that the fire program can't be provided with the
    funds it needs each year on budget, and the other Forest
    Service programs be provided with the funds that are necessary
    to run effectively.
        Forgive the pun, but I believe it is critical that we, as
    the Appropriations Committee, hold the agency's feet to the
    fire each year to justify their requests for firefighting and
    be ever vigilant about containing costs.
        I noticed with some interest last week an article in The
    Washington Post, about a GAO study which is analyzing whether
    the Forest Service should be moved from the Department of
    Agriculture to the Department of the Interior. While I have not
    had the opportunity to fully consider the implications of such
    a reorganization, when I look at the unequal treatment of the
    Forest Service compared to the Department of the Interior, then
    when it comes to the budget, it makes me wonder whether such a
    move might be worth some serious thought.
        Thank you for joining us. I look forward to listening to
    your testimony and asking you some questions later in the
    hearing. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
        Senator Feinstein. Thank you very much for that, Senator
    Allard.
        The committee will follow the early-bird rule, and we will
    go to 7-minute rounds of questions when the time comes. The
    next person up is the distinguished Senator from New Mexico.

                     STATEMENT OF SENATOR PETE V. DOMENICI

        Senator Domenici. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman. This
    can be my opening statement, not questions, right?
        Senator Feinstein. It's your opening statement, if you
    wish.
        Senator Domenici. Thank you.
        I have two issues that I want to bring up. There are many
    others, and I thought that these two were very important:
        First of all, we all know that the cost of wildland
    firefighting is consuming too much of our Forest Service's
    discretionary budget, and it's likely to get worse. We know
    that dealing with environmental documentation, appeals and
    litigation is stopping hazardous fuels cleanup in many areas,
    work which could reduce the intensity of fires and reduce the
    cost of fighting these fires. I believe these problems have to
    be dealt with. Failing to do so will only hasten the day when
    our national forests become a wasteland, and no one will be
    proud of them.
        We have also failed, and we have also allowed the job of
    our Federal firefighters to expand into areas where they never
    were meant to deal with. I guess when I said one, I have three.
    I just gave you one, that we have to address the issues of
    documentation and appeals. You all know what that's doing;
    that's adding 1 full year minimum, sometimes 2 or 3, to any
    activity going into an area that has been burned to see what
    you can do to clean up and revitalize the forest.
        We ought to be bold and just change that, and just a few
    words would fix it where they couldn't use this process. This
    process is being abused.
        My second position has to do with something that has
    happened to us where, over time, we are letting our Federal
    firefighters move into areas that they were never meant to deal
    with. We send a significant number of personnel on emergencies
    like cleaning up after major disasters, and now it seems that
    we may be turning our firefighters into first responders for
    traffic accidents.
        That may be going on, Madam Chair, in the State of
    California. All of these efforts are laudable, but all of them
    cost money, and I would urge that this committee review this
    mission creep and refuse to let it continue by refocusing the
    job of wildland firefighting back into the primary mission. I
    don't know how much that would be, but it would be some, and,
    certainly, what I have just described is right and fair.
        In our efforts to ensure the highest standards of safety,
    we impose reporting and training requirements. My third point
    has to do with training requirements. Our actions have
    unintended consequences. We imposed additional training
    requirements, and the agency has been attempting to provide
    that training.
        But the Office of Personnel Management, Madam Chairperson,
    is not questioning whether the additional training is
    acceptable and wants it to be provided as part of an accredited
    college curriculum. Confusion between OPM and the Forest
    Service human resources specialists is causing people who have
    invested time and money to give up applying for positions in
    fire because no one knows which courses are acceptable to the
    OPM.
        The result is that we are on the cusp of having several
    hundred highly trained and experienced wildland firefighters
    quit because they feel that the rules have been changed
    unfairly. Thus, we may be filling key positions with recent
    college graduates who have little or no real wildland fire
    experience, but who have the sheepskin being demanded by the
    OPM. I hope this committee will step forward and keep this from
    happening.
        Madam Chairman, I would have liked to have spoken about
    some of the funding requests in this budget that concern New
    Mexicans and myself, but they pale in comparison with the need
    for the committee and Forest Service to deal with wildland
    fires and wildland firefighters.
        Thank you for the opportunity, and, hopefully, we can work
    together on this problem.
        Senator Feinstein. Thank you very much, Senator Domenici.
        The order is Senators Alexander, Craig, and Bennett, and no
    one need feel compelled to make an opening statement if you
    don't choose to do so.
        Senator Alexander.

                      STATEMENT OF SENATOR LAMAR ALEXANDER

        Senator Alexander. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I will try to
    make a succinct opening statement.
        Number one, Mr. Rey, I want to thank you for making, as a
    priority, an additional $4 million in Federal funding for the
    acquisition of Rocky Fork in Eastern Tennessee.
        That's a very important project. There's broad support for
    that, and the Federal Government's role in that is a big help,
    and there may need to be some discussion in order to make it
    all work; to discuss something I usually don't support, but
    which would be to do some land swap of less desirable Forest
    Service land in order to get the 10,000 acres of Rocky Fork.
    I'm not ready to propose that at the moment, but we would only
    do that in conjunction with the conservation fund and other
    environmental groups that are involved in this and make sure
    that it was a big net plus in terms of conservation environment
    and Forest Service protected property.
        So I just wanted to make you aware of that, and thank you
    for making that a priority.
        Second, I'm interested in your comments today on what's
    already been discussed about fire protection, and the other
    functions in the Forest Service. We don't want to just make the
    Forest Service into a fire service, as important as the fire
    service projects are.
        Senator Allard has spoken eloquently about how he thinks
    that should be done. I would like to hear from you, perhaps,
    during your testimony about whether we ought to separate a fire
    suppression service into a separate account, or separate
    budget, or separate agency even, so that we don't continue to
    run the risk of damaging the traditional functions of the
    Forest Service by taking money away for fighting fires.
        The Forest Service superintendents in Tennessee say the
    increase in fire suppression funding at the expense of Forest
    Service operations and programs is one of the biggest problems
    they face. So, if you could in your testimony talk about some
    of the pros and cons of separating the functions or
    consolidating them, I'd be very interested in that. Thank you
    for being here.
        Senator Feinstein. Senator Craig, I think you're the next
    up.

                        STATEMENT OF SENATOR LARRY CRAIG

        Senator Craig. Madam Chairman, it isn't by accident that
    Western Senators and even a Southern Senator is focused on
    fire, and fire suppression with the Forest Service and our
    chief today. It is without question a front issue to all of us
    in public land States and large forest States who have gone
    through the last decade of a fire scenario that ramps up on an
    annual basis, Chief, and a real concern, not only about the
    actual fires themselves.
        But, as I have lamented in working with Mark Rey over the
    years, and as Senator Alexander just lamented, the old style of
    funding fires doesn't work anymore because you don't have cash
    flow. That went out the door with the green sales a decade ago,
    and you are now an agency that, in my opinion--and I say it
    rather publicly--is bankrupt: bankrupt on the standards and the
    payments and the cash flows of a century of green sales, and a
    timber program that largely doesn't exist today in a comparable
    way to two decades ago, which then means that if you're still
    borrowing from accounts that do all these other things, and we
    are not replacing the money, those accounts go wanting. The
    true needs of the management on the ground of our Forest
    Service goes wanting, and in my opinion, that's happening.
        Last week, I met with the supervisor of the Sawtooth for a
    variety of reasons. It was kind of a typical exchange between a
    policymaker and an agency head as to how we manage and what we
    do. We talked about bighorn sheep and how you manage those with
    domestic lifestock grazing. Forest Service letters actually
    said a decade ago: We want to put sheep in where they once
    existed, but they in no way will conflict with domestic
    grazing.
        Now that the sheep are there, we're kicking the domestic
    grazers off the land through court action and indecision on the
    part of the Forest Service. It just so happens on the Sawtooth,
    they probably got it under control, because they haven't been
    sued yet, and they're trying in a proactive way to avoid these
    interrelationships between domestic livestock and wildlife, and
    I hope it works.
        But I can't imagine that when you have a tradition of
    public grazing, and you write a letter and you make it policy
    that we will in no way displace the domestic sheep, but we want
    to try this experimentally. Then the experiment works. In come
    the lawsuits and out go the domestic sheep, and down goes a
    couple of ranchers, and down goes the economy in local
    communities because of a public policy not effectively managed
    by the Forest Service.
        We also talked about something that is very typical of
    wildland firefighting that Senator Domenici talked about, that
    Lamar has talked about. As you know, in the Castle Rock fire
    last year out in Idaho, we had an unprecedented situation.
    Large wildfire started on our public land, started on the
    Forest Service land, and ultimately threatened the Sun Valley,
    Ketchum area, the grand old ski resort known as Sun Valley
    worldwide. We fought and you fought, and you had your best
    people in there to save that community, and so did we.
        Now, the fire started on your land. The fire then moved to
    threaten private property, and we are now negotiating a $5
    million fire bill with the city of Ketchum. You know, it's
    awfully hard for me to understand when we don't manage the
    public land and the public land threatens private property,
    then we bill the private landowner.
        Now, there's going to be a lot of negotiation going on
    between State and community and the Forest Service, and I'm
    going to hold my tongue for a time. But it is typical of the
    situation we now find ourselves in, and that is that you, the
    Forest Service, are spending more time protecting private
    property than you are saving natural resource watershed
    wildlife habitat in this wildfire scenario.
        Of the 10 million acres last year that burned, 2 of them
    were in Idaho, and our skies were full of smoke all summer, and
    our air quality was dramatically lessened. The beautiful, clear
    blue skies of our State were gray and smoky all summer. You
    were violating clean airspace and clean air everywhere you
    went, and I'm always appalled that we slap the private sector
    when they damage air quality, but we say the public sector,
    when it damages air quality, is simply a natural event. That
    gets my ire up a little bit when we just oh-ho-hum, as a public
    attitude--you don't, and I'm not suggesting you do.
        Madam Chairman, I have questioned the Forest Service before
    the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, and the last time
    we visited was a month ago. As of December 1, 2007, we've had
    28 mill closures across the United States. Since we visited,
    I've lost another mill, 60 employees down, won't come back.
    They're going to tear it down.
        They had planned to take it down in a couple of years, but
    the timber issue is so bad that I don't know that you've let a
    sale, or there's been a successful sale of timber in Idaho off
    the public lands yet in 2008, and this mill is now down not to
    come back. They say it won't come back to the market for at
    least 2 years, more than likely, based on inventory both of
    logs in yard and dimensional in yard.
        My point is, we struggle to fund our country schools and
    the Craig-Wyden bill hasn't been fully funded. We have hundreds
    of school districts across the United States whose budgets are
    being cut anywhere from a quarter to a third with no way of
    raising new dollars. Now we have a flat timber market; even the
    best expectations that we all might have for some slight
    increases may well go out the window. It's very hard to come to
    a Congress today that's so dramatically in deficit and try to
    find the kind of money we need for these thousands of schools
    districts.
        Well, Madam Chair, tough issues with an agency that I know
    that the parties in front of us, both the Chief and the Deputy
    Secretary worked awfully hard at making work, but I think I
    agree with Senator Alexander. I know that Mark Rey and I have
    had those conversations.
        We've got to think out of the box about new methods of
    funding fire and doing a lot of other things, because, in my
    opinion, you're broke. You no longer have a cash flow. You have
    to come begging before the general fund, a grand old agency
    that used to fund itself and have surplus money that it put
    into the general fund is today in a very different environment
    than it was simply a decade ago.
        Thank you.
        Senator Feinstein. Thank you very much, Senator Craig.
        I don't see Senator Bennett, but if he comes back we'll
    allow him some time, and I'd like to begin with Mr. Rey now for
    his testimony, and then the Forest Service.
        How long do you believe you need, Mr. Rey?
        Mr. Rey. Oh, I think that----
        Senator Feinstein. I beg your pardon?
        Mr. Rey [continuing]. I can be done in the usual 5 minutes.
        Senator Feinstein. That would be excellent if we could do
    that. I think for this hearing the questions, really, are the
    most beneficial, so thank you very much.
        Mr. Rey. Sure, and I will summarize for the record----
        Senator Feinstein. If we could begin the clocks, please.
    Thank you.

                     SUMMARY STATEMENT OF HON. MARK E. REY

        Mr. Rey. What I'll touch on in my testimony is three
    issues: First the Wildland fire programs and management
    reforms; second, the proposal for reauthorization of the Secure
    Rural Schools legislation; and, third, the State and Private
    Forestry programs.
        The 2009 budget proposes a total of $1.97 billion for
    Wildland Fire Management programs, including $994 million for
    suppression, $588 million for preparedness, and $297 million
    for hazardous fuels.
        Senator Feinstein. Could you speak up, please? I think your
    mike's on, it's just hard to hear you.
        Mr. Rey. I'm not sure that the mike is live, actually. Is
    it?
        Senator Feinstein. It's working.
        Mr. Rey. Okay.
        Senator Feinstein. We need you to----
        Mr. Rey. I'll try to get in to it closer.
        Senator Feinstein. Maybe because it's a bad budget, you
    don't want to speak too loudly.
        Mr. Rey. I'm speaking softly.
        Additionally, the Forest Service is adopting significant
    management reforms to ensure equitable fire suppression cost-
    sharing between Federal and other firefighting entities. We are
    fully implementing the Risk Informed Appropriate Management
    Response and an acting cost-containment accountability
    throughout the Wildland Fire program.
        Despite having more fires in 2007 than we did in 2006 and a
    49 percent increase in acres burned, the cost of suppressing
    fires was $127 million lower in 2007 due to aggressive
    implementation of appropriate management response and other
    cost-containment measures.
        In southern California, you may recall that when we
    testified on December 13, we compared our experiences in the
    2007 southern California fire season with our experiences in
    the 2003 season, noting that in almost every available index
    our performance was superior in 2007 even given more dire
    circumstances.
        We have recently completed a draft of the annual report for
    the Fire and Aviation Management program, and I will submit
    that for the record.
        [The information follows:]

      Draft Fire and Aviation Management Year Review--Fiscal Year 2007 \1\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        \1\ The U. S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits
    discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race,
    color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex,
    marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual
    orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or
    because all or part of an individual's income is derived from any
    public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all
    programs). Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for
    communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape,
    etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and
    TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Direct, Office
    of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C.
    20250-9410, or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD),
    USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                        Letter From Director Tom Harbour

        The greatest accomplishment of fiscal year 2007 was being safe and
    successful. Human safety is, and always will be, our first priority as
    we strive to protect and manage the public lands entrusted to us. I am
    thankful every day that in 2007 we have not had to mourn the loss of
    any Forest Service firefighters on the fireline. We, in the Fire and
    Aviation Management program, have faced many challenges this year and
    made measurable accomplishments. We are strategically preparing for the
    years to come.
        Fire and Aviation Management is at a crossroads. Critical analysis
    of the program's function and purpose over the past 10 years has led to
    various documents, policies, management reviews and the integration of
    fire with ecosystem management. As the agency looks forward to the next
    decade, Fire and Aviation Management must significantly increase
    efficiency, manage organizational structure and lead the charge to
    improve land conditions.
        We are continually challenged by the growth of communities into
    previous wildland areas--80 percent of our population lives in urban
    environments; and as the Chief has pointed out, they need to understand
    the connection of natural resources to their homes and communities, as
    well as the effects of climate change, the importance of protecting
    water resources and of maintaining healthy forests. Fires are a natural
    part of forested landscapes; but each year, wildfires come earlier and
    last longer. Fires burn hotter and bigger; they have become more
    damaging and dangerous to people and property.
        As wildfires and their associated risks increase, controlling the
    cost of fighting wildland fire continues to be one of our greatest
    challenges. Gone are the days of ``throwing everything but the kitchen
    sink'' at each and every fire. We are making the transition from
    ``overwhelming mass'' applied to every fire to using the doctrinal
    approach of speed, agility and focus. Make no mistake, I am not
    suggesting that overwhelming mass will cease to be an objective for
    some fires, but I am suggesting that a variety of wildland and
    prescribed fire will benefit from the application of a doctrine which
    considers speed, agility and focus.
        To accomplish this transition, we and our interagency partners have
    adopted management efficiencies, focused on wildfires, which were
    categorized into the areas of Leadership, Operations and Management.
    These management efficiencies were practiced with some great success
    during the 2007 fire season--realizing a savings of approximately $200
    million. This, coupled with the doctrinal approach to wildland
    firefighting, will allow us to create an organization guided by well-
    stated doctrinal principles which represent the reality of the work,
    the environment and our mission.
        Finally, the basis for our accomplishment is anchored in people.
    Partnerships among Federal, State, tribal, and local firefighting
    agencies continue to expand and improve the efficiency and
    effectiveness of wildland fire management across agencies and
    boundaries. We need to incessantly build a strong, well-trained
    workforce who can teach others, think and react to the future in a
    professional, trustworthy manner, and always, with integrity.
        As public servants, we are accountable to those who trust we will
    do our jobs and do them prudently, professionally and effectively, in
    collaboration with our other Federal, State, tribal, and local
    partners. This publication is intended to be a reflection of the year
    past--a report card of sort, which will detail some of the challenges
    we've faced, as well as our accomplishments and successes. It will be
    centered on certain ``themes,''--the goals identified in our National
    Fire and Aviation Strategic Plan which ties back to the Forest Service
    Strategic Plan. Those goals include: technology and science; protection
    of life, property, natural and cultural resources; hazardous fuels and
    restoration; community assistance; effective communications; and
    promoting workforce capacity and diversity. We recognize our future is
    decided with people and that having strategic goals and a doctrinal
    approach to managing wildland fire is vital. We will continue to work
    toward those goals.
        The challenges are many; but with our talented, dedicated employees
    and the support of our partners, we will continue to progress. I look
    forward to working together to meet the challenges in the years ahead.
                                                   Tom Harbour,
                                                              Director.

                      Part I.--2007 Fire Season Discussion

        Agency suppression expenditures have increased in recent years due
    to the effects of the wildland urban interface and climatic and
    ecological changes. As a result, protection of life, property and
    natural resources from wildland fire has become more complex, demanding
    and expensive.
        In fiscal year 2007, the Forest Service continued implementation of
    an aggressive hazardous fuel reduction program, accelerated the use of
    risk-informed management, initiated operational efficiencies and
    adopted rigorous management controls. More specifically, these actions
    included:
      --focus on hazardous fuels treatments in wildland urban interface
            areas and in fire-adapted ecosystems that present the greatest
            opportunity for restoration;
      --accelerated development and deployment of decision tools similar to
            the Wildland Fire Decision Support System (WFDSS) to support
            risk-informed incident management;
      --implemented operational efficiencies such as management of national
            and critical resources for maximum flexibility and expanded the
            use of Exclusive Use aviation contracts; and
      --the execution of management controls akin to the establishment of
            the Inter-Deputy Group, the Chief Principle Representative, the
            Line Officer certification process for incident management, and
            the enhancement of fiscal monitoring and oversight.
        Fire and Aviation Management (FAM) has worked aggressively with
    other agency programs and cooperators to implement these strategies and
    manage suppression expenditures. These actions resulted in
    significantly lower suppression expenditures than would have occurred
    under previously implemented strategies.
    Fire Suppression Expenditure Forecast
        Fire and Aviation Management utilizes a model developed by the
    Rocky Mountain Research Station to forecast fiscal year fire
    suppression expenditures. The model has been used since fiscal year
    1998 and relies on Predictive Services' forecasts, historical and
    current year-to-date expenditures to estimate future expenditures. A
    2005 analysis indicated this respective model does extremely well
    forecasting suppression expenditures. The fiscal year 2007 August
    forecast indicated a range of Forest Service expenditures from $1.4 to
    $1.75 billion with a median forecast of $1.57 million.

        The Forest Service expended $1.37 billion at the conclusion of
    fiscal year 2007--below the 1 percent probability forecast of $1.4
    billion and $200 million below the median forecast of $1.57 billion,
    achieving the agency's projected $200 million of savings in fiscal year
    2007. The savings were realized as a direct result of the agency's
    aggressive implementation of risk-informed management, operational
    efficiencies and management controls.
    Fiscal Year 2007 Wildland Fire Management Appropriation Highlights
        In February 2007, the President signed the Revised Continuing
    Appropriations Resolution, 2007 (Public Law 110-5), which included
    funding for the Forest Service through September 30, 2007. The full-
    year Continuing Resolution sustained all requirements, authorities,
    conditions, limitations and other provisions of the fiscal year 2006
    Appropriations Act with the exception of emergency funding. The act
    also stripped all earmarks from bill and report language.
        The full-year Continuing Resolution included specific amounts for
    Wildland Fire plus an additional amount for pay-costs--the total
    Wildland Fire appropriation was approximately $1.82 billion. In May
    2007, an Emergency Supplemental (Public Law 110-28) authorized $370
    million for Fire Suppression bringing the total available Wildland Fire
    funds to $2.29 billion. There were several other notable changes from
    fiscal year 2006:
      --Total funds for Preparedness increased by $5 million. Regional
            allocations were increased $29 million to ensure readiness
            capability was commensurate with congressional intent.
      --Funds for Hazardous Fuels increased by $21 million. Regional
            allocations increased $14 million. These numbers do not reflect
            funds from other programs or appropriations. The agency also
            initiated use of a newly developed risk based allocation
            process.
      --Total funds for Suppression Operations increased by $51 million.
            This increase was based on the inflation-adjusted 10-year
            moving average of suppression expenditures. An Agency Severity
            fund limitation of $35 million was established which included
            regional limitations.
      --The remaining funds for all other Wildland Fire accounts remained
            relatively constant.

        Wildland Fire Management represented 42.1 percent of the Forest
    Service's Discretionary budget in fiscal year 2007--a significant
    portion and a 1.4 percent increase over fiscal year 2006. The agency
    expended $1.374 billion on fire suppression in fiscal year 2007,
    necessitating a $100 million transfer of funds from other program
    areas.
        Fire and Aviation Management aggressively pursued budget planning
    strategies to enhance efficiency and cost effectiveness through risk-
    informed allocation of preparedness resources (Fire Program Analysis),
    alternative methods of funding suppression activities (Fire
    Partitioning), risk-informed prioritization of hazardous fuel
    treatments (Ecosystem Management Decision Support), and prioritization
    of funds to States (State and Private Forestry Re-Design).

                        Part II.--Major Accomplishments

                                    OVERVIEW

        Fiscal year 2007 started where 2006 left off with a volatile,
    active fire season in southern California that extended well into the
    winter months. Predictive Services forecasted significant wildland fire
    potential throughout the 2007 season. Critical conditions influencing
    the wildland fire outlook were:
      --drought conditions expanding and intensifying across large portions
            of the West and Southeast;
      --low snow pack, warmer-than-normal forecasted temperatures and
            earlier snow melt over most of the West--likely to dry out
            timber fuels and cause an early onset of fire season in some
            areas;
      --the abundance of new and carryover fine fuels expected to green up
            and cure early, leading to an active, prolonged grassland fire
            season; and
      --a hotter than normal summer was projected for the West.
        These projections were realized early in the season when by the end
    of June 2007, drought and high temperatures resulted in wildfires
    burning of over 1.1 million acres in the southern area and more than
    161,000 acres in the eastern area of the United States and Canada.
    Preparedness Level 5 was declared on July 19, 2007, with 61 active
    large fires occurring across 9 geographic zones.
        For the 2007 fire season, the Forest Service secured firefighting
    forces comparable to those available during the 2006 season and added
    two interagency National Incident Management Organization (NIMO) teams
    ready to respond to wildland fire incidents.
        Escalating fire suppression costs continued to be a concern, as the
    wildland fire seasons in recent years have generally lasted longer and
    acreage figures have grown. In fiscal year 2007, the Wildland Fire
    Management Appropriation represented 42.1 percent of the Agency's
    Discretionary budget--a 1.4 percent increase over 2006.
        Over the past several years, various studies and assessments
    dedicated to fire suppression costs have been conducted. As a result of
    these reviews, several hundred recommendations were made. Fire and
    Aviation Management has taken those recommendations seriously; and this
    year, aggressively pursued cost efficiency and management strategies to
    enhance the efficiency and cost effectiveness of fighting fire.
    Management efficiencies were adopted that included cost control
    measures focused on leadership, operations, and aviation and general
    management practices. The implementation of these management
    efficiencies proved effective during the 2007 season, and their
    components and successes are discussed in further detail throughout
    this report.
    The Successes
        Throughout the season, incident managers adopted risk-informed
    strategies to manage wildfires within the context of the geographic and
    national situation. They implemented long-term plans with established
    primary protection objectives, strategies and tactics to achieve those
    objectives in an efficient, effective manner within the limits dictated
    by individual fires. The Forest Service realized great successes in the
    areas of aviation efficiencies and contracting, hazardous fuels
    treatments--exceeding 3 million acres treated this year across
    boundaries, partnership accomplishments, international cooperation and
    input into the National Response Plan. Those endeavors are detailed in
    the sections that follow. As always, collaboration is expected. Other
    Federal, tribal, State, and local partners continue to be an integral,
    vital part of the Forest Service success in meeting the expectations of
    Congress, as well as those of the American people.

                      MANAGEMENT CONTROLS AND EFFICIENCIES

        Management efficiencies are the cost control measures focused on
    leadership, operations, aviation and general management practices.
    These efficiencies were developed after numerous reviews and
    evaluations centered round fire suppression and large fire costs were
    conducted by independent, outside sources and other Federal regulatory
    agencies. More than 300 recommendations were generated from these
    reviews. These suggestions were integrated into the current management
    efficiencies--a number were implemented in 2007 with good success,
    others will be implemented over the long term. When fully implemented
    they will serve to ensure the following:
      --Clear, concise understanding of Appropriate Management Response
            (AMR) or choosing the best suppression strategy for the
            resources and values at risk (Policy Transition to Risk-
            Informed Management).
      --Expanded knowledge, skills and abilities for agency administrators
            responsible for managing large or nationally significant fires
            (Line Officer Certification).
      --Increased oversight from the Regional and Washington offices on
            incidents of national significance (Chief Principle
            Representative).
      --Increased support in support of the agency administrator in the
            development and implementation of decisions (Fire Suppression
            Decision Support).
      --Severity funds are used within limits (Severity Authorization
            Limitations).
      --Monitor expenditures and provide oversight on total cost of each
            incident.
      --Critical, high demand resources such as Type 1 firefighting crews,
            helicopters and heavy air tankers are managed in a more
            centralized fashion to achieve more flexibility (National
            Shared Resources).
      --Revision of the current aviation strategy ensuring the safe,
            financially prudent use of firefighting aircraft (Aviation
            Resource Cost Management).
        This segment of the report will strive to describe each of the
    management efficiencies implemented in 2007 and some of the success
    experienced by each.

    Stratified Cost Index--Performance Measure for Large Fire Suppression
            Costs
        Due to growing fire suppression costs and the lack of a
    quantifiable performance measure for suppression expenditures,
    congressional appropriation language in 2005 directed the Forest
    Service, in collaboration with the Department of the Interior, to
    develop an interim performance measure for suppression expenditures and
    to begin reporting on this measure in fiscal year 2006.
        The interim performance measure called for by Congress was a
    stratified cost index (SCI), originally specified in the appropriation
    language as cost per acre/energy release component. After discussions
    between the Forest Service, Department of the Interior representatives
    and economists at the Rocky Mountain Research Station (RMRS), the
    decision was made that the SCI would assess a variety of factors
    influencing suppression expenditures, rather than focusing solely on
    energy release component.
        Built using data over the past 10 years of nearly 2,000 large--
    greater than 300 acres, Forest Service wildfires, the SCI calculates
    the expected suppression cost of a large fire considering each specific
    fire's characteristics. The cost calculated by SCI is subsequently
    compared to actual suppression expenditures.
        SCI was incorporated into the Wildland Fire Decision Support System
    (WFDSS) process during the 2007 fire season. Problems were encountered
    when SCI considers complexes--or multiple fires, because part of what
    the model uses is the ignition point. When you have a complex of fires,
    rather than a single fire, SCI loses that part of the equation. FAM is
    reviewing how to deal with complexes from both the management and data
    standpoint. Additionally, the incorporation of SCI in WFDSS created
    some concerns considering that the spatial data used for SCI is limited
    in history.

    The Success
        Although refinement of SCI is needed, its use this season assisted
    agency administrators and the Chief's Principle Representatives with
    evaluating current costs of fires as compared to past fires with
    similar fuel types and ignition sources. SCI allowed officials to
    better evaluate the tactics and strategies from an historical cost data
    viewpoint as compared to today's costs. From that data, officials were
    able to see if the proposed approach was comparable. If the costs were
    higher, SCI afforded them the ability to determine the reasons.
        The Rocky Mountain Research Station is in the process of evaluating
    the SCI model and will provide Forest Service leadership feedback after
    a sensitivity analysis of the model concerning the use of ignition
    point.

                          FEDERAL WILDLAND FIRE POLICY

        Federal Wildland Fire policy has changed greatly since 1935 when
    the agency instituted the ``10 a.m. Policy,'' under which all new fires
    were to be controlled by midmorning on the day after they were
    reported. Existing policy gives Federal fire managers a high degree of
    flexibility in managing wildland fire. Current implementation direction
    requires that fire managers apply an Appropriate Management Response
    (AMR) to every wildland fire event, allowing a common sense approach to
    the management of a fire by applying fire management resources at
    places and times where they can be effective and efficient. Beginning
    with the initial response and continuing throughout the incident, all
    decisions consider firefighter and public health and safety, fire
    cause, current and predicted weather and fire behavior, fire effects,
    values to be protected from fire, management priorities, resource
    availability, cumulative effects of the fire, and cost effectiveness.
        In 2007, Forest Service regions applied flexibility afforded by
    Federal Wildland Fire Policy to develop and implement wildland fire
    responses commensurate with availability of firefighting resources,
    protection and resource objectives, coupled with the probability of
    success. Regional application of the appropriate management response
    concept freed up firefighting resources for initial attack and focused
    fire management efforts on critical portions of wildland fire
    incidents.

    Wildland Fire Decision Support System (WFDSS) Tools
        Recently, new tools were developed to assist fire managers and
    agency administrators in making decisions regarding strategies and
    tactics on wildland fires. The use of these tools has the potential to
    improve the understanding of wildland fire decisions and the rationale
    behind them. This year, they were available for priority fires.

    WSDSS--Fire Spread Probability Model (FSPro)
        WFDSS-FSPro is a spatial model that calculates and maps the
    probability of fire spread, in the absence of suppression, from a
    current fire perimeter or ignition point for a specified time period.
    Combining data layers that include the standard fuel models, current
    weather projections, historical weather scenarios, fuel moisture
    classification, and wind speed and direction, WFDSS-FSPro can project
    probabilities of fire spread in specified increments of 7, 10, 13, 30,
    and 90 days. It is not a fire perimeter like a FARSITE map. WFDSS-FSPro
    assists managers prioritize firefighting resources based on
    probabilities of fire spread. The model helps to assess a fire's growth
    potential. Managers can then match appropriate strategies, tactics and
    resource allocations. The program can also aid in communications with
    affected partners and the public.

    WFDSS--Rapid Assessment of Values at Risk (RAVAR)
        WFDSS-RAVAR is also a spatial model, showing the primary resource
    values to be protected and/or at risk by ongoing large fire events. The
    program can be directly integrated with the WFDSS-FSPro model, as
    demonstrated above, to identify the likelihood of different resources
    being threatened. The most important data layer generated by the WFDSS-
    RAVAR model is the structure layer, using local parcel records but is
    not limited to the assessment of threatened structures. Any resource
    value that has been spatially mapped may be included within a WFDSS-
    WFDSS-RAVAR assessment including power lines, road networks, gas
    pipelines, recreation facilities, sensitive wildlife habitat, cultural
    heritage sites and municipal water intakes. WFDSS-WFDSS-RAVAR assists
    fire managers in the prioritization of firefighting resources based on
    values to be protected segmented by the risk categories from WFDSS-
    WFDSS-FSPro.
        The WFDSS tools can be used on any fire. Use of these tools is
    mandated on fires anticipated to reach expenditures of $10 million or
    more and recommended for fires anticipated to reach, $5 to $10 million.
    National Multi-Agency Coordination Group (NMAC) National Shared
            Resources
        Managing of national shared resources such as aircraft, equipment,
    Type 1 crews, incident management teams and overhead, Fire Use Teams,
    smokejumpers, military and international assets and other national
    contract resources are now all being treated as national agency assets
    and managed in a centralized fashion. They are moved to areas and
    incidents based on Predictive Services and planning levels. The goals
    are to enhance responsiveness of the assigned resources and eliminate
    concentration of resources in a geographic area. Specifically, the
    National Multi-Agency Coordination Group implemented:
      --Management of Type 1 Crews, heavy and medium helicopters was done
            in a more dynamic manner. Geographic Areas provided the
            National Interagency Coordination Center (NICC) with specific
            action points or priority objectives along with resource
            requirements. Resources were then allocated and/or reallocated
            to meet these objectives. This allowed successful actions on
            multiple fires, rather than the standard practice of an
            automatic 14-day commitment once they are on an incident.
          This management philosophy provided greater flexibility in the
            command and control strategy of moving resources to the
            critical areas through the draw down of geographic area
            resources. The strategy engages a certain level of risk, placed
            on the providing geographic area; however, the risk is
            mitigated with the ability to quickly redeploy if the situation
            changes.
      --The National Incident Management Organization (NIMO) was assigned
            to manage large complex incidents and implement long-term fire
            planning and response, where in prior years, the agency would
            have had long Type 1 and Type 2 incident management teams
            rotating in and out every 2 weeks with the same anchor and
            flank strategy. Where possible, strategies, other than full
            suppression, were implemented and were successful in mitigating
            risk to lives, property and communities. The use of the NIMO
            teams provided opportunities to allow other Type I teams to be
            available for the shorter duration but highly complex
            incidents. In addition, part of the cost savings generated
            above the mobilization and demobilization costs is due to the
            reduced size of the NIMO teams who operated with less than a
            full incident management team compliment of personnel.
          The NIMO team also provided an opportunity for the New York Fire
            Department Incident Management Team to shadow and assist on a
            complex Type 1 incident. This not only provided support to the
            NIMO team but also allowed the agency to build capacity in
            support of all-hazard incidents in the future.
      --Incident Management Teams in many cases were assigned to manage
            more than one or multiple fires using a range of wildland fire
            and response strategies.
          The utilization of Fire Use Teams (FUMT) also changed this year
            to allow for more flexibility in meeting the demand for teams
            but also saving funds by implementing appropriate management
            response strategies, whereas a Fire Use Management Team--fully
            qualified to handle any Type 2 incident, already assigned to an
            incident would also take on the management of a new incident
            rather than filling the request with another Type 2 IMT. This
            occurred several times throughout the season, but was utilized
            to the largest degree on the Payette and Salmon-Challis
            National Forests in Idaho.
      --Another strategy utilized by NMAC this year was to allow an
            existing incident management team to manage fire use incidents
            if they were already managing a wildland fire or multiple fires
            with the addition of a Long-Term Analyst (LTAN) to their
            personnel. This provided for increased flexibility in the
            incident management teams use of existing resources and
            eliminated the requirement for demobilization of the incident
            management team and the mobilization of a FUMT and related
            resources.
          The final piece worth noting is that NMAC required the geographic
            area submit a detailed rationale when a team request was
            submitted. NMAC would review the request and rationale, respond
            back with not only the available resources to fulfill the
            request, but also they would also suggest other items and
            strategies for managing the situation. This allowed for
            controlling the number of resources to be assigned in cases
            where management of incidents/complexes and strategies could be
            refined.
        In applying all the strategies and utilizing appropriate management
    response and long-term planning the following cost comparisons display
    the estimated cost savings:

                                              FISCAL YEAR 2007 FIRE SEASON
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            Duration      Total                                            Cost per
                Incident \1\                 (days)       acres         Team  assigned       Total cost      acre
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Ahron Fire..........................           25       41,260  Type I Team...........   $6,500,000         $157
    Rattlesnake.........................           23       29,652  Type II Team..........    6,200,000          209
    Poe Cabin...........................           14       54,500  Fire Use Team.........    5,400,000          99
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ The comparisons above display how utilizing the appropriate decision models, current predictive services
      information, managing resources on a geographic area basis versus incident only basis can contribute to
      reducing the costs of large fires. The same principles and development of long-term plans and protection
      points were incorporated into managing the large complexes in Idaho and California, as well.

             APPROPRIATE MANAGEMENT RESPONSE (AMR)--SUCCESS STORIES

    Prioritizing Scarce Fire Management Resources to Mitigate Risk and
            Minimize Loss Northern Rockies Geographic Area 2007
        The Northern Rockies Geographic Area experienced a fire season
    setting records for high temperatures, low relative humidity and
    extreme fire danger. Despite the conditions favoring the rapid spread
    and development of high intensity wildfires, initial attack efforts
    achieved a 98 percent success rate. Fires escaping initial attack due
    to fire behavior conditions and resource availability would require
    significant commitment of fire management resources to obtain perimeter
    control or be managed as long-duration events until a season ending
    weather event occurred. In order to minimize costs and maintain initial
    attack effectiveness, a regional strategy for managing these fires was
    implemented to ensure the safety of all fire management personnel and
    the public while deploying firefighting resources when and where they
    would be most effective in mitigating economic and natural resource
    loss.
        In 2007, at a strategic level, the Northern Rockies Multi-Agency
    Coordination Group (MAC) and the represented agencies adopted a primary
    strategy of cost effectiveness where learning how to work smarter was
    emphasized over a cost efficiency strategy of simply working harder.
    Using this regional strategy, they aggressively implemented the
    flexibility afforded them by Federal Wildland Fire Policy. The region
    applied a wide-range of strategic and tactical options to manage
    wildland fires which met protection and fire use management objectives
    as described in their respective land management plans.
        When planned conditions were met in areas where wildland fire use
    was allowed, after a Wildland Fire Implementation Plan (WFIP) was
    completed, lightning fires were managed as wildland fire use events to
    achieve resource benefit. In areas not appropriate for wildland fire
    use, after the Wildland Fire Situation Analysis (WFSA) was completed,
    long-term implementation plans were developed for fires where assigning
    additional resources would have little chance for successful perimeter
    control. Decision support system tools were critical elements used in
    both the WFIP and WFSA development.
        A key component of the Northern Rockies strategy was the approach
    taken to prioritize and allocate fire management resources. The
    prioritization process allocated critical firefighting resources to key
    management action points--not to individual fires. The use of
    management action points for both wildland fire use events and long-
    duration events allowed the precise application of resources to key
    sections of a fire where the consequences of management actions were
    greatest and did not allow commitment of resources to the ``siege''
    fire events where effectiveness and outcomes were uncertain.
        Priorities were established through the use of a decision model
    which used defined criteria, evaluated the relative importance of the
    criteria and rated potential management actions accordingly. Key
    criteria used in the evaluation included values at risk, probability of
    success and duration of commitment of firefighting resources. The
    decision model process enabled open discussion of evaluation criteria
    by leadership and facilitated documentation of decisions regarding
    prioritization and allocation of resources.
        Long-term management strategies were developed for over 20
    incidents, and Wildland Fire Implementation Plans were created for more
    than 64 wildland fire use events. The geographic area monitored fire
    management costs and accomplishments for individual wildfires and fire
    use events. This type of monitoring allowed further evaluation and
    understanding of the effectiveness of these strategies and the
    utilization of resources, thereby providing a basis for future fire
    management operations.

                     CHIEF'S PRINCIPLE REPRESENTATIVE (CPR)

        An incident becomes one of national significance when it has the
    potential to reach a magnitude and intensity that will capture national
    attention and/or could become a significant drain on response
    personnel, resources and budget. Wildfires, projected to exceed $10
    million in total cost, are generally considered to be of national
    significance.
        In the infrequent situation where an incident reaches national
    significance or when requested by a Regional Forester, a Chief's
    Principle Representative (CPR) is assigned and available to assist
    agency administrators in reaching incident management decisions that
    will achieve safe, effective and efficient operations commensurate with
    local protection objectives and national priorities. The CPR assists
    the agency administrator to assure appropriate management and fiscal
    controls are in place and functioning.
    Roles and Responsibilities of CPR
        The agency administrator continues to carry incident decision
    authority associated with their respective position; however, the CPR
    is responsible for:
      --providing assistance and advice to the Regional Forester relative
            to national policies, budgetary objectives and incident
            management priorities;
      --sharing risks associated with incident decisions; and
      --providing advice to the Regional Forester relative to line officer
            certification and incident management performance.
        The CPR reviews decisions made and decision support information
    previously developed on the incident. They review scarce or critical
    resources deployed on the incident along with the availability of or
    need for those resources nationally. The CPR will provide a national
    perspective to the risk-informed decision process and priority
    deployment of resources for consideration in future agency
    administrator decisions on the incident. They assist in development of
    public information products to ensure that risk-inform decision logic
    and discussions of national priorities are incorporated. Throughout the
    incident, the CPR will document activities associated with the
    incident, provide fiscal oversight, assist the Regional Forester in
    developing a budget for the incident and ensure that effective,
    positive communications occur across all levels of the agency and
    organization.

    Deployment
        A flexible approach to meeting the needs of each individual
    situation applies to the deployment of a CPR. In some cases, the CPR
    will be sent to the incident to work directly with the agency
    administrator and Regional Forester. In other cases, the CPR may work
    remotely through telecommunication means. The CPR may be accompanied by
    a small decision support group staffed to provide support not already
    available on the incident.
        Chief's Principle Representatives were deployed to eight incidents
    of national significance during fiscal year 2007.

             CHIEF'S PRINCIPLE REPRESENTATIVE (CPR)--SUCCESS STORY

        During fiscal year 2007, eight Chief's Principle Representatives
    were deployed to incidents of national significance throughout the
    United States. Each was responsible for preparing a report at the
    conclusion of their assignment. Collectively, these reports were
    reviewed and the following reveals some common observances by the
    Chief's Principal Representatives:
      --The CPR concept is an excellent idea. Assigning a member of the
            National Leadership to represent the Chief and to assist agency
            administrators in reaching incident management decisions that
            will achieve safe, effective and efficient operations,
            commensurate with local protection objectives and national
            priorities and to help the agency administrator assure that
            appropriate management and fiscal controls are in place and
            functioning should be continued.
      --Appropriate Management Response and the use of Wildland Fire
            Decision Support System tools are the keys to cost efficiency
            when managing wildland fire.
      --The use of a CPR on incidents affords the opportunity for the
            mentoring of line officers with limited fire experience.

                           LINE OFFICER CERTIFICATION

        All line officers will meet enhanced qualifications prior to being
    designated as the responsible official for an incident. The
    certification process has been developed and is designed to improve
    decision-making and risk management on large fires. Certification will
    be at three levels. In addition, a mentoring network has been
    established of experienced line officers to provide training and share
    experience to enhance performance skills.

                     AVIATION EFFICIENCIES AND CONTRACTING

        A full-time National helicopter coordinator is in place to provide
    interagency national oversight for the assignment and positioning of
    helicopters. This year, the Forest Service shifted to more ``exclusive
    use'' (EU) versus ``call when needed'' (CWN) contracts for helicopters.
    This change in contracting procedures greatly reduced large fire
    suppression costs with the potential cost savings in the tens of
    millions of dollars per year. The agencies are pursuing longer term
    aviation contracts for all aviation resources with increased
    performance-based contacting.
        The National Interagency Aviation Committee (NIAC) has prepared an
    overarching strategic plan to address the interagency strategic
    direction. The NIAC plan was constructed with input from participating
    interagency partners. This strategy contains an overview of aviation
    doctrine, mission requirements, currently available aviation assets,
    the role of Federal and State governments in the utilization and
    management of aviation assets, and future infrastructure and technology
    needs.
        The National Interagency Aviation Committee (NIAC) has prepared an
    overarching strategic plan to address the interagency strategic
    direction. The NIAC plan was constructed with input from participating
    interagency partners. This strategy contains an overview of aviation
    doctrine, mission requirements, currently available aviation assets,
    the role of Federal and State governments in the utilization and
    management of aviation assets, and future infrastructure and technology
    needs.
        The Forest Service and other agencies involved with the plan
    development realized the need for more specific strategies to address
    individual agency needs. The Forest Service has developed a supplement
    to this plan to bring the overall interagency strategic direction to
    the agency level. The Forest Service supports this national strategy
    with the following initiatives:
      --Safety remains the highest priority. A detailed plan to complete
            airworthiness assessments for all Forest Service firefighting
            aircraft in compliance with NTSB recommendation A-04-29 will be
            formulated by January 31, 2009.
      --Control of the escalating cost of aviation assets is the second
            priority. Centralized management of airtankers and Type 1
            helicopters, pre-positioning of aircraft and a greater reliance
            on speed and accuracy will be used to operate more efficiently
            and maintain adequate delivery capacity without sacrificing
            safety. Work together with other firefighting agencies to share
            aircraft, intelligence and other resources in a more
            collaborative manner.
      --Rebuild the aging fleet of firefighting aircraft is the third
            priority. The Forest Service is measuring the loads incurred by
            firefighting aircraft and developing structural specifications
            that will identify appropriate aircraft sufficient to carry out
            the mission in a firefighting environment for the long term.
            Rebuilding toward a smaller, stronger and more agile fleet that
            takes advantage of modern technology is a part of this
            priority.
              AVIATION EFFICIENCIES AND CONTRACTING--SUCCESS STORY

    Exclusive Use Contracting for Aircraft Saves $14,475,000
        The 2007 fire season was extremely active requiring activation of
    all aviation assets on contract. Exclusive Use (EU) helicopter
    contracts were utilized, yet there was a need for additional
    helicopters--requiring Call When Needed (CWN) helicopters to supplement
    the fleet of EU helicopters. The following demonstrates common
    practices utilizing EU helicopters before CWN and identifies points
    that indicate when and why CWN resources may be used.
      --Pre-season placement of EU helicopters in areas with higher fire
            potential can lessen the need for last minute CWN resources. EU
            Helicopters are utilized under their pre and post-season option
            to limit the activation of the more costly CWN resources.
        The National Interagency Coordination Center (NICC) dispatches
    helicopters based on:
        date/time needed,
        emerging fire or existing large campaign fire, or preposition,
        estimated duration of incident,
        mobilization cost,
        daily availability rate, and
        hourly flight rate.
        The length of need is also addressed at each step of the ordering
    process to ascertain which resource could be utilized most efficiently
    for the lowest cost. The WildCad dispatch analysis program calculates
    cost of resource, length of need, proximity to the incident and
    determines the lowest cost option to meet the need. There are instances
    when ordering a CWN helicopter is significantly cheaper than activating
    an EU asset. In those instances, CWN helicopters were ordered.
        Incidents routinely cycle out CWN resources when EU helicopters are
    available if it provides a better value to the incidents needs--the
    NICC Helicopter Coordinator assisted in this transition.
        When the need reaches a level where nearly all helicopters on
    contract are required, EU resources were utilized first to assist in
    the success on initial attack incidents. The complement of personnel on
    an EU resource makes this an excellent use of the resource. On the
    other hand, CWN helicopters do not come with personnel and are better
    served on large incidents rather than initial attack if they are used
    at all.
        The Helicopter Coordinator position works to utilize EU helicopters
    whenever possible instead of CWN resources, finds aviation personnel to
    assist incidents, and tracks aircraft movements and utilization daily
    to ensure and realize the greatest efficiencies.
        Exclusive Use helicopters are contracted to guarantee their
    availability for the duration of the time period contracted. The
    average national EU contract period is 90 days. CWN aircraft have the
    ability to work for us one day and someone else the next; there is no
    commitment from the vendor under the CWN.
        The efficiencies identified above led to an estimated cost savings
    of $14,475,000 for the fiscal year based on utilizing the aircraft
    under exclusive use. Total cost savings estimate for entire life of the
    contracts is $26,441,486.

                        HAZARDOUS FUELS ACCOMPLISHMENTS

        The hazardous fuels treatment and ecological restoration job that
    lies before Federal land management agencies, tribes, States, counties,
    and local communities is enormous. The best opportunity to protect
    communities and valuable resources in the event of a problem fire is to
    reduce hazardous fuel accumulations through active management, aligning
    programs and leveraging resources to bring the full capability of the
    agency and partners to bear on the problem. Despite an extremely busy
    fire season, the Forest Service was able to reduce hazardous fuels on
    over 3 million acres from all vegetation management programs in 2007.
        The Forest Service remains committed to the reduction of hazardous
    fuels adjacent to communities. Since the National Fire Plan was
    instituted in fiscal year 2001, nearly two-thirds of all hazardous fuel
    reduction funds have been invested in the wildland urban interface
    (WUI), treating more than 7 million acres directly adjacent to
    communities--an area comparable in size to the State of Maryland. In
    2007, the Forest Service treated 1.4 million acres of WUI. Fuel
    reduction in the WUI is the most complex, costly work done, balancing
    the risk, weather conditions, access, smoke concerns, and important but
    intricate, collaborative relationships with communities, stakeholders
    and partners.

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                            Fiscal year
         Forest Service hazardous fuels reduction accomplishments     --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                         2000       2001       2002       2003       2004       2005       2006       2007
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total Acres Treated- HF..........................................   772,400  1,361,600  1,248,300  1,453,300  1,803,400  1,663,700  1,454,300  1,725,400
        WUI Acres....................................................  ........    611,600    764,400  1,114,100  1,311,000  1,187,900  1,045,100  1,138,500
        Non-WUI Acres................................................  ........    750,100    494,000    339,200    492,400    476,000    409,200    586,900
    Other Programs:
        Restoration..................................................  ........  .........  .........  .........    550,200    730,300    839,500    821,200
        SFA Grants...................................................  ........  .........     40,100    136,300    146,000     76,600     82,000    216,000
        Wildland Fire Use............................................    37,900     62,600     59,400    290,900     60,900    251,100    171,700    264,100
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

              HAZARDOUS FUELS PRIORITIZATION AND ALLOCATION SYSTEM

        Increased numbers and frequency of large fires have drawn attention
    to the agency's hazardous fuels reduction program and the method by
    which areas are prioritized for treatment and funding. In order to
    identify high priority areas and integrate hazardous fuels treatments,
    the agency developed a consistent, spatially relevant process to inform
    funding allocation decisions. By implementing this system, the Forest
    Service is able to more effectively implement hazardous fuels projects
    and funding in order to have the greatest impact.
        The prioritization and allocation methodology for the hazardous
    fuels reduction program is now used by both the Forest Service and the
    Department of the Interior. Nationally-consistent geospatial
    information is modeled to prioritize Regions for hazardous fuels
    funding. The following decision criteria determine the priorities:
      --wildfire potential (based on fuels potential, weather potential and
            large fire occurrence potential);
      --negative consequence associated with catastrophic fire (values at
            risk); and
      --past performance and other opportunities (other funding sources and
            restoration objectives).
        LANDFIRE is a 5-year, multi-partner project producing the only
    consistent and comprehensive national vegetation and fuel maps covering
    all ownerships in the United States. In its fourth year of development,
    the project continues to make good progress with anticipated completion
    of the continental United States by fiscal year 2008. A contract will
    be awarded to continue the development process for Alaska and Hawaii.
    LANDFIRE products help land managers prioritize areas for hazardous
    fuel reduction and ecological restoration, and are routinely used to
    support wildland fire suppression decisions.
        LANDFIRE products are used by the Hazardous Fuels Prioritization
    Allocation System, Fire Program Analysis, Wildland Fire Decision
    Support System, and the State and Private Forestry Redesign Analysis
    Tool. It will also feed directly into the Southern States Wildfire Risk
    Assessment. The project has an approved Operations and Maintenance
    Plan, and is on time and on budget.

                        HAZARDOUS FUELS--SUCCESS STORIES

    Fuel Treatments Help Firefighters Save 100 Homes on Tin Cup Fire,
            Darby, Montana
        Hazardous fuel treatments on public and private lands significantly
    contributed to the success of firefighters when containing the Tin Cup
    Fire, outside Darby, Montana, during the 2007 fire season. The fuel
    reduction projects resulted from partnerships between the Forest
    Service, Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation, the
    Bitter Root Resource Conservation and Development Area, Incorporated,
    and private landowners. The locations of these treatments were guided
    by priorities established in the Bitterroot Valley's Community Wildfire
    Protection Plan.
        The Bitterroot National Forest treated 214 acres during the months
    preceding the fire; and the Bitter Root Resource Conservation and
    Development, working through grants from the Forest Service and the
    Montana Department of Natural Resources and conservation, assisted five
    landowners in treating an additional 102 acres during the previous 5
    years.

     PREPARATION SPARES COMMUNITY DURING GRASS VALLEY FIRE, SAN BERNARDINO
                          NATIONAL FOREST, CALIFORNIA

        Tammy Hopkins awoke just after 4:30 a.m., on Monday, October 22,
    2007, to hear her 8-month-old son crying and realize the power was out
    to her home. As the Lake Arrowhead area resident scooped her son out of
    his crib, flashlight beams raked her darkened walls; and she heard the
    honking of a neighbor coming down the road. Back in the master bedroom,
    the sliding glass doors, normally opened to a panoramic view of the
    canyon, revealed a red glow that could only mean one thing--a fire and
    a big one at that.
        The firefighter's wife was only concerned with protecting the young
    couple's two sons. She knew she had to do it alone. Her husband had
    been called to a fire that began earlier in the recent siege of
    southern California fires. She gathered her things and headed to her
    husband's grandparents down the block to help them.
        In the 15 minutes it took to alert the elderly couple and get them
    into the car, a power line had fallen across the exit route; and the
    group had to retreat, heading back toward the fire in order to reach
    another roadway. ``At that point, I could see flames from the canyon
    below my house,'' Tammy relates. ``But the engines were coming down the
    street, and we had the fuel break.''
        The fuel break Tammy makes reference to was a 150-foot wide
    clearance, or ground fuels treatment, funded by the Forest Service
    through the California Fire Safe Council. It had been something of an
    experiment. Fire Chief George Corley summarized the project by saying,
    ``We wanted to use our grant to show that you could do a little work
    along the edge of the interface and get paid extensive dividends. We
    trimmed up trees and removed ground fuels on the slope beneath the
    homes.''
        The experiment worked. In the aftermath of the 1,247-acre Grass
    Valley Fire, Chief Corley recounted, ``What we did gave fire crews
    enough time to anchor off it (the fire from the fuel break).
    Firefighters didn't have to struggle with fires in the backyards, so
    the structure protection units were able to keep moving down the
    street. Unfortunately, the first house outside the project area burned
    to the ground. But that's how you know this works; you can stand here
    and see it. This project only cost $40,000, but it saved millions of
    dollars worth of homes.''
        CAL FIRE's San Bernardino Unit Chief Tom O'Keefe added, Arrowhead
    Fire Safe Council and San Bernardino County Fire ``prevented these
    losses 6 months ago.''
    williams trail fuel break tested during the galion fire, huron-manistee

                           NATIONAL FOREST, MICHIGAN

        In an effort to protect a small subdivision from wildfire, a shaded
    fuel break was constructed adjacent to homes along Williams Trail in
    2002. The fuel break was about one-half mile long and 200 to 300 feet
    wide. The construction consisted of tree thinning to increase the
    distance between the tree crowns, and several homeowners prepared for
    potential wildfire events by establishing defensible space around their
    homes and thinning flammable tree species such as jack and red pine.
        On August 30, 2007, the Galion Fire erupted to the south of the
    Williams Trail subdivision. The fire quickly transformed into a running
    crown fire heading toward the Williams Trail subdivision; however, once
    the fire hit the fuel break, its intensity reduced to a ground fire.
    Although the ground fire continued through the fuel break and into the
    subdivision and destroyed several structures, most remained damage
    free; home owners who had prepared ahead of time suffered little or no
    damage to their homes or outbuildings.
        The fire stopped later that day as the weather moderated and ran
    into the moister, riparian area of Silver Creek. In total, 557 acres
    burned. Two homes were lost in the subdivision adjacent to the fuel
    break.
        The fire was controlled with assistance from the Michigan
    Department of Natural Resources; the Grant Township; Tawas City, East
    Tawas and Plainfield Township Fire Departments; Michigan State Police;
    Iosco County Sheriff; United States Fish and Wildlife Service and the
    United States Forest Service.

    Camp Caloosa Project, Lee County, Florida
        Camp Caloosa is an 80-acre property located in Lee County, Florida,
    and is designated as a high wildfire risk area. The camp is owned by
    the Southwest Florida Girl Scouts and is used as a residential camp and
    instructional retreat. Most of the 80 acres are pine flatwoods with a
    significant accumulation of dense palmettos reaching 10 to 12 feet tall
    and areas with dense melaleuca growth.
        Efforts to reduce the hazardous fuels began in the area following a
    request by the local fire department in 2006. The fire department
    responded to a small wildfire and experienced difficulty accessing the
    property. They were concerned about the dense vegetation and the need
    for additional fuels management of the camp. Following a meeting with
    Scout staff at the camp, a management plan for the property was
    developed that included a comprehensive mitigation plan.
        During the initial phase of the mitigation plan, walking trails
    through the camp were widened by the Intermountain Region Mitigation
    Team. The widened trails were used to define prescribed burn units for
    the next phase of the work.
        On April 4, 2007, a wildfire burned into the northwest boundary of
    the camp. The widened trails served as firebreaks that stopped or
    slowed the fire enough for suppression equipment to work effectively.
    The trails were also wide enough for brush truck access. As a result,
    the fire burned only eight acres before it was contained.
        The cost of this project, including Intermountain Region team
    personnel, equipment and local district personnel working jointly on
    the mitigation project was approximately $9,000; however, the project
    protected 21 structures with an estimated value of $3,675,000 in the
    face of wildfire. The per structure cost in order to provide this
    additional protection was only $426.

    EFFECTS OF VEGETATION TREATMENTS ON THE VINCENT FIRE, APACHE-SITGREAVES
                            NATIONAL FOREST, ARIZONA

        The Vincent Fire started on the morning of May 29, 2007, outside
    the treatment units contained in White Mountain Stewardship Projects
    Dutch Joe A and Dutch Joe B. These projects were designed to reduce the
    threat of wildfire to adjacent private lands. Aggressive thinning and
    slash removal had been completed in 2006 under the Dutch Joe A project;
    similar actions were in progress under the Dutch Joe B project.
        In each project unit, the understory was thinned and trees up to 18
    inches in diameter were removed. Remaining slash was chipped and
    transported to be burned at a 24 mega-watt biomass plant. Large
    diameter trees were retained, but tree spacing was increased and ladder
    fuels (branches in the lower part of the trees) were removed.
        Once ignited, the Vincent Fire grew rapidly in size due to dense
    forest conditions, low humidity and moderate winds. The ground fire
    quickly moved into the canopy of untreated ponderosa pine stands, and
    tree torching and running crown fires were observed.
        Once the fire reached the area treated by the Dutch Joe A and B
    projects, it dropped from the tree crowns (upper portions of the trees)
    to the ground, demonstrating that thinning and slash treatments are
    effective tools to moderate fire behavior--far easier and safer to
    control.

                          PARTNERSHIP ACCOMPLISHMENTS

        The Partnerships program identifies, develops and coordinates with
    other organizations to achieve shared goals. The result is a
    synergistic approach to issues such as wildland urban interface fire,
    national emergency response, fire prevention, fire in the ecosystem,
    State and local unit cooperation and coordination, and many other
    issues that affect a wide variety of national interest groups.
        By collaborating with groups such as the National Association of
    State Foresters, International Association of Fire Chiefs, Federal
    Emergency Management Agency, National Fire Protection Association, and
    many others, the agency facilitates a cooperative course of action that
    yields integrated solutions to common issues.
        The Partnerships Program includes Cooperative Fire Protection which
    deals with Volunteer Fire Assistance, State Fire Assistance, and
    Federal Emergency Personal Property. It also includes Fire Prevention,
    Firewise, the Wildland Urban Interface Fire program, and All-Hazard
    Emergency Answer. The Partnerships program also coordinates any
    requests for international programs and cooperation for Fire and
    Aviation Management.

                          PARTNERSHIP--SUCCESS STORIES

    Cooperative Fire
        The Forest Service Cooperative Fire program provides support and
    grant opportunities to assist State and local agencies prepare for and
    respond to wildland fire. The two most important grant opportunities
    include the State Fire Assistance and Volunteer Fire Assistance
    programs. Many other important initiatives are supported either through
    collaborative efforts or grants. Examples include grants provided to
    the National Association of State Foresters, International Association
    of Fire Chiefs, The Advertising Council, and National Fire Protection
    Association, as well as collaboration with the Federal Emergency
    Management Agency. The Forest Service is continuing our commitment, as
    detailed in a Memorandum of Understanding, to work with the Department
    of Homeland Security and the Department of the Interior to coordinate
    wildland fire grant programs. Another important achievement of the
    Cooperative Fire program was the coordination with interagency partners
    to gain approval of an updated template for preparing cooperative
    wildland fire agreements with the States. The new template was approved
    by the National Fire and Aviation Executive Board in January 2007 and
    will help improve efficiency and facilitate coordination during
    wildland fire and also Stafford Act emergency responses.

    State Fire Assistance
        Forest Service funding in 2007 provided in excess of $79 million
    for technical and financial assistance to the States for all fire
    management activities, including training, planning, hazardous fuel
    treatments, and the purchase and maintenance of equipment. State Fire
    Assistance funding assisted 33,332 communities in the form of risk
    assessments, fire prevention programs, fire management planning, and
    hazardous fuel mitigation projects. An emphasis in funding was placed
    on wildland-urban interface (WUI). The State Fire Assistance program
    provides key support to successful community programs such as Firewise
    Communities/USA and Fire Safe Councils, as well as support for an
    expanded national public service fire prevention program. In addition,
    many communities and local fire departments, in collaboration with
    State foresters, developed community wildfire protection plans (CWPP's)
    to prioritize hazardous fuels treatments and reduce structural
    ignitability in communities that receive support from State Fire
    Assistance funding. State Fire Assistance grants treated approximately
    215,000 acres of hazardous fuels in the WUI, helping to protect over
    6,000 communities at risk from catastrophic wildfire.

    Community Wildfire Protection Plans and Communities at Risk
        In fiscal year 2007, assistance was provided for hazard assessments
    and funding was provided for Community Wildfire Protection Plans
    (CWPP's) for communities at risk (CAR). CWPP's address issues such as
    wildfire response, hazard mitigation, community preparedness, and
    structure protection. They provide communities with a tremendous
    opportunity to influence where and how Federal agencies implement fuels
    reduction plans on Federal lands and how additional Federal funds may
    be distributed for projects on non-Federal lands. State Foresters
    evaluate the progress made at reducing risk in communities at risk
    (CAR). A CAR may be considered at reduced risk by the State Forester if
    the community has mitigated high priority fuels according to the CWPP,
    has achieved Firewise or equivalent recognition, or has enacted
    mitigation or fire prevention ordinances. The following chart
    illustrates the current status of CWPP's, as well as Communities at
    Risk.

                           STATUS OF COMMUNITY WILDFIRE PROTECTION PLANS--COMMUNITIES AT RISK
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                        Communities
                       NASF region                      States with      Total CAR      covered by    CAR at reduced
                                                       CAR list/map                       CWPP's           risk
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    West............................................              17           6,169           3,145           1,412
    South...........................................              13          40,984           1,160             888
    Northeast.......................................              19           4,459             457           1,514
                                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------
          Total.....................................              49          51,612           4,762           3,814
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Volunteer Fire Assistance
        The Volunteer Fire Assistance (VFA) program provides grants to
    rural and volunteer fire departments which serve communities of fewer
    than 10,000 people. The grants are made by the State foresters and
    funded at a 50/50 cost share. Generally, most grants are for less than
    $5,000 and average $2,000 for a fire department. The grants are used
    for training, firefighting equipment, and safety equipment, including
    personal protective equipment. They are also used for organizing fire
    departments. Application for these funds is made by the fire
    departments to the respective State Forester. In fiscal year 2007, the
    VFA program accomplished the following:
      --increased firefighting capacity by providing technical assistance,
            training, supplies, and equipment to approximately 10,157
            small, rural communities;
      --provided nearly $14 million for technical and financial assistance
            to States to enhance firefighting capacity at State and local
            levels; and
      --supported the organization or expansion of 53 fire departments.

                                  VFA SUCCESS

    West Virginia uses Volunteer Fire Assistance Funding to Train Wildland
            Firefighters
        Rural fire protection in the 20 States served by the U.S. Forest
    Service Northeastern Area State and Private Forestry relies heavily on
    volunteer fire departments (VFDs) and their members. While State
    forestry agencies are legally responsible for the prevention and
    suppression of wildland fires, local VFDs provide the initial attack
    capabilities on most wildland fires. For the local communities and the
    State forestry agencies, a well-trained, equipped workforce is critical
    to the suppression of these fires.
        In 2003, the West Virginia Division of Forestry (WVDOF) developed a
    program to train volunteer firefighters in the suppression of wildland
    fires. Using funding from the Volunteer Fire Assistance Program, the
    WVDOF trains VFP personnel and university students in three courses
    that will enable them to fight wildland fires more safely and
    effectively--Basic Incident Command, Fire Weather Behavior and Basic
    Firefighter training. Upon successful completion of these courses,
    firefighters each receive a set of personal protective equipment--Nomex
    yellow shirt and green trousers. Firefighters are also eligible to take
    the work capacity test; and if successful, they receive an incident
    qualifications card--``red card,'' enabling them to participate on out-
    of-state fires with the WVDOF.
        Since 2003, the WVDOF has trained more than 390 wildland
    firefighters under the VFA Training Grant. This includes members from
    more than 83 fire departments, 49 students from the Forestry Department
    of the West Virginia University and 28 members of the West Virginia Air
    National Guard. The WVDOF has been able to increase its firefighting
    workforce while instilling proper wildland firefighting techniques and
    safety procedures in their firefighters.
        This training program has increase personnel available for the
    WVDOF's wildland fire crews for both in and out-of-state fire
    assignments. Since 2003, the WVDOF has conducted eight pack tests and
    issued more than 180 ``red cards.'' In addition, the firefighter
    training program has become a permanent part of the West Virginia
    University's School of Forestry curriculum.

    Prevention
        Smokey turned 63 years old in 2007, and his message is still
    needed. Many wildfires are carelessly started by humans each year,
    including the Angora Fire near Lake Tahoe, California, during the 2007
    fire season. The Angora fire ignited when an illegal warming fire was
    left unattended. It burned more than 3,100 acres, cost $12.7 million to
    suppress, and destroyed more than 250 homes.
        Fire Prevention Education Teams were deployed throughout the Nation
    before and during the 2007 fire season. The Southern Region leads the
    Nation with more than 400 trained prevention team members.
        The teams produced public service announcements (PSA's) for
    television and radio, created fliers and posters, and conducted
    Firewise Awareness workshops. One of the most notable team achievements
    was the PSA developed Georgia for national comedian Jeff Foxworthy who
    stated ``Even a 5th grader knows you shouldn't start a wildfire. Cut it
    out!'' The PSA's were aired throughout the Southern Region during their
    busy fire season.
        The prevention message across the country stressed the role of
    individuals in protecting homes and public lands from wildland fires.
    Prevention teams worked with partners at the University of Nevada--Reno
    Extension, to develop a `one-stop-shopping' website to educate
    residents on creating defensible space.
        The Fire Prevention Branch continued the partnership with the Ad
    Council and Radio Disney to increase the awareness of the Ad Council
    campaigns. The Smokey Bear Fire Prevention Campaign remained at the top
    of Radio Disney's list of campaigns.
        More than $12.9 million in media services were donated in the first
    quarter of 2007. Radio and outdoor/transit (billboards, bus signs,
    etc.) media accounted for 62 percent of total donated media support.
    Highlights of the media campaign's first quarter, when compared to the
    same quarter a year ago, include the following:
      --378 percent increase in newspaper-donated media;
      --187 percent increase in magazine-donated media;
      --687,801,976 impressions (each time a target audience member is
            exposed to the message) on the internet, including the New York
            Times, National Geographic, and Google websites; and
      --Spanish and English radio activity dominated air play with the
            public service announcements Smoke :60 and Sprinkler :60.
        Smokey Bear was the only PSA costumed icon at the ``Move it! Summer
    2007,'' mall tour, in 42 major markets during July through August.
    Smokey Bear was one of only six PSA campaigns featured at the Eisner
    Museum of Advertising and Design in Milwaukee. The exhibit continues
    through March 2008 and is estimated to be viewed by over 20,000
    visitors.
        The Southern Region, with help from Eastern and Pacific Southwest
    Regions, coordinated the Smokey Bear advertisement campaign for the
    Little League World Series. This Advertisement--American Traditions
    (Apple pie, the American flag, and Smokey Bear)--was spearheaded with
    help from the Virginia Department of Forestry; and the ad was located
    in each region's souvenir program guide. The National Gardens Clubs and
    the Forest Service annual poster contest reached 300,000 students.
    restoring fire adapted ecosystems: a forest service, department of the

                  INTERIOR AND NATURE CONSERVANCY PARTNERSHIP

        The Forest Service, Department of the Interior and Nature
    Conservancy continue to partner to accelerate fire restoration across
    the country. Restoring Fire Adapted Ecosystems is designed to advance
    the common goals of the sponsoring partners, while focusing on
    collaborative outreach, education, training, and community-based
    conservation. In 2007, the program centered on developing and promoting
    a common national fire education message that emphasizes the role of
    fire in the ecosystem. Fire and Aviation Management funded the public
    education campaign stressing fire's natural and beneficial role. The
    campaign complements Smokey Bear's message of preventing unwanted
    human-caused wildfires. This partnership supports the 10-Year Strategy
    Implementation Plan and the philosophies behind the Chief's program,
    ``Kids in the Woods,'' which encourages the education of youth in order
    for them to understand the link between their homes and the natural
    resources.

                     WILDLAND URBAN INTERFACE FIRE PROGRAM

        The 2007 fire season started early and got big fast with the Sweat
    Farm and Bugaboo fires in the Southern Region. Once again, wildland
    urban interface issues took the forefront. Development in the WUI
    continues to grow exponentially and along with it the cost of fire
    suppression and the danger to private property. The growth vastly
    outpaces available resources to protect the structures from wildland
    fire threats.
        Firewise is the best tool for homeowner mitigation of risk from
    wildland urban interface fires. Partnerships' grant and cooperative
    agreement with the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) supports
    the program. Its principles, when implemented, significantly increase
    defensible space and survivability. It provides a layer of safety for
    structures, homeowners and firefighters. Through this program, the
    Forest Service encourages and teaches property owners to take
    responsibility for mitigation on private land. Every dollar invested in
    the Firewise program yields $14 in matching funds or in-kind
    contributions.
        In 2007, Firewise principles were implemented in every State of the
    Nation, and Firewise Communities were in place in 36 States. There are
    Firewise liaisons in 45 States, and over 300,000 people live in
    Firewise communities.
        Overall visibility and awareness of Firewise and its principles has
    increased nationwide as a result of targeted outreach to media. Print
    and broadcast media reached over 30 million people with the Firewise
    message in 2007 alone. NFPA provided over 150,000 printed or audio-
    visual items, mostly free of charge, to fulfill orders received through
    the on-line catalog.
        The Firewise web site received an average of 40,000 individual hits
    per month during the peak of fire season, and those individuals visited
    an accumulated total of a million times on the site after logging in.
    More than 8,400 people are registered on the site to receive monthly
    Firewise Alerts--e-mails with items of interest and upcoming events
    such as chat sessions which are held monthly. Online learning
    enrollment for fire related topics is also increased.
        Assessing Wildfire Hazards in the Home Ignition Zone (HIZ) training
    sessions reached many more with train-the-trainer sessions in five
    locations across the country. The HIZ training sessions were so
    successful that they will be continued in 2008.
        Partnerships piloted a Firewise Hazard Mitigation Team during the
    2007 fire season. The concept concentrated on addressing issues
    resulting from increased growth in the wildland urban interface.

    Federal Excess Personal Property Program (FEPP)
        The Federal Excess Personal Property (FEPP) program allows the loan
    of Forest Service owned property, including high demand equipment and
    supplies, to State foresters in order to assist State and rural
    agencies and volunteer firefighters in preparedness for suppression and
    pre-suppression missions on Federal, State, and community lands. The
    FEPP program provides items from gloves to fire trucks, thereby
    effectuating substantial savings to the taxpayers.

    FEPP Success
        In 2007, a total of 393 trucks and 218 trailers were assigned to
    State cooperators. In most instances, these items were equipped with
    tanks, generators and pumps to assist firefighters on wildland and
    brush fires. Approximately 17 pieces of heavy equipment were loaned to
    State cooperators to help maintain and build fire roads. In fiscal year
    2007, the State forestry agencies have acquired nearly $30 million
    worth of FEPP. Currently, 49 States and 5 territories participate in
    the FEPP program.

    Department of Defense Firefighter Property Program (FFP)
        The Firefighter Property Program (FFP) is a new authority that
    began in March of 2006. The FFP allows a State to acquire title to
    excess military equipment and then assign that equipment to rural fire
    departments. The Department of Defense (DOD) authorized the Forest
    Service FEPP program to manage the transfer of DOD property through a
    Memorandum of Agreement.
        The major difference between the FFP and the FEPP program is the
    ownership of the items acquired. All items acquired in the FEPP program
    remain the property of the Forest Service, while items acquired under
    the FFP are transferred to the recipient. The FFP property is screened
    at a higher level, therefore, making better quality and larger quantity
    of property available for the firefighting agencies. The program also
    acquires items for emergency services such as search and rescue,
    hazardous material spills and emergency medical services (EMS)
    equipment in addition to firefighting equipment, making it beneficial
    to participating agencies. These functions often fall within the
    firefighting agencies' responsibilities but are not applicable to the
    FEPP program.

    FFP Success
        Currently, 23 States are able to acquire FFP through the program--
    Alabama, Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Idaho, Kansas,
    Kentucky, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana,
    Nebraska, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania,
    South Dakota, Texas, and Washington. New agreements between other
    States and the Forest Service are in the process, with most States
    expected to be signed up within the next 1 to 2 years.
        In 2007, more than $38 million in equipment went to 23 States.
    North Carolina Division of Forest Resources acquired two backhoes for
    clearing fire roads, providing a cost savings of more than $6 million
    to the State agency and its taxpayers.
        The FFP has allowed State cooperators to acquire more than 400
    refurbished trucks, equipped with pumps and generators to assist in
    rural in wildland firefighting in 2007. With an original acquisition
    cost of over $18 million, these free-issue vehicles provided an
    enormous savings to rural and volunteer fire departments not only in
    resources to fight fire but in the level of protection and safety there
    are able to provide their communities.

    Fire Management Today
        Founded in 1936, Fire Management Today has served the wildland fire
    community for more than 70 years by providing information on new
    techniques, technologies and ideas. In 2007, a new column was added
    ``Anchor Point,'' penned by Tom Harbour, Director of Fire and Aviation
    Management. This column focuses on the challenges and changes to Fire
    and Aviation Management. Another landmark event occurred in 2007 for
    Fire Management Today--the initiation of the Forest Service website
    (http://www.fs.fed.us/fire/fmt/) which has been updated with many
    previous issues bookmarked to provide ease in finding information.

                             NATIONAL RESPONSE PLAN

        The Forest Service is a land management agency with a unique
    combination of people, skills and resources that add significant value
    to the agency's national all-hazard response capability. The agency
    accepts their all-hazard role under the National Response Plan (NRP) as
    complimentary to its overall land management mission. In recent years,
    there has been a major increase in the number and complexity of all-
    hazard incidents resulting in unprecedented demands on Forest Service
    employees and its partners in emergency response.
        The NRP has been revised and the new draft is called the National
    Response Framework (NRF), which establishes a comprehensive all-hazards
    approach to enhance the ability of the United States to manage domestic
    incidents. It forms the basis of how the Federal Government coordinates
    with State, local, tribal governments and the private sector during
    incidents. Partnerships staffs took the lead for agency participation
    in the revision of the NRP by the Department of Homeland Security/
    Federal Emergency Management Agency (DHS/FEMA).
        The Forest Service is the Primary Agency and coordinator for
    Emergency Support Function 4, Firefighting (ESF4) under the NRP, and
    this role continues under the NRF. The function of ESF4 is to enable
    the detection and suppression of wildland, rural, and urban fires
    resulting from, or occurring coincidentally with, an incident of
    national significance. ESF4 manages and coordinates firefighting
    activities, including the detection and suppression of fires on Federal
    lands, and provides personnel, equipment, and supplies in support of
    State, tribal, and local agencies involved in rural and urban
    firefighting operations.
        To successfully accomplish this function, the Forest Service has
    close working relationships with partner departments and agencies.
    Department of the Interior agencies provide staffing support for ESF4,
    and wildland fire resource support for mission assignments during all-
    hazard responses. The U.S. Fire Administration (USFA) provides subject-
    matter experts and expertise regarding structural/urban/suburban fire
    and fire-related activities. The Forest Service, in conjunction with
    USFA, is developing a standardized training program for ESF4 personnel
    and the production of job aids and other ancillary materials for use
    during ESF4 activations.
        There have been many changes to Federal disaster response based on
    lessons learned from the 2004 and 2005 hurricane seasons. ESF4
    personnel participated in exercises to test the procedures resulting
    from the changes. Several exercises, involving many Federal departments
    and agencies, were held during 2007. The Forest Service was an active
    participant in these exercises at both the national and regional
    levels.

                    NATIONAL RESPONSE PLAN--SUCCESS STORIES

        Some highlights of the Forest Service's all-hazard support to the
    National Response Plan during fiscal year 2007 include:
      --Kansas tornados--when a tornado destroyed the town of Greensburg,
            Kansas, in May 2007, FEMA activated ESF4 regionally at the RRCC
            in Kansas City. ESF4 deployed a Forest Service National
            Incident Management Organization (NIMO) incident management
            team and an Interagency Hotshot Crew to establish and manage a
            base camp for emergency responders.
      --Micronesia floods--when salt water intrusion from storm surge and
            unusually high tides in May 2007 wiped out the subsistence food
            crops in Chuuk, Micronesia, FEMA activated ESF4 regionally to
            deploy Forest Service personnel as part of a preliminary damage
            assessment team and later to establish and manage a food
            distribution program, providing quality assurance and technical
            assistance to a USDA feeding program.
      --Hurricane Dean--Hurricane Dean was one of the strongest hurricanes
            on record; and at one point, threatened several U.S.
            territories and States. As a precaution, FEMA activated ESF4
            regionally at the Regional Response Coordination Centers (RRCC)
            in New York (for Puerto Rico) and Denton, Texas; and at the
            National Response Coordination Center (NRCC) in Washington,
            D.C. Logistics Section personnel were deployed to provide
            expertise, quality assurance and technical assistance to FEMA
            for the establishment of a base camp.

               NATIONAL INCIDENT MANAGEMENT SYSTEM (NIMS) SUPPORT

        The NIMS outlines a standard approach to incident management and
    response that follows the wildland fire model--one used by the Forest
    Service and other fire agencies for years. It integrates effective
    practices in emergency response into a comprehensive national framework
    for incident management. In addition, it enables responders at all
    levels to work together more effectively and efficiently to manage
    domestic incidents no matter what the cause, size or complexity.
        Partnerships took the lead for agency's participation in the
    upgrade of the National Incident Management System (NIMS) by the DHS/
    FEMA. Partnership subject matter experts were embedded in the senior
    steering committee for NIMS and chaired the working group which
    developed guidelines for resource typing, credentialing, multi-agency
    coordination, emergency operations centers and an emergency response
    guide book.
        NIMS is of supreme importance for national incident management, but
    its update will have minimal impact on the agency since the Forest
    Service's current system is grounded in the NIIMS and has been for
    years. Impact to the agency includes:
      --training of agency personnel (IS-700 and IS-800);
      --review of Emergency Plans at the District, Forest, and Regional
            levels;
      --review of agreements to ensure NIMS compliance; and
      --resource typing of non-fire assets for disaster service.
        Each Region has identified a NIMS contact to assist in coordination
    of information and to ensure compliance.
        Over 600 Federal, State, local, tribal, non-profit, and private
    company representatives assisted in the process. Partnerships staffs
    were part of the ten-person final adjudication committee. The upgraded
    NIMS document was ready for release by the June 1, 2007, timeframe
    established by the White House. The NRP is awaiting final review and
    comment.

             FIRE AND AVIATION MANAGEMENT INTERNATIONAL ACTIVITIES

        Over 100 years of wildland firefighting experience has earned the
    U.S. Forest Service a worldwide reputation. This experience, along with
    the technical and professional expertise of fire specialists in the
    Forest Service, provides the basis for FAM's international involvement.
        Partnerships staff both coordinate and manage fire requests for
    international programs. FAM builds and maintains strategic national
    alliances through emergency firefighting arrangements with Canada,
    Mexico, Australia, and New Zealand.
        Some examples of the success experienced by this program are as
    follows:
      --When firefighting resources became scarce during the 2007 western
            wildland fire season, Canada provided support through the
            Canada/United States Reciprocal Forest Fire Fighting
            Arrangement. The United States also provided firefighting
            support to Australia in January and February 2007 through the
            United States/Australian Participating Agencies Arrangement.
      --FAM employees traveled to Greece as part of a Disaster Assistance
            Support Program (DASP) wildfire technical assessment team in
            September 2007. The team provided technical assistance and
            support to the government of Greece during their disastrous
            fire season.
      --FAM employees provided instruction in all aspects of fire
            management on assignments to Mexico, India, Jamaica, and
            several countries in the Association of Southeast Asian Nations
            (ASEAN).
      --Fire and Aviation Management has been an active member of the
            Forest Commission (NAFC) Fire Management Working Group (FMWG)
            for over 40 years. The NAFC is one of six regional forestry
            commissions of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the
            United Nations (FAO). NAFC, which was established in 1958,
            provides a forum for fire policy and technical information
            sharing for member nations (Canada, Mexico and the United
            States) to discuss and address North American forest and fire
            issues. The FMWG, established in 1962, is one of nine working
            groups under the NAFC.
      --In May 2007, Fire and Aviation Management supported the NAFC-FMWG
            by co-sponsoring the 4th International Wildland Fire Conference
            in Seville, Spain. FAM and NAFC-FMWG supported the exchange of
            experiences and technological advances by hosting a study tour
            Australians and New Zealanders. The tour visited sites and
            studied current fire management issues throughout Canada and
            the western and southern United States during September 2007.

                       Part III.--Looking Ahead for 2008

        In fiscal year 2008, Fire and Aviation Management will continue to
    support the Chief's initiatives through the deployment of a program
    with specific focus areas and planned activities. These emphasis areas
    and activities, highlighted below, will enhance the program and
    agency's performance and efficiency. They, and others, will be integral
    components in Fire and Aviation Management's Strategic Plan.

                               CHIEF'S INITIATIVE

        Fire and Aviation Management will continue to support the Chief's
    ``Climate, Water and Kids'' initiative through an integrated program
    which includes:
      --reduced hazardous fuels and the integration of fire within
            ecosystems;
      --expanded use of Appropriate Management Response and Wildland Fire
            Use;
      --protection of vital watersheds during wildland fires and through
            the restoration process; and
      --an education program, reaching all ages, that emphasizes fire
            prevention, the natural role of fire in fire-adapted
            ecosystems, and the connection of natural resources to the
            homes and communities surrounding the national forests and
            grasslands.

                                  FOCUS AREAS

    Management Controls and Operational Efficiencies
        Fire and Aviation Management (FAM) will maintain its emphasis on
    management controls and operational strategies which improve program
    oversight, delivery, effectiveness and efficiency. Utilizing rigorous
    management controls such as the Chief's Inter-Deputy Group to provide
    Executive level fiscal leadership and oversight; the Chief's Principle
    Representative for fires of national significance; and the Line Officer
    certification process for incident level oversight will emphasize cost
    containment. Strategic use and deployment of firefighting resources and
    implementation of aviation efficiencies such as centralizing aviation
    services and assets will be underscored.

    Risk-Informed Management
        The Forest Service will continue to accentuate the importance of
    decision support technology development for risk informed management
    strategies to support implementation of Appropriate Management Response
    and prioritization of hazardous fuels. Development and refinement of
    systems and services such as the Wildland Fire Decision Support System,
    the Ecosystem Management Decision Support System and Predictive
    Services are essential to the agency's success. These systems and other
    tools will support managers in making informed decisions, thereby
    increasing the likelihood of success and potentially reducing costs.

    Integrated Fuels Management
        The Forest Service will continue to work collaboratively with other
    Federal, State, local, tribal, government and non-governmental
    organizations, and other partners to ensure the accomplishment of
    mutual objectives. Program funding will be prioritized and integrated
    to accomplish Healthy Forests Initiative (HFI) and Healthy Forests
    Restoration Act (HFRA) objectives, efficiently and effectively.
    Continued emphasis will be placed on the integration of Community
    Wildfire Protection Plans (CWPP) with Federal hazardous fuels
    mitigation priorities.

                               PLANNED ACTIVITIES

    Readiness Capability and Mobilization
        The Forest Service will provide readiness resources comparable to
    fiscal year 2007, including approximately: 10,480 firefighters, 120
    helicopters and 20 airtankers. The agency will use Predictive Services
    and other resources to analyze potential fire activity to guide
    strategic placement of resources. All actions will occur with
    firefighter and public safety as the primary consideration.

    Fire and Aviation Management Strategic Planning
        FAM continues to develop a Fire and Aviation Management Strategic
    Plan linked in part to the current Program Assessment Rating Tool
    (PART) Improvement Plan. The strategy will define program components
    relative to incentives, accountability and cost containment while
    considering risks and establishing objectives to evaluate if strategies
    are being achieved in an effective and efficient manner.

    Reduce Hazardous Fuels
        The Forest Service will continue hazardous fuels reduction efforts
    by treating approximately 2.9 million acres of hazardous fuel and
    reducing flammability of the forests, woodlands, shrublands and
    grasslands including 2 million acres in the wildland urban interface
    (WUI) and 868,000 acres in areas outside the WUI areas. Additionally,
    fuel loads will be reduced on approximately 1.5 million acres as a
    secondary benefit through other vegetation management activities,
    wildland fire use events, Hazardous Mitigation Grants awarded under the
    State Fire Assistance program, and activities of southern Nevada Public
    Lands Management Act.
        The Forest Service will continue participation in the Federal Woody
    Biomass Utilization Working Group to promote and support the
    utilization of woody biomass and woody biomass products from forest and
    woodland treatments.

    Restoration and Post-Fire Recovery of Fire Adapted Ecosystems
        The agency will continue to promote the increase of wildland fire
    use consistent with land and resource management plans and public and
    firefighter safety. These acres will be reported annually. On lands
    that are severely burned by wildland fire in fiscal year 2008,
    emergency stabilization, rehabilitation and restoration treatments will
    be implemented. Burned areas will continue to be reforested through a
    5-year cost-share agreement with American Forests for Wildfire ReLeaf.
    Additionally, the Interagency Program to Supply and Manage Native Plan
    Materials--a long-term strategy to improve nursery and plan material
    center infrastructure and monitor restoration effects and public/
    private partnerships, will be continued.

    Promote Community Assistance
        FAM will partner with the National Fire Protection Association,
    State, Federal and nonprofit partners to encourage community
    responsibility for hazard mitigation through land use planning,
    building codes, landscaping codes, zoning and community fire protection
    planning through the Firewise Communities Program.
        Technical assistance, training, supplies and equipment will be
    provided to more than 6,500 small rural communities and 5,075 volunteer
    fire departments. Firefighting capacity will be increased by providing
    technical assistance, training, supplies and equipment to rural
    communities through Volunteer Assistance Fire Assistance (USDA Forest
    Service) program.

        Mr. Rey. I will also submit for the record of the hearing
    continued progress in over 40 other areas of cost containment,
    and, finally, concluding the remarks on fire, we will submit
    for the record of this hearing the Firefighting Retention Study
    that the committee requested that we do and that we made
    available to your staffs earlier this week.
        [The information follows:]

                   MANAGEMENT CONTROLS AND OPERATIONAL EFFICIENCIES: LEADERSHIP UPDATED--APRIL 9, 2008
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Management controls and                            Parties involved
           efficiencies \1\              Benefits \2\             \3\         Action required \4\        Status
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    L-1
    Appropriate Management          Decision-maker has     Fire and          Clearly articulate     Letter from the
     Response (AMR).--Promote AMR    the greatest           Aviation          the policy for         Chief sent to
     provisions of 2005 Federal      flexibility in         Management        consistency across     field units
     Wildland Fire Management        management of          (FAM),            all units.             regarding
     Policy in a clear, concise      incident from the      Ecosystem        Develop                 policy and AMR
     manner. Reaffirm leaders'       onset, which can be    Management        accountability         ,on April 19,
     intent for full                 supported through      Coordination      standards for IMT      2007.
     implementation of AMR--enable   decision-making        (EMC),            and Line Officer      On March 24,
     full range of tactical          tools.                 interagency       performance.           2008, WFLC
     options.                       Consistent              partners.        Review policy with      approved the
                                     implementation of                        interagency partners   next step in
                                     AMR will lead to                         to allow movement      AMR development
                                     greater flexibility                      between suppression    to establish
                                     in wildland fire                         and WFU as needed.     WFDSS prototype
                                     management.                              Remove the             units for the
                                                                              distinction between    2008 fire
                                                                              WFU and suppression.   season.
                                                                             Develop an AMR          Information
                                                                              Guidebook              collected and
                                                                             FAM and budget should   lessons learned
                                                                              modify handbook        from those
                                                                              direction for          prototypes will
                                                                              suppression            be used in the
                                                                              authority to support   consideration
                                                                              WFU.                   of national
                                                                                                     policy
                                                                                                     adjustments for
                                                                                                     2009.
                                                                                                    Agency Savings
                                                                                                     est. at $200M
                                                                                                     total all
                                                                                                     items.
    L-2
    Land and Fire Management        Enhanced decision      FAM, EMC........  Decision by NLT to     Interagency
     Plans.--Land and Fire           making environment                       have FAM and           group developed
     Management Plans (LMP and       provides support for                     planning work          a FMP template,
     FMP) for each unit should       decision makers who                      together on FS         which includes
     consider a full range of AMR,   select AMRs that may                     Manual changes.        AMR. Template
     including point protection as   entail higher risk.                     Provide decision        will be used in
     an equally acceptable                                                    criteria to allow      revision or
     approach to perimeter control.                                           for consideration of   future
                                                                              investments in         development of
                                                                              reducing or            FMP's.
                                                                              maintaining fuel      The template
                                                                              profiles rather than   will be
                                                                              simply the cost of     distributed to
                                                                              suppression.           the field for
                                                                                                     their use May
                                                                                                     2008.
    L-3
    Line Officer Certification.--   Improved decision-     Line Officer      LOT team work in       Developed and
     Enhance skills in incident      making ability at      Team (LOT), FAM.  conjunction with FAM   implemented an
     decision making in high risk    the onset of a new                       to reevaluate          interim
     environments. Line Officers     incident when the                        current policies in    certification.
     (LO) core competencies should   greatest benefits                        manual.               Letter to RF's 6/
     be certified on criteria        can be achieved.                        Develop Line Officer    01/07.
     including:                     Enhanced skills in                        Certification
      --Cost containment and         the preparation of                       Process.
       Delegation of Authority       DOA, specifically in                    Develop a template
       (DOA).                        development of                           for RFs (Regional
      --Incident management and      language on how to                       Foresters) to use
       processes.                    manage the incident.                     for interim
      --Wildland Fire Situation     Line Officers are                         certification,
       Analysis/Wildland Fire        certified                                available for
       Implementation Plan (WFSA/    commensurate with                        implementation prior
       WFIP) and other decision      the complexity of                        to 2007 fire season.
       support tools.                the incident.                            (see core
      --Situational awareness of                                              competencies
       resource availability and                                              framework developed
       allocation.                                                            in R9). This interim
      --Working knowledge of fire                                             certification will
       ecology and behavior.                                                  be used until
      --Safety....................                                            certification
      --IMT (Incident Management                                              procedures are in
       Team) review and                                                       place.
       evaluations.
    L-3a
    Line Officer Simulation.--      Better informed        LOT team working  FAM to develop         Under
     Build Line Officer competency   decision-makers at     with  FAM.        proposals for          consideration
     through the use of simulation/  the local level.                         approval by LOT team.  with LO items
     sandtable exercises.           Practice high risk                       Consider LO             for AAR (xxxxx)
                                     decisions in low                         certification with     of successes
                                     risk environment.                        420/520 type           and gaps.
                                                                              simulations.
    L-3b
    Shadow Assignments.--Organize   Provide for better     LOT team,         LOT team is            Shadow and
     and manage a program to         decision-making in     Regional          developing shadow      mentoring
     provide support and training    early phases of        Foresters, FAM.   protocols.             program
     for inexperienced agency        incident, as well as                    Regions should          implemented in
     administrators.                 increased experience                     develop and maintain   2007.
                                     base for future Line                     a list of qualified
                                     Officer assignments.                     line officers for
                                                                              implementation.
                                                                              Incorporate the LO
                                                                              items for increasing
                                                                              their skills and
                                                                              abilities.
    L-3c
    WFSA Training.--Ensure          Consistent             FAM.............  FAM to work with       Regions
     adequate WFSA training for      application of WFSA                      research.              accomplished
     line officers and fire          development and                         Identify and develop    WFSA training
     management personnel,           alternatives with                        an implementation      using
     focusing on capturing           better decision                          strategy to            centralized
     ``commanders' intent'' in the   making and long-term                     accomplish WFSA        methods.
     development of alternatives     reduction of costs.                      training. Consider    Training is
     as opposed to the technical                                              distance learning      incorporated
     use of WFSA program \5\.                                                 and web-based          into Fire
                                                                              training               Management
                                                                              opportunities.         Leadership
                                                                             Develop a mandatory     (FML) for Local
                                                                              one-day module for     Line Officers.
                                                                              line officer and      Focused on WFDSS
                                                                              fire management        implementation.
                                                                              personnel.
    L-4 (recommendation linked to
     GO-3)                          Local units would      LOT, National     LOT to develop         Complete.
    Chief's Principle                receive decision       Leadership Team   criteria for roles    CPR's were
     Representative (CPR).--         support from the       (NLT).            and responsibilities   assigned by the
     Assigned by the Chief to        national and                             of CPR.                W.O. to all
     provide decision support on     regional level                                                  fires over $10
     incidents of national           including the use of                                            million.
     significance. This position     a decision support                                             8 CPR's assigned
     would be assigned to any fire   team of experts.                                                in fiscal year
     exceeding or projected to       Provides opportunity                                            2007.
     exceed $10 million of Forest    for mentoring of
     Service (FS) expenditures.      line officers with
    Regional Foresters               limited fire                                                   Anything to add
     Representative (RFR):           experience. Goal is                                             about RFRs for
     Assigned by the Regional        to reduce the cost                                              2007 season.
     Forester to provide decision    of long term fires
     support. RFR would be           projected to cost
     assigned to any incident        over $10 million.
     exceeding $5 million of FS
     expenditures.
    L-5
    Line Officer Authority.--Use    Current WFSA process   LOT, NLT........  FAM develop policy     Approving levels
     current benchmarks of $2        is only authority to                     and criteria for       were not
     million, $10 million and $50    spend--once                              manual change to be    changed.
     million for Line Officer        approved, authority                      approved by NLT.      RFR's were
     approval. Tie this to the       still stays with                                                assigned for
     development of Line Officer     local agency                                                    fires over $5
     competencies in L-3.            administrator.                                                  million.
                                    Consistent with                                                 LO training
                                     current chain of                                                provided for
                                     command established                                             complex fire
                                     in the manual.                                                  situations.
                                    Ensures
                                     organizational
                                     authority
                                     commensurate with
                                     incident
                                     significance.
                                    Improve decision-
                                     making ability at
                                     the onset of an
                                     incident.
    L-6
    Decision Support (Current).--   Improved decision-     FAM, research,    WO letter to the       The April 19,
     Ensure units develop a fully    making process at      LOT, NLT.         field directing        2007 letter
     considered Most Cost            all phases of                            units to do pre-       from the LOT
     Effective Alternative in the    incident, which will                     season work for WFSA/  included key
     WFSA \6\.                       reduce costs through                     WFIP requirements.     points for the
    Emphasis pre-season work for     the duration of the                     Emphasize designation   Line Officers
     WFSA and WFIP development       incident.                                of analysts and pre-   which included
     such as fire costs, historic                                             season updates of      their
     costs and other data layers.                                             WFSA data during       involvement
     This is necessary in order to                                            preparedness reviews.  with WFSA.
     make initial decisions under                                            At a minimum,           Manual
     AMR.                                                                     revalidate WFSAs and   modifications
    Ensure WFSA strategy                                                      traditional cost       are ongoing.
     implemented is achievable.                                               benchmarks when team
                                                                              rotations occur.
                                                                              Ensure that IMTs
                                                                              adequately reflect
                                                                              the selected WFSA
                                                                              alternative and DOA
                                                                              as they report daily
                                                                              in the ICS-209.
                                                                             FAM and LOT work
                                                                              toward FSM
                                                                              modifications.
                                                                             Tie in direction set
                                                                              in WO letter into
                                                                              proposed training
                                                                              module.
    L-7
    Decision Support (Future).--    Improved decision-     FAM, research,    FAM working with LOT   WFDSS and other
     Continue investment and         making process at      LOT.              team and research to   tools were
     expansion of decision support   all phases of         Integrate DOI      ensure decision        available to
     system technologies; FSPro,     incident will reduce   into this         making support is      the field and
     RAVAR, and SCI for use with     costs through the      project.          supported (WFDSS)      used
     Wildland Fire Decision          duration of the                          and provide more       extensively
     Support System (WFDSS).         incident.                                opportunity to         throughout
    WFDSS needs to equally          Provides well                             utilize new tools      fiscal year
     consider Fire Use for           documented and                           such as FSPro early    2007.
     resource benefit with other     repeatable protocols                     on.                    Investment is
     suppression-oriented portions   that demonstrate the                    Establish Decision      ongoing. WFDSS
     of AMR. WFSA and WFIP need to   cost effectiveness                       Support Teams to       development is
     be integrated into one          of suppression                           assist units with      continuing.
     product \7\.                    strategies.                              development of        The Forest
                                                                              incident strategies.   Service begins
                                                                              Require FS PRO and     transitioning
                                                                              RAVAR on fires         from WFSA to
                                                                              projected to cost      WFDSS during
                                                                              over $10 million.      fiscal year
                                                                                                     2008 for full
                                                                                                     implementation
                                                                                                     in fiscal year
                                                                                                     2009.
    L-8
    Stratified Cost Index.--Make    Sets specific          FAM, NLT, LOT,    FAM develop policy     SCI is under
     full use of the SCI for IMT/    benchmarks for cost    research.         and criteria for       development.
     Line Officer evaluations for    containment                              manual change to be    SCI highlighted
     cost efficiency,                regardless of the                        approved by NLT.       problems with
     effectiveness and performance.  socio-political                         Review and develop a    reporting and
    Utilization of SCI to            environment.                             guide for              tracking
     establish an incident budget   Data used comes                           implementation of      dollars.
     is required for fires           directly from units                      SCI.                  DOI will begin
     projected to cost over $5      Provides true                            Establish a system to   using SCI in
     million.                        incentive for using                      address the need for   the future as
                                     least cost option                        additional authority   well. Should
                                     under WFSA.                              and provide for        develop an
                                    Provides the ability                      incentives and         interagency
                                     to analyze spending                      disincentives.         guide if this
                                     trends of IMTs.                                                 occurs.
                                                                                                     Development of
                                                                                                     performance
                                                                                                     standards for
                                                                                                     line officers
                                                                                                     and Incident
                                                                                                     Management
                                                                                                     Teams is in
                                                                                                     progress.
    L-9
    Incentives.--Provide            Line Officer           LOT, NLT,         FAM and LOT with       Interagency task
     incentives related to getting   decisions resulting    research.         concurrence of NLT     group
     ``credit'' for acres burned     in lower costs                           to work on policy      established to
     that meet management            should have the                          development.           develop policy.
     objectives whether WFU or       capability of                           Stratified Cost Index   WFLC approved
     suppression. IA effectiveness   directing a                              should be              the shift to
     should also be a measurement    percentage of the                        incorporated.          managing
     based on the Stratified Cost    savings back to                                                 wildland fire
     Index for a particular unit.    their home unit.                                                as wildland
     Federal Fire Policy must be                                                                     fire use and
     changed.                                                                                        suppression
                                                                                                     concurrently 3-
                                                                                                     24-2008.
    L-10
    Predictive Services for Line    Improved early and     FAM, interagency  FAM to propose study   An interagency
     Officers.--Make Line Officers   successive decision    partners.         on Predictive          review of the
     aware of current tools and      making, leads to                         Services through       predictive
     decision models. Expand the     lower costs on large                     (NFLT). Commit         Services
     use of new decision models,     fires. Better                            resources to expand    organization
     including FSPro, earlier in     effectiveness for                        predictive             was completed.
     the decision-making process.    initial attack.                          capabilities, make     A national
                                     Improved national                        services widely        program is
                                     mobilization of                          available.             developed and a
                                     resources.                              Expand and redefine     charter was
                                    Also relates to                           the objective of       signed this
                                     operational                              Predictive Services.   year.
                                     recommendations.                         Include operations    FSPro was used
                                                                              staff in discussions.  widely in
                                                                                                     fiscal year
                                                                                                     2007.
    L-11
    Comptroller.--Developed as a    Assists Line Officers  Associate Deputy  Establish policy and   Complete.
     National Inter-Deputy Command   in managing            Chief S&PF, NLT.  roles for the Inter-   Implemented in
     Group to provide large fire     suppression costs.                       Deputy Command Group.  fiscal year
     and transactional oversight.   Transactional                            The position will       2007 and
    Inter-Deputy group is            oversight will                           develop a set of       continuing in
     comprised of Deputy Chief for   result in cost                           accountability         fiscal year
     State and Private Forestry      savings associated                       measures to be         2008.
     (SPF), Deputy Chief for         with ABCD                                reviewed at all       Developed as a
     National Forest System (NFS),   miscellaneous funds,                     levels..               National Inter-
     Director of Fire and Aviation   DOI/FS offset, etc.                                             Deputy Command
     Management (FAM), and                                                                           Group to
     Director of Program and                                                                         provide large
     Budget Analysis (PBA).                                                                          fire and
                                                                                                     transactional
                                                                                                     oversight.
                                                                                                    Inter-Deputy
                                                                                                     group is
                                                                                                     comprised of
                                                                                                     Deputy Chief
                                                                                                     for State and
                                                                                                     Private
                                                                                                     Forestry (SPF),
                                                                                                     Deputy Chief
                                                                                                     for National
                                                                                                     Forest System
                                                                                                     (NFS), Director
                                                                                                     of Fire and
                                                                                                     Aviation
                                                                                                     Management
                                                                                                     (FAM), and
                                                                                                     Director of
                                                                                                     Program and
                                                                                                     Budget Analysis
                                                                                                     (PBA)
    L-12
    Cost Containment Reviews.--     Implementation of SCI  FAM, fiscal.....  FAM request fiscal to  Cost containment
     Modify current cost             and AMR may                              drop requirement.      review begins
     containment review team         eliminate the need                                              when the
     process. Begin the process at   for post-event cost                                             incident begins
     onset of the incident.          containment reviews.                                            by utilizing
                                                                                                     decision
                                                                                                     support tools
                                                                                                     and predictive
                                                                                                     modeling, RFR,
                                                                                                     and CPR.
                                                                                                    Forest Service
                                                                                                     developed and
                                                                                                     utilized a
                                                                                                     Large Fire Cost
                                                                                                     Review
                                                                                                     Guidebook in
                                                                                                     fiscal year
                                                                                                     2007. An
                                                                                                     interagency
                                                                                                     guidebook is in
                                                                                                     review.
    L-13
    Cost Containment Training.--    Ensures consistency    Interagency       FAM (AD for risk       Regional pre-
     Assess existing training to     of cost containment    training          management) review     season meetings
     ensure cost containment is a    training nationwide    groups.           LFML curriculum for    held discussing
     focus, particularly among       which translates                         appropriate level of   cost
     cadres currently working on     into clearer                             cost containment.      containment and
     revisions to curriculum.        expectations in the                                             decision making
                                     DOA to the IMT from                                             specific to
                                     the Line Officer.                                               fire. Two
                                                                                                     training
                                                                                                     sessions for
                                                                                                     OIG reviewers
                                                                                                     were held in
                                                                                                     fiscal year
                                                                                                     2007. Two more
                                                                                                     were held in
                                                                                                     fiscal year
                                                                                                     2008.
    L-14
    Structure Protection.--         Consistent             USDA-FS, USDI,    WO FAM policy          A letter was
     Evaluate current structure      understanding of       State, and        discussion with NWCG.  sent to the
     protection policies to          roles and              local            Develop National        field
     determine better utilization    responsibilities in    governments.      Wildland Fire          transmitting
     of local rural fire             the Wildland Urban                       Policy.                the policy in
     departments for increased       Interface.                              Define the mission in   the FSM on
     capacity.                                                                the Wildland Urban     August 13,
                                                                              Interface as defined   2007. This will
                                                                              in the National Fire   be discussed at
                                                                              Plan.                  NWCG in fiscal
                                                                                                     year 2008.
    L-15
    MAFFS.--Over the past 5 years,  The new MAFFS units    Department of     Chief discuss with     Task group
     Modular Airborne Firefighting   will provide for an    Defense (DOD),    Secretary of           associated with
     Systems (MAFFS) operations      opportunity to         FAM,              Agriculture for        the aviation
     have continued to increase in   streamline             interagency.      potential              feasibility
     cost due to military adding     operations on both                       implementation.        study is
     requirements. Explore           sides and would                         Initiate discussion     reviewing this.
     utilization of MAFFS through    facilitate                               with DOD to identify   Information
     different venues such that      additional cost                          potential              will be
     cost savings can be realized.   efficiencies.                            efficiencies in the    submitted by
     Pursue cost sharing with       Potential Cost                            mobilization,          the end of
     military rather than full       Savings: $5 million.                     support, and           2007.
     reimbursement.                                                           demobilization of     MAFFS were not
                                                                              the MAFFS operations.  utilized in
                                                                             Explore venues in the   2007--discussio
                                                                              private sector for     ns occurred at
                                                                              use with MAFFS.        National Multi-
                                                                                                     Agency
                                                                                                     Coordination
                                                                                                     Center (NMAC)
                                                                                                     to ensure cost
                                                                                                     savings
                                                                                                     remained a
                                                                                                     focus item.
                                                                                                    Estimated
                                                                                                     savings of
                                                                                                     $955,000 per
                                                                                                     week for a
                                                                                                     period of at
                                                                                                     least 8 weeks.
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                     MANAGEMENT CONTROL AND EFFICIENCIES: OPERATIONS
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Management controls and
             efficiencies                  Benefits        Parties involved     Action required          Status
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Aviation Operations

    AO-1
    National Helicopter             Immediate savings      Dispatch,         Assistant Director     Completed.
     Coordinator.--Lack of real      through utilization    aviation          for Operations to      Employee start
     time field intelligence for     of appropriate         community, end    NICC Coordinator.      date 04/27/
     appropriate tracking and        helicopter resources.  users.           Establish a permanent   2008.
     assignment of helicopter       Potential Cost                            full-time position    Total savings
     resources.                      Savings: $2-3                            for helicopter         estimated $15-
                                     million annually \8\.                    oversight and to       20 million by
                                                                              manage the             managing the
                                                                              Helicopter Cost        exclusive use
                                                                              Efficiency Program     and limiting
                                                                              (HCEP) database.       Call When
                                                                                                     Needed (CWN).
    AO-1a
    Performance-Based Aircraft      Best performing        Dispatchers,      FAM will modify        HCEP program
     Dispatching.--Frequently,       resource for field     Acquisition       current aircraft       updates
     dispatched aircraft do not      conditions will        Management        dispatching            identified
     meet operational performance    provide most           (AQM), Agency     practices to           after beta test
     needs in the field.             efficient and cost     Aircraft          implement best-value   currently
                                     effective              Inspectors, end   aircraft dispatching   underway. New
                                     utilization.           users.            tool called            version
                                    Potential Cost                            Helicopter Cost        scheduled for
                                     Savings.--$1.5                           Efficiency Program     field use in
                                     million annually \9\.                    (HCEP). Develop        2008.
                                                                              communication
                                                                              strategy to gain
                                                                              field acceptance
                                                                              immediately.
    AO-1b
    Centralization (C&C) of         Reduction in severity  FAM, dispatch,    FAM Director will      Type 1 and Type
     Exclusive Use Helicopters.--    costs by linking       Predictive        initiate decision      2 helicopters
     Utilization of aircraft will    resources to           Services,         and begin              are now
     be based on Predictive          Predictive Services.   Assistant         implementation         consolidated
     Services. All helicopters       This would also        Director for      strategy.              into two
     will be considered national     reduce the use of      Operations.      Remove regional         national
     resources rather than           CWN resources.                           boundaries for         contracts.
     National Fire Management       Potential Cost                            aircraft utilization.  Managed as
     Analysis System (NFMAS) model   Savings.--$1.5                                                  national shared
     of Most Efficient Level         million based on                                                resources.
     resources \10\.                 reduction of CWN
                                     aircraft
                                     mobilization under
                                     severity needs.
    AO-2
    Exclusive Use Helicopters.--    The addition of        FAM, AQM........  Review Type III costs  Completed.
     Utilize the ``Wildland Fire     exclusive use                            with intent to add     Appropriate
     Management Aerial Application   helicopters will                         additional Type III    number of Type
     Study'' (August 2005) to        increase                                 helicopters for        1 and 2
     determine the number of Type    preparedness costs,                      exclusive use.         helicopters
     I and Type II Exclusive Use     but will result in a                    Reduce CWNs.            determined for
     helicopters to be added to      substantial                                                     maximum cost
     the system.                     reduction in                                                    efficiency
                                     suppression costs                                               based on actual
                                     due to fewer CWN                                                use statistics.
                                     helicopters.                                                    Aircraft have
                                    Potential Cost                                                   been contracted
                                     Savings: $39.8                                                  under AO-1b
                                     million ($6.1                                                   recommendation.
                                     million for Type II
                                     aircraft, $33.7
                                     million for Type I
                                     aircraft) \11\.
    AO-3
    Performance-Based Contracts.--  Improved               AQM, Department   Revise the             Completed.
     Helicopter contracts are        effectiveness of the   of the Interior   contracting system     Linear
     currently awarded based on      airframes in the       (DOI), vendors.   by implementing the    optimization
     antiquated aircraft typing      field, resulting in                      best value             model developed
     criteria.                       cost reductions in                       helicopter             for technical
                                     price/lb delivery.                       performance-based      evaluation and
                                     We would obtain more                     contracting.           best-value
                                     modern aircraft with                    FAM submit request      award for
                                     better safety                            for contract action    national
                                     features. Improved                       and performance        helicopter
                                     customer service and                     based requirements     contracts.
                                     support during                           to AQM.
                                     dispatching process.
                                    Potential Cost
                                     Savings: $581,000
    AO-4
    Long-Term Aviation Contracts.-- Services will cost     FAM, AQM,         FAM submit request     Completed. 2008
     Develop long term contracts     less due to greater    industry,         for contract action    large airtanker
     to achieve an overall           availability of        interagency.      and requirements to    contract is a 5
     reduction in helicopter and     aviation resources.                      AQM. Look at adding    year fixed
     airtanker costs.                Longer contracts are                     additional Exclusive   length.
                                     more cost effective.                     Use helicopters.       National
                                     Provides industry                       Explore partnerships    helicopter
                                     stability, thereby                       across regional and    contracts are
                                     creating a greater                       agency boundaries as   transitioning
                                     incentive to invest                      well as multi-         to a 4 year
                                     in new technology.                       mission capability.    cycle.
                                    Potential Cost
                                     Savings: $4.8
                                     million for 180 day
                                     contracts, $24
                                     million for 5 year
                                     contracts.
    AO-5
    Limiting Aviation Resources.--  More resources for     FAM, Incident     FAM will establish     Geographic Multi-
     Consider limiting/re-           initial attack or      Management        benchmarks for long    Agency
     evaluating use of aviation      reassignment. Forces   Teams, NLT.       term aviation use.     Coordination
     resources as an incident        consideration of                         Justify extended use   Center (GMAC)
     increases in scale and          aviation needs/costs                     under WFSA             managed
     duration and costs approach     in strategy                              alternative.           helicopters at
     benchmarks.                     development on long                                             the geographic
                                     term incidents.                                                 area level in
                                    Potential Cost                                                   fiscal year
                                     Savings: $3 million                                             2007. Also,
                                     per \1/4\ incident                                              utilized
                                     time \12\.                                                      priority
                                                                                                     setting
                                                                                                     criteria for
                                                                                                     moving
                                                                                                     helicopters
                                                                                                     around.
                                                                                                     Established
                                                                                                     long-term fire
                                                                                                     plans for
                                                                                                     incidents to
                                                                                                     efficiently
                                                                                                     utilize all
                                                                                                     resources.
                                                                                                     Ongoing.
    AO-6
    Airtanker Base Efficiency.--    Cost savings as a      FAM, airtanker    Identify appropriate   Airtanker base
     Airtanker base infrastructure   result of reduced      base personnel,   blend of aircraft      efficiency
     has not changed with the        facility expenses      retardant         types for year-round   study completed
     decrease of available large     and a decrease in      contractors.      versus partial         in 2007.
     airtankers.                     FTEs.                                    contract. Convert      Awaiting
                                                                              bulk contracts to      decision on
                                                                              full-service           implementation.
                                                                              contracts for
                                                                              existing bases.
                                                                              Evaluate existing
                                                                              bases for re-
                                                                              designation as
                                                                              mobile or reload
                                                                              bases.

                                                   Ground Operations

    GO-1
    Severity Funds.--Consider       Allows for longest     Fiscal, FAM.....  FSM, Letter of         Letter to the
     applying a cap to approvals     distribution of                          Instruction.           field Limiting
     of no more than $1 million      severity funds over                     Review use of ABCD      severity
     per pay period or a             season nationally                        Miscellaneous          authorizations
     percentage of the WFPR          and displays                             Accounts in lieu of    by Region May,
     allocation for each Regional    assertive management.                    severity requests.     2007.
     severity request.              Review of ABCD                           Pre-positioned NSRs    Allocated a
                                     Miscellaneous                            in lieu of severity    ceiling of $30
                                     accounting will                          when available.        million and
                                     bring everyone to                                               moved authority
                                     parity and                                                      around as
                                     consistent                                                      needed.
                                     implementation.                                                Actual severity
                                    Potential Cost                                                   spent about \2/
                                     Savings: $21 million                                            3\ of $35
                                     \13\                                                            million
                                                                                                     ceiling.
    GO-2
    National Shared Resources       Consistent definition  Mobilization      Strategy Operations    Included the
     (NSR).--Treat these resources   of NSRs. Efficient     System, Fire      Plan, National         utilization of
     without regional boundaries,    process of             Operations, MAC   Operations Plan.       national shared
     and move to areas based on      mobilization.          Group. While     Reconsider definition   resources in
     projections by Predictive       Process provides for   interagency in    of National Shared     the national
     Services. Depending on          consistent use of      scope, can be     Resources.             operations
     planning Levels, hold a         ABCD Miscellaneous     implemented FS-- Centralize funding      plan. NMAC
     percentage of NSRs at each      funds and reduced      only through      and management of      moved IHC's
     level for IA rather than        severity needs.        Assistant         national cache         when needed due
     large fire support.            Simultaneous increase   Director for      system.                to potential
                                     in percentage of       Operations.      Hold funding for NSRs   activity or
                                     resources held for                       at the national        critical fire
                                     IA with increased                        level instead of       needs.
                                     planning levels.                         distributing to       Funding has not
                                    National level                            local units.           been held at
                                     funding ensures                          Establish agreements   the national
                                     consistent use of                        with host units to     level yet for
                                     NSR funds across                         cover fixed costs.     these resources
                                     regions.                                                        or the caches
                                    Increases National                                               due to the
                                     flexibility in the                                              issue of WO
                                     assignment of                                                   ceiling.
                                     resources.                                                      Discussions
                                    Increases                                                        need to take
                                     availability of                                                 place between
                                     resources by                                                    FAM and PBA.
                                     eliminating                                                    DOA from Chief
                                     concentration of                                                of FS, Deputy
                                     resources in a                                                  Secretary of
                                     geographic area.                                                Interior,
                                                                                                     Administrator
                                                                                                     of U.S. Fire
                                                                                                     Administration,
                                                                                                     and President
                                                                                                     of National
                                                                                                     Association of
                                                                                                     State Foresters
                                                                                                     to NMAC on 6/19/
                                                                                                     07.
    GO-3 (recommendation linked to
     L-4)                           Provides additional    FAM, Predictive   Immediate direction    Decision Support
    National Operational             expertise to local     Services,         to NIMO Incident       Group was
     Oversight.--Provide review of   Line Officers in       National          Commanders (ICs)       assigned with
     incident strategy from          making strategic       Incident          from WO.               the RFR and the
     organizational level above      decisions on           Management       Develop a national      CPR. NMAC
     the Line Officer.               potential mega         Organization      operations decision    utilized a
                                     fires. Early           (NIMO).           support group.         support group
                                     strategic decisions                      Supply Chiefs          to provide
                                     significantly                            Principle              intelligence
                                     influence long term                      Representative as      for decision
                                     fire costs.                              decision support       making.
                                                                              with team.
    GO-4
    Incident Complexity.--Many      Keeping an incident    Type III          Letter from WO,        NWCG engaged the
     incidents can be managed        at Type III can        organization:     through NLT,           IOSWT to review
     safely and effectively under    reduce costs.          FAM, NLT.         mandating each         complexity and
     a Type III organization.       Potential Cost         Complexity         Forest/sub-            team typing.
     Current complexity analysis     Savings: $1.5 to 10    analysis:         geographic area        NWCG will
     occasionally leads to a         million per incident   National          establish a Type III   continue to
     higher level incident           that does not go to    Wildfire          organization.          work on this.
     management team than needed.    T1/T2.                 Coordinating     FAM request to NWCG     Will review the
                                                            Group (NWCG).     to revise current      capability in
                                                                              complexity analysis    each region
                                                                              to reduce ambiguity    this winter.
                                                                              and better
                                                                              differentiate
                                                                              between various
                                                                              incident levels.
    GO-5
    Length of Assignment.--The      Reduces mobilization   NWCG, LOT, FAM..  FS recommend through   Area Commands
     current 14-day rotation is      costs, improves                          NWCG changes to        assigned this
     not optimal for NSRs and        transition-related                       Redbook,               season will
     IMTs, including Area Command.   safety issues and                        Mobilization Guide,    recommend a
     Manage fatigue in order to      promotes better                          FSM, and FSH.          review at the
     gain optimal utilization of     local community                         IMTs adopt methods to   NMAC/GMAC end
     resources assigned to an        relations.                               monitor accidents,     of year
     incident.                      Potential Cost                            illnesses, and other   meeting.
    14-day rotation policy will      Savings: $1.7                            safety concerns       Pacific
     continue to apply to other      million annually                         throughout             Northwest (PNW)
     resources.                      \14\.                                    incidents. Safety      used longer
                                                                              Council would assist   assignments.
                                                                              in monitoring         NIMO 30 days
                                                                              accidents, trends       3.
                                                                              and near misses and
                                                                              facilitate peer-
                                                                              reviews.
    GO-6
    Constrained Resources.--        Increased efficiency   FAM, NLT, NMAC..  Request development    Have not
     Constrain resources to an       by requiring a true                      and implementation,    officially
     incident to eliminate           prioritization of                        through GMAC, of a     initiated this
     concentration of resources on   actions and                              ``Stratified           request.
     a few incidents and increase    assignment of                            Resource Index.''     However
     resource availability to a      resources by the IMT/                    Analysis would         Geographic
     wider range of incidents.       Line Officer.                            determine the          Areas utilized
    Assign a set number of          Equalizes the use/                        ``average'' number     long term
     resources based on planning     availability of                          of resources that      planning
     levels to an incident.          resources during                         would be assigned to   relative to
    Assignment of additional         major weather events                     an incident            their incidents
     resources would be approved     across geographic                        commensurate with      and implemented
     at GMAC or NMAC levels and      areas.                                   conditions and         this philosophy
     only after an analysis         Increases National                        resource values.       by moving
     assisted by FS Pro and RAVAR    and geographic area                     Develop and implement   resources
     that develops an alternative    flexibility in                           a ``constrained        internally to
     in the WFSA for the specific    assignment of                            resource approach''    assist in
     conditions and duration of      resources.                               in the assignment of   managing fires
     use.                           Develops a                                firefighting           during peak/
                                     suppression resource                     resources to           critical times.
                                     baseline to serve as                     incidents that        Area Commanders
                                     a foundation for                         progress beyond the    will develop a
                                     constraining the                         extended attack        recommendation
                                     number of resources                      stage.                 on a process to
                                     made available to an                                            be adopted
                                     incident.                                                       nationally.
    GO-7
    Coordination Centers.--With     Fewer intermediate     Mobilization      Related to fiscal      Dispatch
     full implementation of ROSS,    stops in dispatch      system,           year 2008 Dispatch     Feasibility
     is the need for the current     system may reduce      interagency       Feasibility Study.     Study was
     number of Geographic Area       cost as well as        partners.        Consider re-            completed. No
     Coordination Centers            provide for resource                     engineering of         decision as of
     necessary?                      order filling                            mobilization system    3/1/08. Outcome
                                     efficiencies.                            from 3 Tier to 2       of study will
                                    Potential Cost                            Tier Mobilization.     help determine
                                     Savings: $650,000                                               where
                                     per unit \15\.                                                  efficiencies
                                                                                                     will be gained
                                                                                                     and
                                                                                                     implemented.
    GO-8
    Standardization.--Identify      Standardization will   Engineering, FAM  FAM to work with       The Fleet
     efficiencies that may be        reduce long term                         engineering to         Feasibility
     gained through engine           costs of fleet                           establish a national   Study is
     standardization. All            management, due to                       policy for engine      completed, but
     geographic area needs will be   standardization of                       standardization and    has not been
     considered in the selection     equipment.                               develop a series of    released.
     of standard models.                                                      common models to be   FAM will
                                                                              used nationally.       establish a
                                                                                                     small task
                                                                                                     group to
                                                                                                     develop
                                                                                                     recommendations
                                                                                                     for fleet make-
                                                                                                     up and
                                                                                                     standardization
                                                                                                     for engines.
    GO-9
    Review Traditional              Allow all resources    NWCG or consider  Formal FAM request to  A request has
     Operations.--Review             to be configured in    contracting the   NWCG.                  not been made
     traditional organization, use   the most cost          development and  Establish a study       yet to NWCG.
     and structure of Area           efficient manner       review or         group to perform
     Command, IMTs and NSRs.         possible.              utilize NIMO.     review. Consider
                                                                              multi-mission, year-
                                                                              round capability,
                                                                              size, configuration,
                                                                              etc. Consider
                                                                              contracting the
                                                                              development and/or
                                                                              the review.
    GO-10
    Local Resources.--Incorporate   Using local resources  USFS leadership   WO FAM policy          Geographic Areas
     local fire agencies into the    would reduce costs     with  NASF.       discussion with NWCG.  utilized local
     IA and extended attack          related to                              Develop strategy to     resources per
     organization for each           mobilization of                          pilot initial attack   their
     National Forest.                national resources.                      support through        established
                                     Local resources                          local government.      agreements.
                                     provide immediate                                              FAM strategy
                                     and often less                                                  development is
                                     expensive support                                               on-going.
                                     \16\.
    GO-11
    Contract for Contingency        Contracting provides   AQM, GSA, NICC..  FAM should identify    FAM is working
     Resources.--Look into           for additional                           critical shortages     with
     development of contracting      resources where                          and needs--            contracting to
     buying teams, logistics and     critical shortages                       coordinate with AQM    develop the
     planning modules,               exist. This relates                      to develop contract    requirements.
     particularly for all-hazard     more to resource                         packages.              Will be
     support.                        availability than to                                            submitting a
                                     direct cost savings.                                            request for
                                                                                                     contract action
                                                                                                     in 2008.
    GO-12
    Smokejumper Program.--          Greater efficiency     FAM, DOI........  Annually update        ADFF was
     Reevaluate smokejumper          for Initial Attack                       National Operations    completed in
     program and all its support     would promote long-                      Plan.                  December 2007.
     requirements for cost/          term savings.                           Complete and            Results will
     benefits. Include the number                                             Implement ADFF         feed the NIAC
     of bases necessary to support                                                                   Phase 3 and the
     a national program with                                                                         aviation
     delivery systems.                                                                               feasibility
                                                                                                     study group for
                                                                                                     potential
                                                                                                     strategies and
                                                                                                     recommendations
                                                                                                     .
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                    MANAGEMENT CONTROLS AND EFFICIENCIES: MANAGEMENT
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Management controls and
             efficiencies                  Benefits        Parties involved     Action required          Status
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    M-1
    Hazardous Fuels Support.--      Increased              FAM, fire         Identify internal and  Have not begun
     Support hazardous fuel          productivity,          operations,       interagency            this.
     treatments among agencies       standardization, and   fuels, and        capability to form
     with internal and interagency   efficiencies to both   interagency       and mobilize
     resources. Identify more        suppression and        partners. FS-     resources. Expand
     efficient business practices    hazardous fuels        only: implement   ROSS capability to
     to facilitate this.             organizations.         through           meet this need.
                                    Reduced overhead        Assistant        Initiate discussions
                                     costs                  Director for      with DOI and FS Fire
                                    Increased               Operations and    Directors to review
                                     coordination among     Assistant         cross billing policy
                                     interagency partners   Director for      to allow for better
                                     at the local level.    Fuels.            utilization of
                                                                              resources as the
                                                                              local level.
    M-2
    Return on Training              Reduced reliance upon  Interagency       Risk management AD     Initiated review
     Investment.--Focus training     administratively       community, but    begin needs analysis   of training
     dollars to meet the needs of    Determined (AD)        can be started    for FS in 2007.        curriculum and
     critical shortage positions.    personnel and          FS-only          Develop requirement     qualifications.
    Assign mobilization targets      contractors to         immediately.      for personnel to       Began gathering
     (e.g. 50 percent of red-        compensate for lack                      utilize completed      data relative
     carded personnel respond to     of available                             training. Require      to number
     incidents).                     resources.                               trainees to complete   qualified and
                                    Better utilization of                     training assignments   what positions.
                                     training funds for                       as early in the       Utilized the
                                     target positions                         season as possible.    qualifications
                                     based on needs                          GACCs will work with    system and ROSS
                                     analysis.                                their partners to      in fiscal year
                                                                              ensure adequate        2007 to assist
                                                                              training               the regions
                                                                              opportunities on       with personnel
                                                                              IMTs.                  for
                                                                                                     assignments.
    M-3
    Long Term Fire Behavior         Provide skills         FAM, HR.........  FAM work with HR to    LTANs were
     Analyst (LTAN).--Currently a    necessary to                             consider possibility   provided with
     critical shortage of LTANs.     evaluate the latest                      of incentives to       in the national
     Long term planning skills are   technology for                           encourage additional   and regional
     critical for the successful     consideration of                         LTAN training.         support groups
     implementation of AMR.          long term strategies.                                           to assist with
     Operational decision-making    Increased decision                                               decision
     needs to consider the full      support for AMR.                                                making.
     range of AMR.                   Decision makers will                                           Have not
                                     be able to quantify                                             initiated
                                     values, costs and                                               anything with
                                     benefits, as well as                                            HR. Depending
                                     short and long term                                             on M-2 and the
                                     effects.                                                        success of
                                                                                                     fiscal year
                                                                                                     2007 season
                                                                                                     practices, may
                                                                                                     move forward
                                                                                                     with HR.
    M-4
    Mega Fires.--Work with          Potential cost         Research, FAM...  FAM to request         On-going
     research to evaluate past       savings if early                         research focus.        project.
     mega-fires to compare           stage decisions can                                             Results of
     investments to resource         be identified that                                              report will be
     protection to identify and      contribute to mega-                                             shared and
     establish the thresholds for    fire status.                                                    evaluated for
     diminishing returns.                                                                            implementation.
    M-5
    Fire and Aviation Facility      Eliminate costly       National Fire     Proposal developed     Although haven't
     Realignment.--Develop a         facilities that no     and Aviation      and presented to       started this
     process similar to the          longer meet our        Executive Board   WFLC for action.       process, some
     military's Base Realignment     primary needs of       (NFAEB),                                 is related to
     and Closure (BRAC) to           rapid mobilization     engineering,                             the aviation
     evaluate on an interagency      of NSRs.               legislative                              feasibility
     basis needed facilities and    Potential Cost          affairs.                                 study and the
     recommend realignment and       Savings.--$50                                                   priority
     closures for cost saving        million estimated                                               setting for
     benefits.                       initial reduction.                                              funding
                                                                                                     requests for
                                                                                                     facility
                                                                                                     maintenance.
    M-6                                                                                             ................
    Cost-Benefit of IFPM.--Better   Potential cost         Training          FAM..................
     understand the true long term   savings of training    Officers, FAM.   Conduct a cost
     costs and benefits of IFPM.     dollars with long                        benefit analysis of
                                     term cost savings                        IFPM
                                     possible.                               Assess continuing
                                                                              education needs
                                                                              relative to job
                                                                              function. e.g., fire
                                                                              management,
                                                                              Emergency
                                                                              Coordination Center
                                                                              (ECC) managers,
                                                                              safety
                                                                              professionals, etc.
    M-7
    Contracting.--identify the      Reduce overall cost    FAM, AQM........  Continue work already  FESSA group
     appropriate procurement tool    of obtaining                             started by Fire        established a
     for obtaining contracted        equipment and                            Equipment Services     procurement
     resources in order to           services through pre-                    and Supplies           plan for
     influence costs by              planning, formal                         Acquisition (FESSA)    standardization
     competition and best value.     competition and                          and NWCG through the   of equipment
                                     standardization.                         Incident Business      for procurement
                                                                              Practices Working      procedures. New
                                                                              Team (IBPWT).          program is
                                                                              Establish standards,   being developed
                                                                              specifications and     to facilitate
                                                                              requirements in        hiring and
                                                                              order to gain          utilization of
                                                                              efficiency in          contracted
                                                                              procurement and        services/
                                                                              tactical utilization.  equipment.
                                                                             Develop Virtual
                                                                              Incident Procurement
                                                                              System (VIPR).
    M-8
    Medical Standards.--Review      Reduce potential       Interagency,      AD for Risk            The program is
     Medical Standards Program       redundancy for         Unions.           Management discuss     being reviewed
     with an emphasis on reducing    measuring health                         combining              on an
     costs and complexity.           capacity.                                requirements to        interagency
     Evaluate the possibility of                                              eliminate              basis. Some
     including the work capacity                                              duplication with       changes are
     test under MSP.                                                          Medical Standards      being
                                                                              Team.                  implemented
                                                                                                     during the 2008
                                                                                                     season.
    M-9
    ASC/ISO Impacts.--With the      Mitigations conducted  Business          Evaluate the true      The Branch Chief
     centralization of the ASC,      by fire management     Operations,       needs of an incident   for Incident
     support to fire for critical    are costly and could   FAM, ISO.         for communication      Business worked
     positions has become a          be reduced through                       and finance support    with ASC to
     concern (particularly           greater partnership                      needs.                 facilitate
     communications and finance      with ASC.                               Preparation of          personnel
     support).                                                                service level          support on
    ASC--Albuquerque Service                                                  agreement              incidents. ASC
     Center                                                                                          staff toured a
    ISO--Information Solutions                                                                       couple of fires
     Organization                                                                                    to gain an
                                                                                                     understanding.
                                                                                                     The IBPWT will
                                                                                                     submit a
                                                                                                     proposal to
                                                                                                     NWCG requesting
                                                                                                     they evaluate
                                                                                                     current
                                                                                                     business
                                                                                                     practices in
                                                                                                     the Finance
                                                                                                     section, and
                                                                                                     identify
                                                                                                     methods to
                                                                                                     change the
                                                                                                     business where
                                                                                                     efficiencies
                                                                                                     can be gained.
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Briefly describe the issue followed by the proposed control and/or efficiency. With this protocol other
      solutions or opportunities might become apparent.    \2\ Describe the benefits. Actual cost savings may be
      known or possible to gather in this venue but describe how the actual dollar savings would be determined.
      \3\ Who has ownership and who needs to be involved with the coordination?    \4\ Include who, what, and when
      any documents or manuals, handbooks etc. that would have to be changed would be here.    \5\ All WFSA
      recommendations can be cross-referenced to TriData report.    \6\ Congressional Intent from 2005
      Appropriations language.    \7\ Dependent upon changes in Federal Wildland Fire Policy as identified in the
      AMR management efficiency description.    \8\ Implementing this position as an FTE would also save $50,000
      annually in salary, travel and lodging for detailers to maintain the helicopter database.    \9\ Based on
      historic utilization of local CWN and Exclusive Use Type 3 helicopters, each region could save $100,000 to
      $150,000.    \10\ This links to the discussion of NSRs in Operations section.    \11\ Based on conversion of
      25 Type I and 25 Type II contracts.    \12\ Estimate based on reducing aviation resources every one-quarter of
      incident time. Figures utilized from Tripod incident.    \13\ Calculated using a 2 percent cap per Regional PR
      budget.    \14\ Estimate based on 51 rotations total with 50 people per team. Estimated cost per mobilization/
      demobilization is $100,000.    \15\ Estimate based on salary/support costs of $400,000 and $250,000 rent/
      utilities.    \16\ See 12/2003 NAPA Report ``Utilizing Local Firefighting Forces.''

        Fire and Aviation Management Recruitment and Retention Analysis

                             [USDA Forest Service]

                                INTRODUCTION

        This report is in response to the following language in the
    Explanatory Statement accompanying the Consolidated Appropriations Act
    of 2008 (Public Law 110-161).

        ``The Appropriations Committees are aware that the Forest Service
    is facing challenges to recruit and retain wildland firefighters in
    Region 5, particularly on southern California forests, due to the
    agency's vastly different pay scales and personnel policies and the
    high cost of living in the region. The Forest Service should examine
    Federal firefighter pay and personnel policies and provide the House
    and Senate Committees on Appropriations with a proposal to increase
    recruitment and retention for southern California forests no later than
    February 1, 2008.''

        The Forest Service (FS) appreciates the patience of the
    Appropriations Committees in allowing Region 5 and the national
    headquarters to develop a thorough analysis of this complex set of
    issues. The dynamics studied in this proposal are controversial and
    will not be solved quickly or easily. For that reason, our proposal
    includes a series of long term suggestions to address the issues
    identified above.
        It is important to note two things about the national context
    surrounding this report. First, the efficacy of Forest Service initial
    attack response has not diminished. The success continues to stay
    around 98 percent for all initial attack incidents. The agency is
    committed to maintaining this high level of success. Second, recent
    increases in Fire Suppression expenditures have been well documented,
    as has the resulting impact on other agency programs. In response,
    Forest Service leadership has aggressively implemented cost containment
    measures, resulting in decreased Suppression costs in fiscal year 2007.
    It is essential that the proposals related to Region 5 firefighter
    recruitment and retention support both continued initial attack success
    and cost containment efforts.
        The issues highlighted by this report will continue to be closely
    monitored.

                                ISSUES EXAMINED

        The issues examined in the report are widely circulated and are
    frequently polarizing; therefore the methods used to complete the
    analysis relied on data from a variety of sources. Rates of attrition
    were from Region 5 records, Forest Service Human Capital records and
    the Office of Personnel Management. Pay data was from employees' W-2's
    both CAL FIRE and U.S. Forest Service. The reasons for leaving were
    provided from exit interviews in Region 5.
        Forest Service Human Capital Management staff reviewed pay act and
    authorities and determined there are actions available locally,
    regionally and nationally. The Regional Forester and other line
    officers have discretion in the application of these authorities.
        There is a perception, as noted by the Appropriations Committees
    and confirmed through informal employee sensing, the Forest Service
    faces recruitment and retention challenges in southern California.
    While a detailed analysis shows the region has some retention
    challenges, it also suggests the problems are manageable.
        A 10-year analysis of permanent fire workforce in Region 5 reveals
    several important trends.
        (1) The total number of permanent Fire and Aviation Management
    staff in the region nearly doubled between 1997 and 2007, from 1,257 to
    2,290. An 82 percent increase indicates successful recruitment efforts,
    not the opposite.
        (2) In 2007 the Region 5 Fire and Aviation Management staff
    experienced 370 retirements, resignations and transfers. However,
    recruitment resulted in a net gain of 68 employees, or 3 percent.
        (3) The overall Forest Service attrition rate in southern
    California (9.4 percent) is actually lower than the national Federal
    attrition rate (13.4 percent).
        These statistics indicate that recruitment is outpacing attrition
    in Region 5. Furthermore, attrition within southern California is well
    within national averages. Based on these trends, it appears that
    recruitment and retention are within expected norms. However, there are
    areas within the statistics cited above which deserve closer
    examination, and which the proposals of this report will address.
        First, the largest component of separations within the Region 5
    Fire and Aviation Management organization come at the GS-4 level, where
    the attrition rate is 46.6 percent. Attrition rates above the GS-4
    level do not differ significantly from regional or national averages.

        FIGURE 1.--ATTRITION RATES BY GRADE IN SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, REGION 5, FOREST SERVICE AND FEDERAL SERVICE
                                                      [In percent]
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                 Pacific       Forest
                                Grade                               Southern    Southwest     Service      Federal
                                                                   California     Region        wide       service
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    GS-04.......................................................         46.6         32.1         23.6      ( \1\ )
    GS-05.......................................................          8.7         10.9         12.3      ( \1\ )
    GS-06.......................................................          3.9          2.9          2.1      ( \1\ )
    GS-07.......................................................          4.2          2.4          1.5      ( \1\ )
    GS-08.......................................................          1.1          0.7          0.3      ( \1\ )
    GS-09.......................................................          1.1          1.2          0.9      ( \1\ )
    GS-11.......................................................          0.2          0.6          0.6      ( \1\ )
    Overall.....................................................          9.4          7.2          6.3        13.4
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ UNK
    Notes:
        Includes series only 0462 and 0401 both fire and non fire positions.
        Data retrieved from NFC Reporting Center.
        Southern California includes Angeles, Cleveland, Los Padres, and San Bernardino National Forests.
        The rate of attrition for Cal Fire is currently unknown.

        Second, a higher percentage of separations are due to resignations
    (as opposed to retirement or transfers) than the regional or national
    average (Figure 2). Exit interviews indicate that 44 percent of those
    leaving the Forest Service went to CAL FIRE or local fire departments
    (Figure 3).
    Figure 2: Resignations as a Percentage of Total Separations

        Third, these trends are most pronounced on the Angeles National
    Forest and the San Bernardino National Forest, which saw the most
    resignations of any Region 5 forests. Of the resignations on these two
    forests in 2007, 45 percent were at the GS-4 level, and 61 percent went
    to State, county or local fire departments. The attrition rates for the
    two forests were 12.2 percent and 9.3 percent in 2007, according to
    Region 5 data.
    Figure 3. Reason for Leaving Forest Service

              PAY SCALES, COST OF LIVING , AND PERSONNEL POLICIES

        Local perception, as noted by the Appropriations Committees, is
    Forest Service pay scales and personnel policies, coupled with the high
    cost of living in southern California, make it difficult to attract and
    retain Fire and Aviation Management workforce in the region. Upon
    closer examination, the perception of the effects of pay scale and
    personnel policy discrepancies and high cost of living appears to be
    unsupported by the data.

    Pay Scales
        Comparison of Forest Service and CAL FIRE payment and hours worked
    data for 2007 suggests that actual hourly rates of pay are comparable.
    It was difficult to determine the appropriate metric for comparison as
    the pay, staffing and personnel policies differed greatly. Wages as
    shown on W-2 forms were chosen as a measure. Cal Fire employees on
    average for the three positions examined worked about 62 percent more
    hours (4,457 v. 2,768) than their Forest Service counterparts. The
    comparison of pay and hours is not straight forward due to personnel
    policy differences, such as portal-to-portal pay and planned overtime
    that guarantee Cal Fire firefighters more total hours annually.
        Nonetheless, when accounting for all hours worked, overtime and
    hazard pay rates (see Figure 4):
      --Average pay of Firefighter II is $2.81/hour higher in FS than CAL
            FIRE
      --Average pay of Fire Engineer is $5.36/hour higher in FS than CAL
            FIRE
      --Average pay of Fire Captain is $7.08/hour higher in FS than CAL
            FIRE
        Although Forest Service hourly pay is equal or higher, staffing
    plans guarantee CAL FIRE employees more hours and consequently more pay
    annually. In addition, Cal Fire employees work a 72 hour, three day
    shift, benefit from 24 hour pay while on fire assignments, and have a
    more generous retirement plan. Federal wildland fire staffing is
    closely tied to the threat of wildland fire activity, which occurs
    within a defined season. To ensure initial attack success and public
    safety during the fire season at the most reasonable cost to taxpayers,
    the Forest Service uses variable staffing, seasonal aviation
    contracting and seasonal employees.

                           FIGURE 4.--PAY COMPARISON CAL FIRE AND U.S. FOREST SERVICE (HOURS)
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         Additional                                          Average
                                             Base pay    base hours     Planned    Unplanned     Annual      hourly
                                                        included \1\   overtime    overtime   compensation    rate
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Cal Fire FFTR II \2\..................     (2,080)    \1\ (676)        (988)       (561)      (4,305)     $15.04
                                               $33,324                   $16,973     $14,463      $64,760
    USFS SoCal FFTR II \3\................     (2,080)  ............  ..........       (838)      (2,918)      17.85
                                               $35,014                               $21,082      $56.096
    Cal Fire Engineer.....................     (2,080)    \1\ (676)        (988)       (734)      (4,478)      18.50
                                               $39,900                   $20,322     $22,633      $82,855
    USFS SoCal Engineer...................     (2,080)  ............  ..........       (548)      (2,628)      23.86
                                               $44,987                               $17,716      $62,702
    Cal Fire Captain......................     (2,080)    \1\ (676)        (988)       (844)      (4,588)      20.63
                                               $43,776                   $22,296     $28,572      $94,644
    USFS SoCal Captain....................     (2,080)  ............  ..........       (679)      (2,759)      27.71
                                               $51,360                               $25,078      $76,438
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Included.--Means money is included in base salary number. Cal Fire calculates base pay and overtime (planned
      and unplanned) in accordance with their bargaining unit agreement.
    \2\ Full Time Employee.
    \3\ Seasonal Employee.

        The data in the table above (figure 4) was developed from actual
    2007 W-2 data randomly selected from a sample of Forest Service
    employees in southern California. It includes overtime and hazard pay.
    The Cal Fire data is actual 2007 compensation provided by their agency.
    Cal Fire employees do not receive hazard pay. The average hourly rate
    is computed by dividing the total compensation by the total hours
    worked. Unplanned overtime is highly variable for employees of both
    agencies.
        Forest Service employees at the GS-04 and 05 grades are Permanent
    Seasonal employees either 13/13 or 18/08 (guaranteed at least 13 pay
    periods or 18 pay period of employment out of a total of up to 26). Cal
    Fire employees are all full time employees.
        Cal Fire employees work a 72 hour schedule each week which is paid
    as 53 base hours and 19 planned overtime hours. Any time in excess of
    212 in a 28 day period is paid as unplanned overtime.
        It should be noted the two agencies have very different work
    schedule expectations and pay rules therefore actual compensation was
    averaged to determine the unplanned overtime.
    Cost of Living
        Analysis performed by the Office of Personnel Management (OPM)
    indicates that Federal employees in southern California do experience
    pay disparities compared to non-Federal workers. However, Los Angeles
    and San Diego are not the only localities where this is true, nor do
    they experience the most severe disparities. In fact, the pay disparity
    in Los Angeles is below the national average, and San Diego's is
    comparable. Below is a table of 2007 pay disparities for comparison.

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Disparity
                            Locality                              Percent
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Atlanta.................................................           23.21
    Boston..................................................           25.35
    Chicago.................................................           23.06
    Dallas..................................................           22.42
    Los Angeles.............................................           21.82
    New York................................................           26.67
    Phoenix.................................................           25.02
    San Diego...............................................           25.20
    San Francisco...........................................           28.62
    Seattle.................................................           23.39
    Washington DC...........................................           36.30
    Average (all of United States)..........................          22.97
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    (http://www.opm.gov/oca/payagent/2007/PayDisparities.asp

    Personnel Policies
        Comparing personnel policies of Federal wildland fire agencies with
    local and State fire agencies is complex. While it is natural for
    employees to compare their job descriptions, compensation, and benefits
    with those of similar workers in close proximity, there are also
    important distinctions and valid differences between them. Forest
    Service fire management personnel in southern California and across the
    Nation are Forestry Technicians. This title reflects their land
    management orientation. In the course of their work, they collaborate
    with State and local employees of fire departments. This is a subtle
    but key difference. Even though both Federal wildland firefighters and
    fire department firefighters focus on fire, the mission purposes of the
    agencies differ, and so too do the roles and responsibilities of their
    respective personnel. Fire departments generally have an emergency
    responder role that includes traffic collisions, medical calls and
    other actions that are not wildland fires. That is to say, the Forest
    Service is a land management agency that employs wildland firefighters
    to accomplish land management objectives, while the mission of fire
    departments personnel focus on preserving life and property. Because of
    differing responsibilities, it is both impossible and inappropriate for
    the Forest Service to pay and staff the same way as these fire
    departments. For example the Forest Service does not allow fire
    fighters to enter structures to suppress these fires.
        The tendency of our employees, partners and the public to compare
    Forest Service fire management responsibilities to State and local fire
    departments points to a larger issue the agency is facing regarding the
    need for a clear mission and definition of responsibilities for our
    firefighters in the wildland urban interface. Fires in recent years
    have become larger and more difficult to control due to a variety of
    factors, including climate change, historic fire suppression efforts
    resulting in increased density of hazard fuels, and expansion of
    residences in the wildland urban interface (WUI). This situation is
    acutely felt in southern California where over 189,000 new homes have
    been built since 2003 in the Wildland/Urban interface. This growth
    poses a higher level of complexity on Wildland firefighting in fire
    adapted ecosystems. Therefore, the agency must clearly express its
    emergency response role, and clarify distinctions between State and
    local fire department.

                                PROPOSED ACTIONS

        The analysis outlined above suggests that the perceptions around
    recruitment and retention in southern California are hard to
    substantiate based on data. An analysis of available data confirms that
    while issues regarding perceptions around recruitment and retention in
    southern California may exist, they cannot be objectively
    substantiated. Absent such substantiation, recommendations that the
    Office of Personnel Management depart from standard Federal pay rates
    or the agency seek other special personnel authorities are unwarranted.
    Further, such actions may have the unintended consequence of negatively
    affecting recruitment and retention elsewhere in the Nation.
        Accordingly, key actions to be undertaken immediately by the Forest
    Service will be internal and external communication around these
    findings:
      --Region 5's Fire & Aviation Management recruitment rate is greater
            than its attrition rate.
      --The attrition rate in southern California is below national
            averages.
      --On average, Forest Service hourly pay rates are actually greater
            than those for comparable CAL FIRE positions.
      --Federal workers in southern California are paid less than their
            counterparts in the private sector, but other parts of the
            country experience similar or worse rates of disparity.
        In the course of this analysis, additional issues outside the scope
    of the requested report have become evident; clearly there are morale
    issues which need leadership's attention and action. We refrained from
    making recommendations addressing these in the report as it is outside
    the scope of the committee's request. Additionally, these morale issues
    will take more time to review, validate and resolve. Leadership will
    focus attention on this important area and will keep the committees
    apprised of the situation and the progress to resolve the issues.
        In addition to increased communication around key issues, the
    Forest Service will consider specific long-term actions. These
    recommendations will consider potential morale and budget impacts
    resulting from providing special benefits solely to firefighters in
    southern California. Changing public and agency perceptions and
    ensuring employee morale will require active management over years. The
    recommendations below may be tools in that process.
      --Review and strengthen commitment to Wildland fire mission with
            Federal, State, and local partners.
      --Strategically apply individual retention allowances and/or special
            pay authorities within the discretion of the agency.
      --Encourage use of optional work schedules and tours of duty.
      --Improve employee housing and working facilities.
      --Improve communications connectivity, training, and access.
      --Determine cost and feasibility of special pay in identified high
            cost areas.
      --Renegotiate cooperative agreements to provide more equity for
            Forest Service employees.
      --Monitor issues identified and adjust as necessary.

        Mr. Rey. The Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-
    Determination Act of 2000 was enacted to provide transitional
    assistance to rural counties affected by the decline in revenue
    from timber harvests in Federal forests. That legislation was
    extended for an additional seventh year under the terms of
    Public Law 110-28.
        The 2009 budget of the Forest Service includes a
    legislative proposal that provides $200 million above the
    current baseline for a 4-year extension of the legislation, and
    that proposal was included with our budget. The 2009 budget
    focuses resources on national forest and grassland
    responsibilities, which we've talked about at length already
    today, but it also reflects redesigned State and Private
    Forestry program approach.
        Funding is proposed in the 2008 farm bill in addition for
    purposes and activities similar to those supported by the State
    and Private Forestry program. The Conservation, Forestry, and
    Energy titles of the farm bill authorize nearly $10 billion in
    incentives to State and local governments and nonindustrial
    private forest landowners to pursue conservation, forest
    restoration, and biomass energy.
        I will submit for the record a summary of what's included
    in each, the administration, the House, and the Senate farm
    bill proposals.
        [The information follows:]

              2008 FARM BILL USDA/HOUSE/SENATE SIDE BY-SIDE SUMMARY
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
     Item  USDA proposal summary      House summary        Senate summary
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
     T8-1 No comparable         Sec. 8001 National    Sec. 8001 National
           provision.            Priorities for        Priorities for
                                 Private Forest        Private Forest
                                 Conservation.--Amen   Conservation.--Very
                                 ds Cooperative        similar language to
                                 Forestry Assistance   House version.
                                 Act (CFAA) to
                                 establish 3
                                 priorities:
                                  (1) Conserving and
                                   managing working
                                   forests.
                                  (2) Protecting and
                                   restoring forests
                                   from a range of
                                   threats.
                                  (3) Enhancing
                                   public benefits
                                   from private
                                   forests.
                                  Secretary must
                                 submit report on
                                 outcomes to
                                 Congress by 2011.
     T8-2 Sec. 8002             Sec. 8002 Long-Term,  Sec. 8004.
           Comprehensive         State-wide            Comprehensive
           Statewide Forest      Assessments and       Statewide Forest
           Planning.--Authoriz   Strategies for        Planning.--Directs
           es up to $65          Forest Resources.--   States to do
           million for States    States must do        assessments of
           to produce            assessments of        forest resource
           comprehensive         forest resource       conditions as a
           forest plans that     conditions as a       requirement to
           identify critical     requirement to        receive funds for
           forest landscapes     receive funds for     CFAA programs.
           and set management    all CFAA programs.    Similar to House
           priorities            Assessments           language, but
                                 coordinated among     includes:
                                 State forester or     Establishment
                                 equivalent, State     clause directing
                                 forest stewardship    Secretary to create
                                 coordinating          the planning
                                 committee, State      program; specifies
                                 wildlife agency and   that community
                                 State technical       wildfire protection
                                 committee. Can use    plans should be
                                 up to $10 million     considered in the
                                 in available funds.   assessment; a plan
                                                       for achieving the
                                                       national priorities
                                                       (sec. 8001);
                                                       clarifies that the
                                                       Statewide plan
                                                       replaces all CFAA
                                                       planning and
                                                       assessment
                                                       requirements; must
                                                       also coordinate
                                                       with Federal land
                                                       management agencies
                                                       and the State lead
                                                       agency for the
                                                       Forest Legacy
                                                       Program. Authorizes
                                                       $10 million.
     T8-3 Sec. 8001 Community   No comparable         Sec 8002 Community
           Forests Working       provision.            Forest and Open
           Lands Program.--                            Space Conservation
           Authorizes up to                            Program.--Provides
           $65 million per                             financial support
           year in technical                           for acquisition of
           and financial                               community forests
           assistance for                              and emphasized
           local communities                           technical
           to purchase and                             assistance to
           manage community                            communities.--The
           forests.                                    program would be a
                                                       competitive grant
                                                       process open to
                                                       tribes, local
                                                       governments, or non-
                                                       profit land trusts.
                                                       There is a 50
                                                       percent cost-share
                                                       requirement. The
                                                       community forests
                                                       should provide
                                                       economic,
                                                       environmental,
                                                       educational
                                                       technical
                                                       assistance, and
                                                       recreational
                                                       benefits. The
                                                       program requires
                                                       that community
                                                       forests are open to
                                                       public access and
                                                       managed consistent
                                                       with the purposes
                                                       of the program. Up
                                                       to 10 percent of
                                                       program funds are
                                                       available to State
                                                       foresters or
                                                       equivalent tribal
                                                       officials for
                                                       program
                                                       administration and
                                                       technical
                                                       assistance.
     T8-4 No comparable         Sec. 8003 Assistance  Sec. 8005 Assistance
           provision.            to the Federated      to the Federated
                                 States of             States of
                                 Micronesia, the       Micronesia, the
                                 Republic of the       Republic of the
                                 Marshall Islands,     Marshall Islands,
                                 and the Republic of   and the Republic of
                                 Palau.--Amends CFAA   Palau.--Identical
                                 by striking, ``the    language to House
                                 Trust Territory of    version.
                                 the Pacific
                                 Islands'' and
                                 inserting, ``the
                                 Federated State of
                                 Micronesia, the
                                 Republic of the
                                 Marshall Islands,
                                 the Republic of
                                 Palau''.
     T8-5 No comparable         Sec. 8004 Changes to  No comparable
           provision.            Forest Resource       provision.
                                 Coordinating
                                 Committee.--Modifie
                                 s and expands the
                                 Forest Resource
                                 Coordinating
                                 Committee at
                                 Secretary level to
                                 include the chiefs
                                 of FS and NRCS and
                                 administrators of
                                 FSA and CSREES. Non-
                                 Federal reps with 3-
                                 year terms include
                                 3 State foresters
                                 or equivalent, a
                                 representative from
                                 a State technical
                                 committee State
                                 fish and wildlife
                                 agency, NIPF owner,
                                 Industry,
                                 conservation orgs.,
                                 land grant
                                 university,
                                 consultants, and
                                 others. Coordinates
                                 national efforts to
                                 NIPF landowners.
                                 Clarifies roles and
                                 responsibilities--a
                                 dvises on
                                 allocation of
                                 competitive funds,
                                 and provides annual
                                 report to Secretary
                                 and Congress.
     T8-6 No comparable         Sec. 8005 Changes to  No comparable
           provision.            State Forest          provision.
                                 Stewardship
                                 Coordinating
                                 Committees.--Replac
                                 es requirement for
                                 a statewide forest
                                 stewardship plan
                                 with statewide
                                 assessment and
                                 strategies for
                                 forest resources.
                                 State committees
                                 make
                                 recommendations on
                                 the statewide
                                 assessment. Adds a
                                 representative from
                                 the State technical
                                 committee.
     T8-7 No comparable         No comparable         Sec. 8003 Forest
           provision.            provision.            Legacy
                                                       Applications.--Amen
                                                       ds CFAA by stating
                                                       applications
                                                       submitted by Indian
                                                       tribes do not have
                                                       to pass through the
                                                       State coordinating
                                                       committee.
     T8-8 No comparable         Sec. 8006             No comparable
           provision.            Competition in        provision.
                                 Programs Under
                                 Cooperative
                                 Forestry Assistance
                                 Act of 1978.--
                                 Requires a portion
                                 of CFAA funds, as
                                 determined by the
                                 Secretary, be
                                 available
                                 competitively to
                                 State foresters.
                                 State foresters are
                                 the only eligible
                                 entity. Secretary
                                 to consult with new
                                 forest resource
                                 coordinating
                                 committee to
                                 determine
                                 competitive
                                 allocation of funds.
     T8-9 Sec. 8003 Landscape   Sec. 8007             No comparable
           Scale Competitive     Cooperative Forest    provision.
           Grant Program.--      Innovation
           Authorizes up to      Partnership
           $30 million per       Projects.--No more
           year in competitive   than 5 percent of
           grants for large,     CFAA funding for
           landscape scale       innovative
           forest conservation   national, regional,
           and restoration       or local education,
           projects.             outreach, or tech-
                                 transfer projects
                                 to meet the
                                 national
                                 priorities. Must
                                 have 50 percent
                                 cost share,
                                 including in-kind
                                 donations. Funds
                                 eligible to States,
                                 tribes, local
                                 gov't, land-grant,
                                 or private entities.
    T8-10 No comparable         Subtitle B--          Conservation Title
           provision.            Amendments to Other   Sec. 2331 Healthy
                                 Laws                  Forest Reserve
                                Sec. 8101 Healthy      Program.--Reauthori
                                 Forest Reserve        zed through 2012.
                                 Program               Changes language
                                 Reauthorized until    from ``an easement
                                 2012. Sec. 508.       of not more than 99
                                 Funding. Authorizes   years'' to ``a
                                 $10,000,000 in        permanent
                                 funding.              easement.''
                                                       Authorizes ``such
                                                       sums as are
                                                       necessary''.
    T8-11 No comparable         Subtitle B--          Conservation Title
           provision.            Amendments to Other   Sec. 2398 Emergency
                                 Laws                  Landscape
                                Sec. 8102 Emergency    Restoration
                                 Forest Restoration    Program.--Available
                                 Program.--Provides    to NIPF owners to
                                 Emergency Forest      restore landscapes
                                 Restoration Program   damaged by fire,
                                 for development and   drought, flood,
                                 implementation        hurricane force or
                                 plans of NIPF         excessive winds,
                                 owners who have       ice storms or
                                 sustained loss or     blizzards, or other
                                 damage to forest      resource-impacting
                                 from fire,            natural events.
                                 hurricanes, storms,   Priority for
                                 drought, insects,     activities
                                 disease, or           protecting human
                                 invasive species.     health and safety.
                                 Plan addresses        Funding subject to
                                 reforestation,        appropriation. Up
                                 restoration, BMPs     to 75 percent cost
                                 and stewardship. Up   share.
                                 to 75 percent cost-
                                 share, but not more
                                 than $50,000/year
                                 per owner. Owner
                                 has 10 years to use
                                 funds. Allows NIPF
                                 lands to be
                                 eligible for
                                 emergency
                                 restoration funds
                                 if the Secretary
                                 determines that
                                 insects or diseases
                                 pose an imminent
                                 threat of loss or
                                 damage to those
                                 lands. Funding
                                 would be through an
                                 emergency
                                 supplemental.
    T8-12 Sec. 8202 Office of   Sec. 8101 Office of   Sec. 8202 Office of
           International         International         International
           Forestry.--Extends    Forestry.--Reauthor   Forestry.--Reauthor
           the authorization     ized through 2012.    ized through 2012.
           for appropriations
           (does not specify
           amount) through
           2012 for the Office
           of International
           Forestry
           (International
           Programs).
    T8-13 Sec. 8203 Rural       Sec. 8104 Rural       No comparable
           Revitalization        Revitalization        provision.
           Technologies.--Auth   Technologies.--Iden
           orizes                tical Language--
           appropriations of     reauthorized
           $5 million for each   through 2012. This
           fiscal year 2008-     authority is used
           2012 for the Forest   to administer the
           Products Lab to       biomass utilization
           accelerate adoption   grants..
           of technologies
           using biomass and
           small-diameter
           materials and
           provide assistance
           and information to
           small businesses.
    T8-14 Sec. 8201 Renewable   Included in Research  Sec. 8201 Renewable
           Resources Extension   Title. Extends        Resources Extension
           Activities.--Author   authority through     Activities.--Reauth
           izes $30 million      2012.                 orized through 2012
           for each fiscal                             at $30 mil each
           year 2008-2012 for                          fiscal year.
           the Renewable
           Resources Extension
           Program
           administered by
           CSREES through
           State universities
           to provide
           technical
           assistance to
           landowners.
    T8-15 No comparable         No comparable         Sec. 8101
           provision.            provision.            Definitions.--Provi
                                                       des definitions for
                                                       Indian, Indian
                                                       tribe, and National
                                                       Forest System that
                                                       will be used under
                                                       Subtitle B of this
                                                       bill--Tribal-Forest
                                                       Service Cooperative
                                                       Relations.
    T8-16 No comparable         No comparable         Sec. 8111 Forest
           provision.            provision.            Legacy Program.--
                                                       Amends CFAA to
                                                       allow include
                                                       Indian tribes to
                                                       participate in the
                                                       Forest Legacy
                                                       Program. Tribes are
                                                       eligible to receive
                                                       grants to carry out
                                                       FLP projects.
    T8-17 No comparable         No comparable         Sec. 8112 Forestry
           provision.            provision.            and Resource
                                                       Management
                                                       Assistance for
                                                       Indian Tribes.--
                                                       Authorizes the
                                                       Secretary to
                                                       provide assistance
                                                       to tribes to access
                                                       NFS land for
                                                       religious and
                                                       cultural reasons,
                                                       and coordinate
                                                       resource
                                                       management.
                                                       Authorizes
                                                       conservation
                                                       education projects
                                                       and technical
                                                       assistance on
                                                       Indian forest
                                                       lands. Directs
                                                       Secretary to
                                                       develop rules
                                                       within 18 months in
                                                       coordination with
                                                       tribes and DOI.
    T8-18 No comparable         No comparable         Sec. 8121. Purposes--
           provision.            provision.            Cultural and
                                                       Heritage
                                                       Cooperation
                                                       Authority (Secs.
                                                       8121-27).--Authoriz
                                                       es reburial of
                                                       tribal remains on
                                                       NFS lands, provides
                                                       access to NFS land
                                                       and forest products
                                                       for cultural
                                                       purposes, and
                                                       prevents the
                                                       disclosure of
                                                       burial site
                                                       locations and other
                                                       sensitive
                                                       information.
                                                       Authorizes the
                                                       temporary closure
                                                       of NFS land for
                                                       cultural purposes.
    T8-19 No comparable         No comparable         Sec. 8122.
           provision.            provision.            Definitions.--Provi
                                                       des definitions for
                                                       terms used in this
                                                       Subsection.
    T8-20 No comparable         No comparable         Sec. 8123 Reburial
           provision.            provision.            of Human Remains
                                                       and Cultural
                                                       Items.--Authorizes
                                                       the reburial of
                                                       human remains and
                                                       cultural items,
                                                       including those
                                                       repatriated under
                                                       NAGPRA (25 USC 3001
                                                       et seq.) on NFS
                                                       land. Prevents
                                                       unauthorized
                                                       disclosure of
                                                       information on
                                                       burial sites.
    T8-21 No comparable         No comparable         Sec. 8124 Temporary
           provision.            provision.            Closure for
                                                       Traditional and
                                                       Cultural Purposes.--
                                                       The Secretary shall
                                                       ensure access by
                                                       Indian tribes to
                                                       NFS land. The
                                                       Secretary may, to
                                                       the maximum extent
                                                       practicable and for
                                                       the minimum period
                                                       of time,
                                                       temporarily close
                                                       from public access
                                                       specifically
                                                       designated NFS land
                                                       to protect the
                                                       privacy of tribal
                                                       activities for
                                                       traditional and
                                                       cultural purposes.
    T8-22 No comparable         No comparable         Sec. 8125 Forest
           provision.            provision.            Products for
                                                       Traditional and
                                                       Cultural Purposes.--
                                                       Authorizes the
                                                       Secretary to allow,
                                                       to the maximum
                                                       extent practicable,
                                                       access to NFS land
                                                       by Indians and
                                                       Indian tribes for
                                                       traditional and
                                                       cultural purposes.
    T8-23 No comparable         No comparable         Sec. 8126
           provision.            provision.            Prohibition on
                                                       Disclosure.--Author
                                                       izes Secretary to
                                                       protect
                                                       confidentiality of
                                                       certain
                                                       information,
                                                       including
                                                       information this
                                                       culturally
                                                       sensitive to Indian
                                                       tribes.
    T8-24 No comparable         No comparable         Sec. 8127
           provision.            provision.            Severability and
                                                       Savings
                                                       Provisions.--Preser
                                                       ves all existing
                                                       tribal rights, all
                                                       existing agreements
                                                       among tribes and
                                                       the FS, existing
                                                       trust
                                                       responsibilities,
                                                       and other
                                                       outstanding rights
                                                       to use of NFS
                                                       lands.
    T8-25 No comparable         Sec. 8201 Hispanic-   No comparable
           provision.            Serving Institution   provision.
                                 Agricultural Land
                                 National Resources
                                 Leadership
                                 Program.--Competiti
                                 ve grants to
                                 Hispanic serving
                                 institutions for
                                 undergraduate
                                 scholarship
                                 programs in
                                 forestry. Promotes
                                 professional work
                                 in Federal and
                                 State agencies in
                                 natural resources.
                                 Authorized ``such
                                 sums as may be
                                 necessary''.
    T8-26 No comparable         No comparable         Sec. 8203 Green
           provision.            provision.            Mountain National
                                                       Forest Boundary
                                                       Adjustment.--Author
                                                       izes small
                                                       modification of the
                                                       boundary of Green
                                                       Mountain National
                                                       Forest.
    T8-27 No comparable         No comparable         Sec. 8204 Prevention
           provision.            provision.            of Illegal Logging
                                                       Practices.--Amends
                                                       the Lacey Act
                                                       Amendment to
                                                       include trees in
                                                       the definition of
                                                       ``plant''.
    T8-28 No comparable         No comparable         Sec. 8205 Sale and
           provision.            provision.            Exchange of
                                                       National Forest
                                                       System Land,
                                                       Vermont.--Authorize
                                                       s sale/exchange of
                                                       certain parcels of
                                                       land on the Green
                                                       Mountain NF in
                                                       Vermont.
    T8-29 No comparable         No comparable         Sec. 8301 Qualifying
           provision.            provision.            Timber Contract
                                                       Options.--Allows
                                                       the Secretary to
                                                       cancel or re-
                                                       determine
                                                       qualifying timber
                                                       contracts if the
                                                       rate at which a
                                                       qualifying contract
                                                       would be advertised
                                                       on the date of an
                                                       enactment of this
                                                       language is at
                                                       least 50 percent
                                                       less than the
                                                       original purchased
                                                       rate of the
                                                       contract.
          Sec. 8201 Forest
           Wood to Energy
           Program.--Mandates
           $15 million per
           year for
           accelerating the
           development of
           renewable energy
           from woody biomass--
           including
           cellulosic ethanol
           and other
           bioenergy.\1\
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
          \1\ Energy Title.--Similar provisions included in House and Senate
            Energy Titles.

        Mr. Rey. I think the point I'm trying to draw here is that,
    in evaluating the State and Private Forestry budget, you have
    to put it alongside the farm bill proposal, because what we are
    proposing to do is to broaden the reach of some of the
    conservation title programs to make them accessible to serve
    some of the interests that the State and Private Forestry
    functions of the Forest Service serve.
        So just looking at the 2009 Forest Service budget proposal
    doesn't give you the full picture of all of that proposed
    activity.

                               PREPARED STATEMENT

        In closing, then, I'd like to respond to Senator
    Alexander's question. We have, as have our colleagues at the
    Department of the Interior, evaluated in the past whether it
    makes sense to try to establish a separate firefighting agency.
    What we have concluded is that doing that then separates the
    firefighting function from the land management function, and
    probably doesn't buy you much in the way of program reforms or
    advantages. The issue of appropriate funding for firefighting
    would still remain even if that kind of change was made.
        With that, I'll turn the podium over to Chief Kimbell.
        [The statement follows:]

                       Prepared Statement of Mark E. Rey

                                    OVERVIEW

        Madam Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I appreciate the
    opportunity to discuss the President's fiscal year 2009 budget for the
    Forest Service during today's hearing. I am pleased to join Forest
    Service Chief Gail Kimbell at this hearing today.
        In my testimony, I will discuss three issues that relate to the
    2009 budget. First, I will address Wildland Fire programs and
    management reforms. Next, I will address the need to provide 4 years of
    further transitional assistance to rural counties that received
    benefits under Secure Rural Schools and Self-Determination Act of 2000.
    Finally, I will discuss the redesign of Forest Service State and
    Private Forestry programs and related Federal investments proposed in
    the 2008 farm bill.

                                 WILDLAND FIRE

        The 2009 budget proposes a total of $1.977 billion for Wildland
    Fire Management programs, including $994 million for Suppression, $588
    million for Preparedness, $297 million for Hazardous Fuel Reduction,
    and continued funding for other National Fire Plan activities.
    Additionally, the Forest Service is adopting significant management
    reforms to ensure equitable fire suppression cost sharing between
    Federal and other firefighting entities, fully implement risk-informed
    Appropriate Management Response, and enact cost containment
    accountability throughout Wildland Fire programs.
        The 2007 fire season illustrated the continued success of the
    Forest Service fire organization, but also the challenges we face.
    Fires in recent years have become larger and more difficult to control
    due to a variety of factors, including climate change, historic fire
    suppression efforts resulting in increased density of hazard fuels, and
    expansion of residences in the wildland urban interface (WUI). As a
    result, fire activity in 2007 was above normal by many standards.
    Across all jurisdictions, wildland fires totaled more than 78,000
    incidents burning over 9 million acres. Thirteen different fires burned
    over 100,000 acres each, and the Nation was in Preparedness Level 5 for
    33 days--the highest level of fire activity during which several
    geographic areas are experiencing simultaneous major incidents. Despite
    more fires than in 2006 and a 49 percent increase in acres burned, the
    cost of suppressing Forest Service fires was $127 million lower in 2007
    due to aggressive implementation of Appropriate Management Response and
    other cost containment measures.
        The southern California fires at the end of the 2007 fire season
    further exemplified the successful coordination and risk mitigation
    activities that have made the Forest Service fire organization a model
    the world over. Compared to similar events in 2003, the 2007 fires had
    more fire starts (271 compared to 213) and more large fires that
    escaped initial attack (20 compared to 14), yet much less resulting
    damage. Only 65 percent as many acres were burned, 60 percent as many
    structures were destroyed, 60 percent as many firefighters were
    injured, and 40 percent as many civilian fatalities occurred compared
    to 2003. Improvements are attributable to pre-positioning efforts,
    investments in hazardous fuels treatments and community capacity, and
    coordination with other Federal, State, and local entities.
        In spite of these signs of success, the 2007 fire season still
    resulted in nearly $1.4 billion of expenditures on fire suppression. As
    application of Federal firefighting resources on both Federal and non-
    Federal land has grown, annual suppression expenditures escalate, as
    does the 10-year average of annual fire suppression expenditures, which
    determines the program's budget request. The 2009 Fire Suppression
    request is $994 million, over $250 million higher than it was just 2
    years ago, and nearly $150 million more than the current enacted level.
    The total Wildland Fire Management program, including continued focus
    on the National Fire Plan, makes up over 48 percent of the agency's
    discretionary budget request. The Forest Service is adopting
    substantive management reforms to mitigate this cost trend.
        In fiscal year 2009, the Wildland Fire Management program will
    continue to improve performance through attention to policy, training,
    oversight, decision support tools, and after action performance
    analysis. Management policy is set at the national level, and provides
    clear guidance for the role of Federal firefighters in the Wildland
    Urban Interface. Management policy also provides strategies of
    Appropriate Management Response, expectations concerning national
    shared resources and aviation resource cost management, and limitations
    to Severity funding. Mandatory training keeps agency administrators up
    to date on national policy. During an incident, the Chief's Principal
    Representative provides oversight, while decision support tools such as
    RAVAR and FSPro offer the incident commander information on fire spread
    probability, resource values at risk, and historic costs for similar
    fires. After action reviews, including use of the Stratified Cost
    Index, provide lessons and best practices to include in subsequent
    updates to management policy. This performance improvement process
    resulted in lower than projected suppression expenditures in 2007, and
    will enable the agency to maintain Fire Preparedness resources within a
    $588 million program budget, a decrease of $77 million from 2008.
        Several additional wildfire management reforms are based on
    recommendations of a USDA Office of Inspector General report that
    examined large fire suppression costs. The report documented
    inequitable apportionment of fire protection responsibilities between
    Federal and local entities in residential areas that abut national
    forests. In response, the Forest Service is renegotiating master
    protection agreements to clarify roles and ensure equitable and
    appropriate allocation of wildland urban interface firefighting costs
    between the agreement parties. Additionally, the Forest Service will
    implement a science-based methodology to encourage the cost-effective
    practice of using unplanned wildfires to reduce hazardous fuels when
    appropriate.
        We expect that the management improvements implemented and underway
    will make managers better prepared for wildfires; facilitate better
    decision making during firefighting operations; and provide 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 EXTENSION
                        OF SECURE RURAL SCHOOLS PAYMENTS

        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. The Forest Service has distributed more than $2.5
    billion under this legislation since 2001 to assist counties in
    maintaining and improving local schools and roads. Of this amount, $213
    million have been used by RACs to implement more than 4,400 resource
    projects on national forests and grasslands and adjacent non-Federal
    lands.
        Though the Secure Rural Schools Act expired in 2006, Congress
    extended payments for a 7th year under Public Law 110-28. The final
    year of payments were made in December 2007, and included distribution
    of more than $389 million in Forest Service revenue to 41 States and
    Puerto Rico for improvements to public schools, roads and stewardship
    projects.
        The 2009 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 Budget
    includes a legislative proposal that provides $200 million above the
    current baseline for a 4-year extension of USDA and Department of the
    Interior forest county safety net payments, which will be targeted to
    the most affected areas, capped, adjusted downward each year, and
    phased out. For administrative convenience, USDA will make the payments
    on behalf of both agencies. Offsets for the administration's proposal
    are provided within the topline of the President's Budget throughout
    the Department of Agriculture and elsewhere. For the 2008 payment (to
    be made in 2009), the administration continues to be prepared to work
    with Congress to identify mutually agreeable offsets.

                  STATE AND PRIVATE FORESTRY PROGRAM REDESIGN

        The 2009 budget focuses resources on national forest and grassland
    responsibilities, but it also reflects a redesigned State and Private
    Forestry program approach.
        The State and Private Forestry program connects the agency's
    research and public lands-based programs to those of States and private
    individuals and entities. Through a coordinated effort in management,
    protection, conservation education, and resource use, State and Private
    Forestry programs help facilitate sound stewardship across lands of all
    ownerships on a landscape scale, while maintaining the flexibility for
    individual forest landowners to pursue their objectives.
        In fiscal year 2007, the Forest Service and the National
    Association of State Foresters agreed to redesign State and Private
    Forestry. The intent of the redesign is to focus and prioritize
    resources to better shape and influence forest land use on a scale and
    in a way that optimizes public benefits from trees and forests for
    current and future generations. The foundation for the redesign
    approach is a national assessment of conditions, trends, and
    opportunities relevant to forests of all ownerships. The initial phase
    of national implementation has begun, including a new competitive
    process for a portion of S&PF funds. The Forest Service has committed
    to monitor implementation of the redesign approach, facilitate an
    annual review, and implement changes as needed.
        As a result, the Forest Service will prioritize work using the best
    available technology and information focused on three national themes:
    (1) Conserve working forest landscapes; (2) Protect forests from harm;
    and (3) Enhance benefits from trees and forests. Comprehensive
    assessments will be conducted at the State and national levels to
    identify conditions, threats, and ecosystem services. The assessments
    will then be used to integrate program delivery with partners through a
    variety of tools and approaches and ensure appropriate skills and
    organizational structures are in place to support priority work.
        In addition, funding is proposed in the 2008 farm bill for purposes
    and activities similar to those supported by State and Private Forestry
    programs. The Conservation, Forestry, and Energy titles of the farm
    bill authorizes nearly $10 billion in incentives to States, local
    governments, and nonindustrial private forest landowners to pursue
    conservation, forest restoration, and biomass energy. The products and
    process of State and Private Forestry redesign have helped focus
    collaborative efforts around important national priorities which will
    also receive significant attention and support in the 2008 farm bill.
        This concludes my statement, I would be happy to answer any
    questions that you may have.

        Senator Feinstein. Thank you very much, Mr. Rey. Chief
    Kimbell, welcome.
        Ms. Kimbell. Thank you.

                      SUMMARY STATEMENT OF ABIGAIL KIMBELL

        Ms. Kimbell. Madam Chairman, Mr. Allard, members of the
    subcommittee, it's a privilege to be here today to discuss with
    you the President's proposed budget for fiscal year 2009 for
    the U.S. Forest Service. Each of you have in your packets my
    full testimony, and I'd like to just cover some of the comments
    from that, but I'd like my full testimony added into the
    record, if I could, please.
        Senator Feinstein. Without objection.
        Ms. Kimbell. Thank you. First I'd like to describe the
    general context that this budget is presented in. I certainly
    recognize the Forest Service is just one small part but a very
    important part to me and to many of you of the Federal budget,
    and that our requests have to be balanced against competing
    needs and opportunities across Government for limited funds.
        It's important to explain how we, as an agency, crafted the
    budget proposal in front of you now. It is helpful for me to
    visualize things in a tangible, practical way, so I see our
    budget as a bucket. A bucket only has a certain size, it only
    holds so much, and in our case the bucket is decided after the
    Nation's highest priorities are taken care of such as
    supporting the war on terror, strengthening Homeland Security,
    and promoting sustained economic growth.
        With support of those priorities in mind, the Forest
    Service bucket is $4.1 billion in size, about the same size as
    last year's request, and about $380 million below what was
    appropriated for 2008. Our bucket starts a little smaller, but
    it also has to hold some programs that are bigger this year.
    The fire suppression request is decided by the 10-year average
    of fire suppression costs, an arrangement agreed to by both
    Congress and the administration.
        The 10-year average this year is $994 million, $250 million
    higher than it was just 2 years ago, and nearly $150 million
    higher than the current enacted level. Because fire suppression
    is the first thing in the bucket, and because it is
    considerably bigger than the past years, and because the bucket
    in only so big, other programs are reduced to make up the
    difference. Rather than simply ratchet all programs down by a
    similar percentage to make up that difference, this budget
    reflects a very difficult strategic decision. We are focusing
    limited resources on core National Forest System programs since
    we are the sole landlord for these lands. As a consequence,
    there is significant reductions in the requests for State and
    Private Forestry programs.
        In spite of these difficult cuts, I strongly believe that
    the Forest Service continues to be a good investment for the
    funds we receive. In 2007, we received our sixth clean audit in
    a row. That was no small feat. We have reduced indirect cost to
    less than 10 percent of our total expenses. We increased
    partnership contributions to challenge car-share projects by 35
    percent over that of 2006. We collected over $700 million in
    revenue and receipts.
        Forest Service scientists filed two patents. Thirteen
    Forest Service scientists were recognized with a share of the
    Nobel Peace Prize for their contributions to climate change
    research. We maintained 60,000 miles of road and another 26,000
    miles of trail. We sold 2.5 billion board feet of timber. We've
    reduced hazardous fuels on 3 million acres, and we provided
    fire assistance grants to 62,000 communities. We protected over
    88,000 acres of forest land from conversion through the Forest
    Legacy Program, and the list goes on.
        We are positioned to make the most of the resources we
    receive. Our agency is in the midst of a difficult but
    necessary transformation which will ensure a higher percentage
    of funds going into project work. We are encouraging our
    managers to focus on integrating programs and working with
    partners to achieve multiple objectives, and we are proposing
    innovative ecosystem services demonstration projects that will
    forge important partnerships with States, local governments,
    tribes, or nonprofit organizations to restore, enhance, and
    protect ecosystem function on national forests.
        The Forest Service is relevant, and we have a leading role
    in issues affecting the Nation and the world. We have
    dedicated, professional, and very hard-working employees who
    come to work every day looking for better ways to solve complex
    problems. I am confident we add value to the resources with the
    taxpayer funds you invest in us.

                               PREPARED STATEMENT

        Thank you for the opportunity to describe how our budget
    was formulated and why I am optimistic about our future. I'm
    happy to answer any questions that you may have.
        Senator Feinstein. Thank you very much.
        [The statement follows:]

                     Prepared Statement of Abigail Kimbell

        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 2009. One year ago, sitting here before
    you discussing the fiscal year 2008 budget was one of my first public
    acts as Chief of the Forest Service. I am grateful for the support this
    committee has shown the Forest Service, and over the past year I have
    been able to see firsthand many of the issues raised by its members. I
    look forward to our dialogue today.
        I can report to you that the state of the Forest Service is sound.
    The agency continues to sustain and restore the national forests and
    grasslands. Our researchers continue to push the frontiers of
    knowledge, and 13 have been recognized by the Nobel Prize panel for
    their efforts. Our partnerships with other Federal agencies, States,
    communities, and tribes have broadened and deepened, as together, we
    have faced growing threats from fire and other disturbances. The
    outstanding competence and professionalism of our employees is admired
    by forestry organizations around the world. Entering the second century
    of service, the Forest Service can reflect with pride on its
    accomplishments.
        Yet for all these achievements, the Forest Service faces
    significant issues, and can do better. The issues are every bit as
    challenging as those faced by our predecessors. America's population
    will likely increase by 50 percent in the next 50 years, and pressures
    on the land will increase and change. In an era of globalization, the
    world is shrinking, jobs are growing more complex, and the value of
    forests and grasslands is greater than ever.
        Among the challenges and opportunities facing our agency, three
    themes stand out in particular: climate change, water issues, and the
    loss of connection to nature, especially for kids. I truly believe that
    history will judge my leadership of the Forest Service by how well we
    as an agency respond to these challenges, and the 2009 budget is
    crafted with that in mind.
        The fiscal year 2009 Forest Service budget request totals $4.109
    billion in discretionary appropriations, an 8 percent decrease from the
    fiscal year 2008 enacted level. The President's Budget reflects our
    Nation's highest priorities, including supporting our troops,
    strengthening our homeland security, and promoting sustained economic
    growth. The administration's pro-growth economic policies, coupled with
    spending restraint, are key to keeping us on track to continue to
    reduce the deficit in the coming years.
        Within the framework of the agency's 2007-2012 Strategic Plan and
    the themes I've laid out, the Forest Service budget for 2009 focuses on
    core responsibilities, maintaining program effectiveness, and
    addressing on-going management challenges. The 2009 budget aligns
    Forest Service spending to reinforce the agency's commitment to caring
    for the 193 million acres of national forests and grasslands, and
    providing for the highest priority activities that can demonstrate
    performance in a transparent manner.

                            WILDLAND FIRE MANAGEMENT

        The responsibility to protect people and property from wildfire is
    one the Forest Service performs professionally and honorably. Fires in
    recent years have become larger and more difficult to control due to a
    variety of factors, including climate change, historic fire management
    practices resulting in an increased density of hazardous fuels, and
    residential developments expanding in the wildland urban interface
    (WUI). As application of Federal firefighting resources on both Federal
    and non-Federal land has grown, these costs escalate, and so too does
    the 10 year average of annual fire suppression expenditures, which
    determines the program's budget request. The 2009 Fire Suppression
    request is $994 million, over $250 million higher than it was just 2
    years ago, and nearly $150 million more than the current enacted level.
    The total Wildland Fire Management program, including the National Fire
    Plan, makes up over 48 percent of the agency's discretionary budget
    request. The Forest Service is adopting substantive management reforms
    to mitigate this cost trend.
        Several wildfire management reforms are based on recommendations of
    USDA Office of Inspector General report that examined large-fire
    suppression costs. The report documented inequitable apportionment of
    fire protection responsibilities between Federal and local entities in
    residential areas that abut national forests. In response, the Forest
    Service is renegotiating master protection agreements to clarify roles
    and ensure equitable and appropriate allocation of wildland urban
    interface firefighting costs between the agreement parties.
    Additionally, the Forest Service will implement a science-based
    methodology to encourage the cost-effective use of unplanned wildfires
    to reduce hazardous fuels when appropriate.
        In fiscal year 2009, the Wildland Fire Management program will
    continue to improve performance through attention to policy, training,
    oversight, decision support tools, and after action performance
    analysis. Management policy is set at the national level, and provides
    clear guidance for the role of Federal firefighters in the Wildland
    Urban Interface and the strategies of Appropriate Management Response
    (AMR). Mandatory training keeps agency administrators up to date on
    national policy. During an incident, the Chief's Principle
    Representative provides oversight, while decision support tools such as
    Rapid Assessment of Values at Risk (RAVAR) and Fire Spread Probability
    (FSPro) offer the incident commander information on fire spread
    probability, resource values at risk, and historic costs for similar
    fires. After action reviews, including use of the Stratified Cost Index
    (SCI), provide lessons and best practices to include in subsequent
    updates to management policy. This performance improvement process will
    enable the agency to maintain Fire Preparedness resources within a $588
    million program budget, a decrease of $77 million from 2008.

                                HEALTHY FORESTS

        The fiscal year 2009 Forest Service budget focuses resources on
    maximizing the effectiveness of core national forest and grassland
    programs. Implementation of the Healthy Forests Initiative and the
    Northwest Forest Plan are key initiatives which receive increased or
    similar levels of funding compared to fiscal year 2008 enacted--Forest
    Products is requested at $323 million, Hazardous Fuels at $297 million,
    and Vegetation & Watershed Management at $165 million. These
    investments will yield over 4.9 million CCF (2.5 BBF) of timber volume
    sold, including 1.6 million CCF (0.8 BBF) of timber volume offered from
    full implementation of the Northwest Forest Plan. Other priority
    program outputs include establishing or improving over 2 million acres
    of forest and rangeland vegetation, and 1.5 million acres of hazardous
    fuel reduction with an additional 800,000 acres of treatments
    accomplished by other land management activities to reduce fire risk.
    Capital Improvement and Maintenance of Roads is requested at $227
    million to provide the necessary infrastructure to support priority
    program activities and manage the roads system on national forest
    lands.

                   ORGANIZATIONAL EFFICIENCY & TRANSFORMATION

        The Forest Service is continuing its restructuring process that
    will improve its organizational structure and maximize resources
    available for on-the-ground mission delivery. Our current
    organizational structure, designed in the 1950s, does not take
    advantage of the communication technologies and integrated operating
    systems available in today's business environment. By the end of fiscal
    year 2009, the Forest Service will reduce operating costs by
    approximately 25 percent in the regional offices, the national
    headquarters, and the Northeastern Area. This will result in a higher
    proportion of funds going to the field and an organizational structure
    better equipped to meet the natural resource management challenges of
    the 21st century.

         RECOGNIZING INTEGRATED PROGRAM AND PARTNERSHIP ACCOMPLISHMENTS

        Another strategy to ensure maximum on-the-ground achievements
    relates to accomplishment tracking. In fiscal year 2008 the Forest
    Service is changing reporting rules to incorporate accomplishments
    achieved through integration between program areas and/or partnerships
    with external groups. This change is designed to shift from a program-
    by-program approach to one that aligns programs and partner
    organizations to achieve multiple goals. By changing how
    accomplishments are counted, the agency hopes to change how managers
    plan and implement their work, increase incentives for working with
    partners, and ensure maximum value per dollar of Federal expenditure.
        I will now discuss the program budget requests for the Research,
    State and Private Forestry, National Forest System, Capital Improvement
    and Maintenance, and Land Acquisition accounts.

                          FOREST & RANGELAND RESEARCH

        The Forest Service Research Program is a globally recognized leader
    developing scientific information and technologies that address the
    ecological, biological, social, and economic issues challenging natural
    resource management and conservation in the modern era. Approximately
    500 Forest Service scientists conduct this research at 67 sites located
    throughout the United States. The 2009 budget funds research at $263
    million. This is equal to the 2008 President's budget, and an 8 percent
    decrease from the enacted level of $286 million. The budget eliminates
    funding for congressional earmarks, employs investment criteria to
    align research projects with strategic priorities, and retains support
    of the Forest Inventory and Analysis program at $62.3 million.
        Forest Service Research & Development is a world leader on the
    global climate change issue. Thirteen Forest Service scientists
    participated in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC),
    which shared the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize with former Vice President Al
    Gore.
        The fiscal year 2009 budget includes $31 million for research on
    how climate change, air and water pollution, land use, and extreme
    events affect forest and rangeland sustainability and the associated
    benefits they provide to society. In addition, the program prioritizes
    research in the areas of Resource Management and Use ($79 million),
    Invasive Species ($30 million), and Wildland Fire and Fuels ($23
    million).

                            STATE & PRIVATE FORESTRY

        The State and Private Forestry program connects the agency's
    research and public lands-based programs to those of States and private
    individuals and entities. Through a coordinated effort in management,
    protection, conservation education, and resource use, State and Private
    Forestry programs help facilitate sound stewardship across lands of all
    ownerships on a landscape scale, while maintaining the flexibility for
    individual forest landowners to pursue their objectives.
        In fiscal year 2007, the Forest Service collaborated with the
    National Association of State Foresters to redesign the focus,
    priorities and delivery of the agency's State and Private Forestry
    programs. As a result, the Forest Service will prioritize work using
    the best available technology and information, focusing on three
    national themes: (1) Conserve working forest landscapes; (2) Protect
    forests from harm; and (3) Enhance benefits from trees and forests.
    Comprehensive assessments will be conducted at the State and national
    levels to identify conditions, threats, and ecosystem services. The
    assessments will then be used to integrate program delivery with
    partners and ensure appropriate skills and organizational structures
    are in place to support priority work.
        The 2009 budget funds State and Private Forestry at $110 million, a
    decrease of 58 percent from the 2008 enacted level. Forest Health
    programs, including those funded under the National Fire Plan, will
    receive almost $80 million and treat over 450,000 forest and rangeland
    acres for invasive and native pests with a focus on early detection,
    evaluation, and monitoring of new invasive species, such as the Sirex
    wood wasp, emerald ash borer, and sudden oak death. Cooperative Fire
    programs, including those funded under the National Fire Plan, will
    receive nearly $75 million and assist over 18,000 communities through
    grants to State and local fire agencies. In addition, $25 million will
    fund the Forest Stewardship, Forest Legacy, Urban & Community Forestry
    and International Forestry programs.

                             NATIONAL FOREST SYSTEM

        The National Forest System account provides funds for the
    stewardship and management of national forests and grasslands. The 2009
    budget requests $1.345 billion for this account, which is equal to the
    2008 President's budget request, but a decrease of $125 million or 9
    percent from the enacted level. This budget level reflects successful
    implementation of the organizational efficiency & transformation
    efforts which will direct a higher proportion of funds to on-the-ground
    mission-critical work.
        The 2009 budget includes a legislative proposal authorizing five
    Ecosystems Services Demonstration Projects that will bring new partners
    together with the Forest Service in a broad effort to advance market-
    based conservation. States, local governments, tribes or non-profit
    organizations will have the opportunity to provide up to $10 million of
    funds or in-kind services for activities that restore, enhance, and
    protect ecosystem function on National Forest System lands. The
    projects will also introduce and refine methodologies that may be used
    in potential or emerging markets to quantify and value ecosystem
    services related to clean water, carbon sequestration and other
    critical benefits.
        Other important National Forest System programs are increased in
    the fiscal year 2009 budget. As mentioned earlier, the fiscal year 2009
    budget supports full funding for the Northwest Forest Plan within the
    $323 million for Forest Products. Land Management Planning funding is
    proposed at $53 million, an 8 percent increase from the 2008 enacted
    level. The additional funds will focus on implementation of the revised
    Planning Rule, acceleration of work on 35 planned Land Management Plan
    (LMP) amendments that respond to energy corridor decisions, and
    completion of 18 LMP revisions currently scheduled for fiscal year
    2009.
        A number of National Forest System programs will be maintained at
    the fiscal year 2008 President's budget level including, $146 million
    for Inventory and Monitoring programs to facilitate efficient
    implementation of the 2008 Planning Rule, which establishes
    Environmental Management Systems on each NFS unit. The Recreation,
    Heritage, and Wilderness programs are proposed at $237 million, which
    will enable completion of travel management plans for 86 percent of
    National Forest System lands and Recreation Facility Analyses on 74
    percent of national forests by the end of fiscal year 2009. Wildlife &
    Fish Management, funded at $118 million, will focus on continued
    partnerships with States, non-governmental organizations and tribes to
    actively manage wildlife and fisheries habitat for the benefit of the
    36 million people that visit national forests and grasslands annually
    to hunt, fish, or view wildlife. The $47 million funding request for
    Grazing Management will support effective management of rangeland
    resources on approximately 90 million acres of NFS lands and compliance
    with the Recisions Act schedule for completed grazing allotments. The
    $115 million request for Law Enforcement Operations, a $17 million
    decrease, will be focused on combating drug-trafficking organizations
    along the southwest and northern borders, responding to emergency and
    life-threatening situations, and conducting arson investigations.

                       CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT & MAINTENANCE

        The Capital Improvement & Maintenance Program maintains the
    infrastructure for many Forest Service programs, including the
    transportation networks necessary for management and visitor access;
    the recreational infrastructure, including trails that serve many
    diverse populations; and facilities that house Forest Service
    employees. The 2009 Budget funds Capital Improvement & Maintenance at
    $406 million, a decrease of $69 million from the enacted level, which
    included a $25 million one-time transfer from the Purchaser Election
    Program. The $120 million proposed in Facilities funding will support
    maintenance of approximately 22,500 facilities and capital improvement
    of 34 facilities in fiscal year 2009. The $227 million Roads program
    includes maintenance of more than 70,000 miles, reconstruction and
    capital improvement of 2,000 miles, and decommissioning of
    approximately 600 miles of Forest Service roads. 17,300 miles of trails
    will be maintained and 700 miles relocated or constructed with the $50
    million Trails request. Legacy Roads & Trails, established by Congress
    in 2008, is not included in the budget.

                                   CONCLUSION

        I present this budget within a management environment that demands
    more than dollars to ensure organizational success. The budget supports
    national priorities of deficit reduction, maintains a safe and
    effective fire suppression organization, and maintains other high
    priority programs. Just as importantly, it proposes an ecosystem
    services approach to on-the-ground work in partnership with key
    stakeholders to protect watersheds, enhance economic and social values,
    and improve biodiversity. Combined with State & Private Forestry
    redesign, Wildland Fire Management reforms, and organizational
    management transformation, this suite of initiatives will enable the
    Forest Service to continue to deliver outstanding science and
    effectively manage the resources of the national forests and grasslands
    while adapting to the challenges of the coming decades.

                      FIREFIGHTER ATTRITION IN CALIFORNIA

        Senator Feinstein. We will begin the question phase. I just
    want to point out that this year California will be sponsoring
    the Tahoe Summit; I'm going to put it together, and deal with
    forests and forest fires. I'd like to invite both of you to
    attend and participate. I've asked Al Gore to speak on how
    fires, forest fires, affect global warming, or how global
    warming affects forest fires. So I think it should be very
    interesting. Then we'll hear from all of the fire districts
    around the Lake. So I hope you will be able to come.
        As you know, I wrote you a letter about the very high
    attrition rate of Federal firefighters in the southern
    California area. I've just been looking at your answer, and I
    gather you know the attrition rate in one of your charts is
    actually above 40 percent. You have a pie chart here which
    States that the reason for leaving the Forest Service, 44
    percent went to Cal State, county, local fire departments. It's
    a huge attrition rate, and yet you then compare the wages and
    point out that the wage, federally, is higher.
        Now, I mean, these people aren't stupid. They go to local
    jurisdictions because they get more money. So where is the
    difference in pay?
        Ms. Kimbell. Senator, the analysis that you have includes
    the description of the different kinds of work schedules that
    the employees with the Forest Service have versus employees
    with Cal State. There is quite a difference in the work
    schedule.
        There's also quite a difference in the mission that these
    different people perform in their different employment. Our
    wildland firefighters are not typically, across the rest of the
    country, involved in the kinds of activities some of the other
    committee members refer to as first responder and other
    responses that the Federal firefighters in California, State of
    California firefighters, and certainly the local firefighters
    are continuously involved with.
        There is a difference in the number of hours that these
    different employees put in; there's a difference in their work
    schedules; there's a difference in our firefighters being
    seasonal and at the lower-graded levels. The State and county
    firefighters, being year-round employees, results in a
    difference at year end in how much they make over a year.
        Senator Feinstein. I want to stop you because I've got
    that.
        Ms. Kimbell. Okay.
        Senator Feinstein. As you know, Senator Allard and I held a
    hearing, and Mr. Rey was good enough to be there in San Diego.
    One of the things that one anticipates in southern California
    is more catastrophic fire.
        You're saying, essentially, that people are going to Cal
    Fire because they work more hours, therefore they get more pay.
    Let me ask you this: As we go into the fire season, how many
    positions will be unfilled in those critical fire areas?
        Ms. Kimbell. We have instituted a new hiring process in
    California, specifically, with a roster, and over the last year
    we have hired 1,000 people into the firefighting organization
    in California. We anticipate to be fully staffed at the funding
    level.
        Senator Feinstein. So we can anticipate that when we come
    to fire season and I look at this, every position is going to
    be filled?
        Mr. Rey. Yes.
        Senator Feinstein. I heard that definitive ``yes.'' I
    appreciate it. It is noted in the record.
        Mr. Rey. Occasionally, we can give short answers.

                  ILLEGAL DRUG OPERATIONS IN NATIONAL FORESTS

        Senator Feinstein. Excellent. All right, thank you.
        We have another problem. Our forests, as you know, are
    inundated by Mexican drug trafficking organizations growing
    marijuana, and over the past 2 years I, specifically, added to
    the Forest Service enforcement budget $17 million to deal with
    that.
        I see your budget eliminates this increase and funds your
    program at $115 million. I supported Operation Alicia and
    Operation Green Acres, two major interagency drug operations
    that took place last season that netted literally hundreds of
    arrests and destroyed millions of marijuana plants.
        I met recently with your people as well as DEA. I came away
    from that meeting not satisfied: Not satisfied with the plan
    which I believe should be to clean the marijuana out of our
    forests--out of our parks and forests. I'd really like to get
    both of you on record as to what the intention is this year.
        What I gained from the meeting was that there was going to
    be much more emphasis on the development of intelligence
    related to cartel activity than actual strike force activity,
    and I'm interested, candidly, in the strike force activity.
        Mr. Rey, would you like to answer that?
        Mr. Rey. Sure. We are going to be doing at least four major
    strike force actions during the course of the summer. For
    obvious reasons, I don't think I want to describe where they're
    going to be or when they're going to happen, but there will be
    a significant stepping up of that kind of activity in
    cooperation with both DEA and with local law enforcement. I'll
    submit for the record some of the details associated with those
    proposals.
        [The information follows:]

                  Marijuana Eradication Efforts in California

        Forest Service Law Enforcement and Investigations (LEI) personnel
    will participate in four multi-agency drug eradication operations in
    Region 5 during fiscal year 2008. LEI officers will work with personnel
    from DEA, CAMP, HIDTA marijuana investigative teams, local sheriff
    departments, California National Guard, and the Joint Task Force North
    in the planning and execution of these operations. Each operation will
    have between 20 and 40 personnel assigned to it. Between June 15 and
    October 15, a total of 34 LEI personnel will be dedicated to drug
    enforcement operations on NFS lands.
        The program goals in California for fiscal year 2008 are to
    increase by 30 percent the number of plants eradicated, sites raided,
    and felony arrests over fiscal year 2007. The results will be 2.4
    million marijuana plants eradicated, 418 garden sites raided, and 94
    felony arrests.

        Mr. Rey. We do not intend to reduce the funding or the
    staffing that we've developed in Region 5 in California until
    we've turned the corner in dealing with the drug activity in
    California. So, while we may be leveling funding in other areas
    where we don't have this depth of difficulty, we're going to
    keep the California operations moving forward.
        Senator Feinstein. Thank you, I appreciate that very much.

                         TAHOE REGIONAL PLANNING AGENCY

        Chief Kimbell, last year I urged you and the Tahoe Regional
    Planning Agency to renegotiate an MOU to better streamline the
    permitting process to reduce hazardous fuels on Forest Service
    land in the Tahoe Basin. Can you give us a status update on the
    negotiations, and what assurances can you provide that this
    will be done before this year's fire season?
        Ms. Kimbell. We've been working very closely with TRPA, and
    TRPA provided a draft----
        Senator Feinstein. Stay with that: The Tahoe Regional
    Planning Agency?
        Ms. Kimbell. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, thank you.
    Sorry. They provided a draft. It was of concern to a number of
    people given the amount of process that was included in that
    redrafting of the MOU.
        The Governors of California and Nevada appointed a fire
    commission. That commission delivered a report on March 21 with
    a number of recommendations and suggestions. We are reviewing
    that report from the fire commission right now, and we'll
    continue working with TRPA. Before the 1st of June, we
    anticipate having a final memorandum of understanding for
    signature.
        Mr. Rey. We have a good three-page summary of where
    everything's at right now that the Forest supervisor for the
    Tahoe Basin Planning Unit provided. We'll submit that for the
    record for the hearing.
        Senator Feinstein. I would appreciate that. Are there signs
    that the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency is being more realistic
    now in view of the threat of fire in easing some of its
    regulations so that pine needles can be picked up, so the trees
    that overhang houses can be reduced in bulk and size, and
    ground cover reduced?
        Mr. Rey. There are signs, but it's a long, slow process. I
    would say that the sharpened focus of thinking that the Angora
    fire created has sort of been dulled with the winter rains, and
    I think we've still got a couple of rounds of negotiations with
    the Regional Planning Authority before we're at the point where
    we want to be.
        Senator Feinstein. Thank you. Well, I'd appreciate that
    memo, and if you could keep me advised, I'd appreciate that as
    well.
        [The information follows:]

        I've been requested to provide information for the Senate Interior
    Appropriation Hearing. My response will center on the efforts
    associated with the California-Nevada Tahoe Basin Fire Commission (the
    ``Commission''). Many of the recommendations address the situation and
    concerns I identified in my August 8, 2007 memo. I've combined and
    summarized the ones that will have the most impact on accomplishing
    fuels work in the Lake Tahoe Basin.

                                   BACKGROUND

        In the aftermath of the Angora Fire, the Governors of California
    and Nevada established an emergency Commission to look at what happened
    and what can and should be done to prevent another catastrophic fire in
    the Basin. The Commission met approximately 19 times and the LTBMU
    actively participated in all facets of the process. A draft report has
    been prepared and is expected to be finalized sometime in April. There
    are 48 findings and 90 recommendations recommended by the Commissioners
    in the draft report.
        The finding and recommendation getting the most attention is the
    recommendation to declare the Lake Tahoe Basin a state of emergency.
    The Governors from both States would have to declare separate
    emergencies and then request President Bush declare a national
    emergency. When this was voted on, Jim Pena abstained as a Federal
    official.
        The findings and recommendations (``F&Rs'') that will help the
    LTBMU most are the ones that will:
      --Remove the impediments to getting fuels work done
      --Allow us the opportunity to work more efficiently which results in
            cost effective measures
      --Potentially change the permitting processes
      --Increase the capacity and capability to implement projects
      --Address the roles and responsibilities of the regulatory agencies
            we work with
        Based on these criteria, following is a summary of the F&Rs we
    consider to have the most impact on the Basin. I've attached a list of
    these findings and recommendations summarized for this memo.

    A. Revision of Memorandums of Understanding
        Immediately after the fire, Senator Feinstein requested information
    on how we worked with the TRPA and the Lahontan Regional Water Quality
    Control Board and what could be done to streamline the process. My
    August 8, 2007 memo that went to Senator Feinstein through the RO and
    WO addressed those issues. As we streamlined regulatory processes, we
    continued to provide the appropriate protection for water quality.
    Since August, progress has been made and I am continuing the dialogues
    with both agencies and working on revising our MOUs. Specifically:
      --LTBMU and TRPA are working to revise the 1989 MOU for fuels
            projects to apply to all FS projects after completion of the
            MOU revision
      --LTBMU is drafting the language with advice and review from OGC
      --TRPA's October 2007 draft MOU was unacceptable to LTBMU and OGC
            because of increased bureaucracy
      --By June 1, LTBMU will give TRPA another draft that takes into
            consideration the Commission F&Rs
      --LTBMU will revise MOU with Lahontan

    B. Reducing Redundant and Complex Permitting
        The Commission found that the existing system to permit fuel
    reduction projects is often confusing, redundant and overly complex.
    Also, the system used in Nevada is different than that in CA because of
    an added regulatory layer (Lahontan). The Commission recommended:
      --The Governors direct regulatory and implementing agencies to
            simplify the system, including waiving certain restrictions on
            use of mechanized equipment and vehicles within SEZs.
      --Lahontan and TRPA and land managers develop common list of
            equipment and accepted best management practices (BMPs) for
            mechanical work in SEZs.
      --TRPA, Lahontan and the FS allow equipment use on slopes greater
            than 30 percent based on current and future technology.
      --Lahontan transfer its water quality permitting responsibility to
            TRPA for water quality issues relating to fuels reduction
            projects. This has already been done in Nevada by Nevada
            Division of Environmental Protection.

    C. Reduce Permitting for Mechanized Equipment in SEZs
        Several F&Rs identified ways for work to be accomplished in SEZs
    and still protect water quality and increase cost effectiveness. The
    Commission recommended:
      --Governors direct TRPA to allow use of mechanized equipment in SEZs
            including revising the Lake Tahoe 208 Water Quality Plan.
      --Governors should direct agencies to consider fire hazard reduction
            an overriding priority with applications for mechanized
            equipment use.
      --Lahontan change its interpretation of regulations and allow pile
            burning and spreading chipped material in SEZs.

    D. Increase Burn Days
        In Nevada, air quality agencies do not regulate burn days and
    leaves it to the land managers' discretion to determine acceptable
    conditions. Below are elements of F&Rs that will allow us to increase
    burn days:
      --More comprehensive air quality and meteorological information
            should be implemented and further analyzed at the Basin scale
            to provide for additional burn days.
      --The California Air Resources Board should develop a test program to
            see if additional burn days can be added to the Basin without
            adversely affecting the region's air quality.
      --Nevada land managers should continue to follow existing practices.

    E. Funding the Recommendations
        The Commission recognized that the Federal Government is not the
    only answer to funding the recommendations. It directed the States and
    local governments, as well as private parties to look for ways to share
    in funding fuels work in the Basin. However, it was also recognized
    that additional Federal funding will be necessary to accomplish the
    needed work. The Commission also recognized that the Southern Nevada
    Public Land Management Act (SNPLMA) is not the only funding mechanism.
    With decreasing land sales in Clark County, Nevada, future funding is
    on a downward trend and funds other than SNPLMA should be identified.

    F. What the LTBMU is Doing that Aligns with Findings and
            Recommendations
        Even before the fire, the LTBMU has been working toward better
    working relationships with regulatory agencies. The Commission
    identified many things they would like to see happen. We are already
    engaged in many, including:
      --TRPA and LTBMU working together on permitting fuels projects under
            existing MOUs to prevent delays once NEPA decision is made
            (i.e. Round Hill, Angora Hazard Tree removal along FS trails/
            roads)
      --TRPA concurred on Round Hill project which authorized 2 different
            treatment methods:
          --72 acres of whole tree yarding
          --3 acres of mechanical treatment in SEZ
          --Total project treatment is 952 acres in NV
      --Engaging in a joint process with Lahontan, i.e., working with and
            going forward at the same time on environmental requirements
            (NEPA and CEQA) instead of one after the other for our South
            Shore Fuels Reduction and Healthy Forest Restoration Project:
          --largest fuels project analyzed in the LT Basin
          --33,000 acres analyzed; 10,000 acres proposed for treatment in
            CA
          --550 to 640 acres of mechanical treatment proposed in SEZ
          --2,100 to 3,800 acres whole tree yarding proposed
      --Renegotiating and revising the MOUs discussed earlier

        Senator Feinstein. I call on the ranking member, Senator
    Allard.
        Senator Bennett. Madam Chairman----
        Senator Feinstein. You have not had an opportunity for an
    opening statement.
        Senator Bennett. Yeah, and I have to be called out, so
    could I make a quick----
        Senator Feinstein. A quick--yes.
        Senator Bennett [continuing]. A quick comment?
        Senator Allard. I'll yield to the good----

                     STATEMENT OF SENATOR ROBERT F. BENNETT

        Senator Bennett. I apologize to you both, but I simply want
    to make a comment, Mr. Rey. You've made reference to it in your
    opening statement about the Secure Rural Schools and
    Communities Self-Determination Act, and I am pleased that the
    Department is taking steps to provide a safety net for payments
    to States that they would have received under that act that
    expired in 2006. But I think we have to do more.
        It's an act that's very important to Utah's rural counties.
    I think we in Congress have to work to reauthorize the act, and
    these funds are used for all kinds of things--roads, public
    schools, other important uses that are critical to our western
    counties. The expiration of the act means that PILT payments
    will be reduced, so we have to use the rural school payments to
    offset PILT and stretch all of those funds even more.
        So I don't want to let the opportunity pass without making
    a comment about it, thanking you for your attention to it, and
    I look forward to working with you on this.
        With that, thank you, Madam Chairman. Thank you for your
    courtesy.
        Senator Feinstein. Thank you very much, Senator Bennett.
        Senator.

                       HAZARDOUS FUELS TREATMENT PROGRAM

        Senator Allard. Thank you, Madam Chairman. You know,
    there's an axiom in veterinary medicine that prevention is a
    lot less expensive than treatment, and I think we're seeing the
    impacts on the Forest Service budget now.
        You know, we've disallowed a judicious cutting of trees and
    thinning of forests and whatnot, and adequate treatment of
    these forests because of some of the policies we had put in
    place and right now we're paying the price in less income into
    the Federal Government because we don't allow the cutting; the
    more money being spent for fires because disease has taken over
    these fires. We get more burnable timber out there that burns
    hotter and faster, and the result is that we're spending a lot
    more money now in fire suppression and, you know, taking care
    of fires. I hope that we can move back to a more sensible
    policy than what we have now.
        We have in California and Colorado a pine beetle problem.
    We have in the southern part of this country a beetle problem.
    The beetle problem that they have with the spruce bark beetle
    in Alaska is extremely prevalent up there. They've got some
    really serious problems.
        So my question is, can you explain the large cuts in this
    particular program with the enormous problems that we have with
    the pine beetles?
        Mr. Rey. Well, I don't think we look at what we've proposed
    in its totality as a large cut. If you look at the Fire
    Management program in its entirety, both USDA's, Forest
    Service, and the Department of the Interior, we're proposing a
    $927 million program as compared to last year's program, which
    in regular appropriations was $962 million.
        Now, last year was an all-time record of funding, so we're
    down a little bit from that record. We have tried to make the
    implementation of the Healthy Forests Initiative one of our
    budget priorities, keeping the line items that contribute to
    that initiative as close to at-record levels as we could.
        So, I don't think that we would concur that they are a big
    reduction. Yes, it's down about $35 million from last year's
    levels, but last year's levels were the highest levels that
    those programs had ever been funded.
        Senator Allard. I got that point. Now, if we were to give
    you additional money, could you give us some idea of how many
    more acres you could effectively treat, and at what cost?
        Mr. Rey. Sure. We can break that out for you in, say, $10
    million increments in terms of the acreage comparison for what
    we would be able to reach. That's of course, assuming that
    appeals and litigation don't get in the way, obviously. But we
    can give you a step-wise progression there.
        Senator Allard. You know, I want to sit down--I want our
    staffs to work with you a little bit because we come up with
    different conclusions when we look at the figure that we have
    here before us under the 3-year summary of the appropriations
    and whatnot.
        Mr. Rey. What I was giving you was the documentation on
    page K-1 of our budget's submission, appendix K.
        Senator Allard. Okay. Well, we'll review that, and we'll
    want to continue to have that discussion with you.

                           FIRE PREPAREDNESS FUNDING

        Now, on the Fire Preparedness, you say through efficiencies
    you'll maintain the same numbers of firefighters, the same
    number of hot shot crews and engines. Can you describe what the
    efficiencies are and how that can be so large, and justify so
    large a reduction in spending?
        Mr. Rey. I can give you some examples, and then, for the
    record, we can flesh out, you know, larger numbers of them. But
    let's take aviation assets, planes, for instance. Last year we
    did a review of how we contract for aircraft and modified the
    use of exclusive use contracts, which resulted in a net savings
    of about $14 million. The experience that we gained from those
    changes is going to result in savings that we can carry
    forward.
        We have put cost control measures in place in large
    incident fires, and it's important in the fire budget to
    recognize less than 2 percent of the fires would account for 85
    percent of the cost. That's where the real cost savings can be
    found in managing the cost associated with extended attack on
    large incident fires. So we've added cost-containment staff to
    those incidents that have resulted in some savings as well.
        What we believe is that as a consequence of those savings,
    we've reduced real expenses from those which were projected by
    about $200 million. Now what you're seeing in our 2009 budget
    proposal is a recognition of those savings in some slight
    reductions in preparedness.
        Now, you've given us the authority that if we fall short in
    preparedness dollars to use suppression funding if that becomes
    necessary. So we've got a backstop if we prove to be too
    optimistic in projecting the effects of some of these savings.
    If need be, we'll draw from the suppression account to deal
    with that.
        But if we're going to make these kinds of investments in
    cost savings, then we ought to reflect that in the way we
    budget. That's what we think.
        Senator Allard. So you can assure us that at this level of
    preparedness funding, the agency's initial attack success rate
    won't be reduced and lead to more catastrophic fires?
        Mr. Rey. The preparedness budget is built on maintaining
    the historic initial attack success rated upwards of 98 percent
    fires suppressed on initial attack.

                              FOREST PLANNING RULE

        Senator Allard. Okay, let me just move on. The time is
    escaping us here. On the forest planning process, under the old
    forest planning rules the time and expense to complete the
    forest plans have become incredibly expensive. The plans
    designed to last for 15 years now are taking 6 to 8 years to
    complete and cost many millions of dollars. That's for the last
    15 years.
        This administration streamlined that process with the new
    planning rule put in March of last year. A Federal court in the
    9th District enjoined the agency from implementing the new
    planning rule.
        Can you tell us what the status of your new planning rule
    is?
        Mr. Rey. It will be out in ``The Federal Register'' in a
    matter of days.
        Senator Allard. Do you believe you have cured the defects
    found by the court?
        Mr. Rey. We believe we have cured the defects found by the
    court. I daresay we won't get the last word on that, though. It
    will probably be the court that determines that.
        Senator Allard. Yes, and how do you anticipate the cost for
    individual forest plans that were reduced by the new rules?
    Will they, do you think, add to the cost or reduce the cost?
        Mr. Rey. I think we'll reduce the cost by a factor of two-
    thirds from what it was costing us to develop plans under the
    1982 regulations.
        Senator Allard. You feel comfortable that there's been
    adequate public participation in the new forest planning
    process?
        Mr. Rey. I think, if anything, there has been a greater
    degree of public participation in the plans that have been
    developed under these new rules.
        Senator Allard. Well, I think you're rather optimistic, and
    I appreciate it, but we'll see.
        Senator Craig. This panel has voted, and we agree.
        Senator Allard. Okay. I see my time has expired.
        Mr. Rey. There's a vote there. I'm always looking for the
    opprtunity here.
        Senator Allard. Thank you.
        Senator Feinstein. Thank you very much, Senator.
        Senator Domenici.

                               SERVICE OF MR. REY

        Senator Domenici. First, let me thank all of you for your
    service, especially Mark, you, for your long service here, and
    it's been a very difficult job. I was talking to my friend
    here, Senator Craig about your activities and performance, and
    we're very lucky to have somebody that stays on this kind of
    difficult job that has the knowledge that you have. We are glad
    that you share it with us. We're very sorry that you can't
    implement much of it in the field because it is not just
    Congress and you, the outsiders have a lot to do with what you
    can do, and they find ways to make it very difficult for you,
    and we understand that. We have not been able to change that
    very much.

                   EDUCATIONAL REQUIREMENTS FOR FIREFIGHTERS

        My first question, however, is to you, Ms. Kimbell. I
    talked to you a little bit about this qualification the OPM has
    imposed with reference to degrees and courses and
    qualifications. I understand that the folks out in the field
    are having some difficult, extremely difficult getting
    definitive answers regarding this situation from your human
    resources specialists. Many are very frustrated.
        How serious is this problem?
        Ms. Kimbell. I think it's a very serious problem, Senator,
    and we've put together a team of people working with our fire
    leadership and with our human resources people in Albuquerque
    to more quickly process all that different information. That
    way, we can give employees answers in writing specific to the
    kind of course work that they've had and which of those courses
    will or will not qualify them in the 401 Series as per OPM
    guidelines.
        Senator Domenici. What percentage of your field managers
    are at risk of losing their qualifications in 2009?
        Ms. Kimbell. The exact percent, there are 30 people,
    actually, that we have been granted an extension to be able to
    get them the course work that they need by June 2009.
        Senator Domenici. Why did this OPM intervention occur, and
    do you think the training provided by a college or a university
    is superior to the on-the-job training, your in-house courses
    and the experience that your fire managers have gained through
    their years of fighting fires?
        Ms. Kimbell. Well, that's the larger question with all of
    this. The course work--the courses that we provide through the
    Wildfire Coordinating Group--is recognized as world-class.
    There are people who attend from around the world. It's very
    practical, it's hands on, it's taught by very experienced,
    knowledgeable people. Yet those are courses that the Office of
    Personnel Management hasn't been willing to recognize as
    qualifying under the positive education requirements.
        Senator Domenici. Okay. Well, I wanted to say, speaking for
    myself, I think what's happening is very, very wrong, unfair,
    and unneeded. I cannot believe that we're going to lose
    experienced managers and experienced firefighters because OPM
    says they have to have a certain kind of college degree or
    effort toward a degree. So, from my standpoint I'd like for you
    to provide the committee with information as to how we would
    provide a waiver, a waiver that you sought, and how we would
    provide that. I think that that would be good for us to have.
        Ms. Kimbell. Senator, we'd be very interested in working
    with you on that, and we'll also continue working with the
    Department of the Interior. We entered into this whole
    arrangement with the Secretaries of Agriculture and the
    Interior, and we need to be together as we work through this.
        Mr. Rey. Yes, there are some Interior firefighters who are
    in similar situations, so we'll have to readdress this----
        Senator Domenici. Oh, very good.
        Mr. Rey [continuing]. With the departments together.
        Senator Domenici. Very good. So there's more than just you
    fighting the fight.
        Ms. Kimbell. There are 500 firefighters in Interior who are
    also affected, and there are an additional 200 Forest Service
    firefighters who will become affected here shortly.
        Senator Domenici. Madam Chairman, do you understand how
    critical this issue is?
        Senator Feinstein. I do. We'll take----
        Senator Domenici. Now, are you willing to work with me----
        Senator Feinstein. Yes.
        Senator Domenici [continuing]. On my----
        Senator Feinstein. We certainly are, and we will.
        Senator Domenici. Thank you very much.

              FIREFIGHTER RESPONSIBILITIES IN SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA

        Under Secretary Rey, I understand that the Forest Service
    wildland firefighters on at least four southern California
    forests now respond not only to wildland fire calls but also
    calls to deal with other emergencies like traffic accidents. Is
    that correct?
        Mr. Rey. It's correct, but it's unique to those four
    forests. It goes to how our memorandum of agreement with the
    local firefighting authorities are written. So it's not a
    situation that's comparable anywhere else in the system.
        Senator Domenici. Well, can you tell me approximately how
    many of these traffic calls are nonwildfire calls for service?
    Requests for firefighters' response in 2007? Do you require
    your wildland firefighters in all States to perform these type
    of duties?
        I guess you've answered the second question. You don't
    require that they do it in other districts, is that correct?
        Mr. Rey. That's correct. Based on the records that we have,
    we responded to about 3,200 nonfire calls from Forest Service
    stations in those four national forests last year.
        Senator Domenici. That's a good number, but 3,200 out of
    what?
        Mr. Rey. 3,200.
        Senator Domenici. 3,200 out of what?
        Ms. Kimbell. It's approximately 70 percent of the calls
    that are nonfire.
        Senator Domenici. Okay, and yet we're paying for them as
    firefighting under this Department's budget, is that right?
        Mr. Rey. That's correct.
        Senator Domenici. Well, why should we continue this? I
    mean, it sounds like a nice thing to do for some areas, but----
        Mr. Rey. Well, this will be one of the things that we look
    into as we continue to work on the retention issue in southern
    California. But I guess the simple answer is that as we work
    through our local agreements with the county fire organizations
    in southern California, this was something we agreed to do, and
    in exchange they've agreed to do some things for us. So there
    is some degree of reciprocity in how we organize ourselves.
        Senator Domenici. All right. Then are you suggesting, are
    you saying to the committee that, as the man in charge, you
    think this is a good practice that ought to continue? Or should
    it be put in a stage where it's being diminished annually so
    that it won't remain at this high level forever.
        Mr. Rey. Well, I think what I would say is that it's
    something we ought to look at as we move to update the
    agreements that we have with the local fire authorities. It's
    not something I think we should change precipitously, if these
    local authorities aren't capable of picking up the slack,
    because that means we'll be putting citizens at risk to a less
    effective initial response.
        It's a situation that has evolved because of the unique
    nature of the fire organizations in southern California. It's
    like many of our agreements with State and local firefighting
    agencies. This is one thing that we need to nail down so that
    the Federal role is clear and appropriate, and that, to the
    extent that we are doing work that benefits another
    jurisdiction, that the Federal Government is compensated for
    that.
        Senator Domenici. All right. Thank you very much. On the
    OPM issue we will continue to see what we can do and work with
    our staff and the chairman on that issue.
        Ms. Kimbell. Yes, thank you.
        Senator Feinstein. Thank you very much, Senator Domenici.
        Senator Domenici. Thank you for the time this morning and
    your cordiality. I appreciate it.
        Senator Feinstein. You're very welcome. Thank you.
        Senator Craig.
        Senator Craig. Madam Chairman, thank you very much.

                               FIREFIGHTING FUND

        Chief, if the chairman of this committee and I were to do
    something we did a year ago against your better judgment, and
    that was put $500 million in your fire fund to fight the fires
    that you fought last summer, would you oppose that against your
    current budget?
        Ms. Kimbell. I'm not certain I understand the nuance in
    what you've----
        Senator Craig. The nuance was we felt you had substantially
    underfunded yourself for the fire season that was ahead of you.
        Ms. Kimbell. Oh.
        Senator Craig. The history is now in, and it was shown that
    you did, and we saw that coming and advanced you some money.
        Ms. Kimbell. We absolutely appreciate the money you
    advanced us.
        Senator Craig. Okay. Thank you.
        Ms. Kimbell. We've put it to very good use.
        Senator Craig. Yes, you did. None of that's disputed.

                    EDUCATIONAL REQUIREMENT FOR FIREFIGHTERS

        I'm sitting here listening to this question about the
    Office of Management and Budget and who's the most talented.
    There are probably few in this room who have fought fires. I
    have a young man staffing me as my legislative assistant in
    this area who was a wildland fire firefighter. He just handed
    me a note that said if he had a minor in fire science from a
    university, he would now be his boss's boss, who might have had
    8 or 10 years more experience than he.
        When you're out on a wildland fire, I'll opt for experience
    every day before I'll opt for a college degree. College degrees
    get burned, tragically enough, if they don't have the knowledge
    and the experience that goes down the road toward a year-after-
    year fire knowledge.
        I don't know where OMB's coming from other than the green-
    eyeshade people got way out in front of themselves on this one.
    And you ought to fight it aggressively and with passion as it
    relates to experience on the ground. We'll help you there. This
    is just silliness, absolute silliness on the part of a
    Government agency run amok on this issue. I don't know of any
    more dramatic way to say it.
        If we're opting for a college degree versus ground
    experience, and the kind of work and the professionalism you've
    built into your fire corps over the years, both the BLM and the
    Forest Service--I see it out at the interagency in Boise--the
    talent that comes with the experience. We know that the fires
    we fight today cannot be diagrammed in a textbook. They are
    hotter, they're more dramatic, you've learned some tremendously
    tragic lessons over the last good number of years of how to
    engage, when not to engage, when to step back, where to fight,
    when to fight, all of those kinds of things.
        So let us help you do that.
        Ms. Kimbell. Thank you, Senator.
        I'm sitting beside and in front of a number of people who
    have been wildland firefighters, and I think they'd absolutely
    agree they'd rather be working for somebody with 8 to 10 years
    of experience than someone with simply a degree without the
    experience.
        Senator Craig. Thank you. I think that's important for the
    record. OMB, listen: Don't hide your head in a bunch of
    paperwork.

                       STATE AND PRIVATE FORESTRY FUNDING

        I'm frustrated, Secretary Rey, throughout the U.S. Forest
    Service's strategic plan for fiscal years 2007 through 2012,
    references are made to the necessity and the high value of
    partnerships, especially with respect to State and Private
    Forestry programs. Please explain how the proposed 58 percent
    reduction in 2009, in State and private forestry appropriations
    will help the Forest Service attain the goals and objective set
    forth in the strategic plans.
        Mr. Rey. As I said in my opening statement----
        Senator Craig. It wasn't clear.
        Mr. Rey [continuing]. We look at the full context of what
    we're proposing in the State and private forestry area as
    including not just our fiscal year 2009 budget proposal, but
    also the proposals that the administration made and that
    Congress is considering in the 2008 farm bill.
        What we've proposed in that farm bill and what, for the
    most part, the House and Senate bills have carried forward is a
    substantial broadening of the use of conservation title funding
    to make it accessible to both State forestry organizations as
    well as forest landowners. The amount of money in that title,
    in the conservation title, is substantially greater than the
    amount of proportional reductions that we've made in the State
    and private forestry programs.
        So in the full context, if you look at those two proposals
    together, what we would submit is that you're probably seeing
    an increase in funding available for State and private forestry
    rather than a decrease. But you have to look at both pieces to
    get to that point.
        Senator Craig. Okay. Well, I'll try to look at it from a
    different approach, then, because I'm not sure that what's in
    the budget now fits.

                          SECURE RURAL SCHOOLS FUNDING

        Chief Kimbell, in your statement--and I don't mean this as
    a criticism--you gave a reasonably rosy scenario as it relates
    to where the Forest Service is today. Let me step back to
    communities of interest, because there are a lot of communities
    in my State that are--were, not are today--but were tied
    directly to the Forest Service because they were dependent upon
    the Forest Service.
        The great minds that created our forest reserves suggested
    that those communities ought never disengage or be disengaged
    from that relationship. But we've watched that happen over the
    last several decades. No longer is the Forest Service or that
    which flows from the Forest Service lands a majority employer
    of those communities. There seems to be a growing isolation and
    frustration from the communities that the Forest Service is no
    longer the great neighbor and provider and asset that it once
    was.
        No longer does the mill exist, the green sales are gone.
    Now you're posing--you're developing road plans that are
    closing as much as a third to a half of the roads, so access to
    the public lands is rapidly being denied, and it's even
    suggested that you will enforce them once you've closed them,
    and you might start arresting people for trespassing in certain
    areas.
        The story goes on and on; Forest Service offices are
    closed, the number of employees are down, the relationships
    have dramatically changed. I don't see that as for the better
    in many instances; I see it as a kind of a growing isolationism
    between a Federal agency and Federal lands and citizens of a
    State in a community that are tied to that.
        I know that we have struggled on the timber-dependent
    school and county issue. Of course, we crafted Craig-Wyden,
    funded it for a time, you heard Senator Bennett speak to it
    today. If you would, either you, Chief Kimball, or Secretary
    Rey, speak to how much you currently have in the budget and
    what we might be able to do to plus that up.
        I have school districts that by June are going to have to
    dramatically cut budgets for the coming year, lay off people,
    cut programs, diminish the quality of education to their
    children, struggling with State's and limited resources to see
    if they can't do some emergency funding because of their
    dependency upon a relationship with the public land that they
    are now being denied. Why? Because of public policy.
        Could you respond to that?
        Mr. Rey. Sure. We've proposed in our budget an additional
    4-year extension to the Secure Rural Schools legislation, and
    we have provided a couple of hundred million dollars over
    baseline that's available without offsets for that purpose.
        It's our judgment that that extension should eventually
    start to phase down in terms of the guaranteed payments, but,
    we're happy to work with the committee and with the Congress in
    deciding what the rate formula for the distribution of those
    payments are, and in a mechanism for reauthorizing the
    legislation.
        It will require additional legislative activity to
    continue, because the 2000 legislation has now expired.
        Senator Craig. Right.
        Mr. Rey. So we would be eager to work with the committee
    and the Congress to reauthorize the legislation; to continue
    the work of the resource advisory committees, which I think
    have had a material benefit in improving the relationship
    between local communities and the Federal land managing
    agencies; and to see the guaranteed payments extended for at
    least a time into the future.
        You know, it's interesting that we are now in the 100th
    anniversary of the first time that we made payments available
    to local governments that was enacted with legislation. It was
    passed by Congress in 1908 in the last year of the Roosevelt
    presidency. For about the first 50 years, those payments didn't
    amount to very much, really, in the broad scheme of things.
        It wasn't until the early 1950s that the Forest Service
    became much more active in the timber sales arena, and those
    payments began to increase. They increased pretty much every
    year from about 1950 through 1969, and then they leveled off,
    and the Forest Service endeavored, in a pre-endangered species
    era, to keep those payments level. They were level from about
    1970 until about 1990, and then, of course, they started to
    decline, precipitously, because of endangered species and other
    concerns. Now they're starting to trend back up again,
    slightly.
        But, you know, the agreement in 1908 was never that the
    communities were going to be given x amount of money; it was
    always that they were going to be given x percentage of
    whatever the receipts were. We have now extended the highest
    level of receipts for a period of time 1990 to present as long
    as the high level of timber receipts that preceded that
    existed.
        Senator Craig. Yes.
        Mr. Rey. So we do think that the communities in some cases
    have adjusted so that they're not so dependent on it, and in
    other cases still need some time to adjust which is why we're
    proposing an extension.
        Senator Craig. Madam Chairman, it's an issue that,
    obviously, impacts greatly northern California especially,
    along with my State, Oregon, Washington, and then, of course,
    all timber or forested public land States and counties.
        Secretary Rey, I appreciate the history. I repeat it often
    to superintendents and chairmen of school boards only to have
    their eyes glaze over.
        Mr. Rey. OK.
        Senator Craig. Because some of these transitions are
    difficult to come by. There is a dependency.
        Madam Chair, last year Senator Wyden and I crafted a new
    approach toward just in part exactly what Secretary Rey spoke
    of: a scaling down. The community of interest, the association,
    the group that came together headed by a gentleman from your
    State understands that, accepts that.
        I would really hope that we could match with some money
    that which Secretary Rey has talked about that's in this budget
    and possibly extend in at least a 4-year period, a similar
    formulation that we've talked about that takes us down and
    sends the message again to these communities that they really
    have to diversify and change as best they can, as rapidly as
    they can.
        This committee's going to, I think, play a tremendous role
    in that. You've got school districts that are heavily impacted
    as do I, and very little ability to offset these losses without
    some emergency funding from the States.
        Senator Feinstein. If we're having a discussion on this, I
    think we're going to have to get together and do it in the
    emergency supplemental----
        Senator Craig. I think you're right.
        Senator Feinstein [continuing]. That that's going to be the
    only way to get this thing done this year.
        Senator Craig. Oh, I don't think much else will be moving,
    yes, if we don't do that.
        Senator Feinstein. Right.
        Senator Craig. Thank you, I'd be more than happy, as would
    Senator Wyden and a good many others, including Senator Bennett
    to work with you on trying to accomplish something like that.
        Senator Feinstein. I realize now. Good.
        Senator Craig. Thank you.
        Senator Feinstein. That would be my intent to try and put
    something in.
        Senator Craig. Thank you
        Senator Feinstein. In any event, I think we're almost
    completed.
        I have one quick question, if I might. Mr. Rey, perhaps
    you'll remember we met with the seven fire chiefs----
        Mr. Rey. Yes.

                   TAHOE AREA COMMUNITY FIRE PROTECTION PLANS

        Senator Feinstein [continuing]. Of Tahoe, and the community
    fire plans, and my understanding is Secretary Kempthorne put in
    the money to fund it. Have you had a chance to review that? Are
    they going well? Are they getting carried out? Is it worth
    continuing that effort?
        Mr. Rey. I think it is worth continuing the effort. I think
    a lot of progress has been made since last summer, and we are
    getting a lot more of the implementation of those plans
    completed.
        Senator Feinstein. Good. All right, thank you very much.
    That completes my questions.
        Senator, do you have a question?
        Senator Craig. Madam Chairman, I do have several questions,
    if I might.
        Senator Feinstein. All right. I have to excuse myself.
    Would you take over and conclude this?
        Senator Allard [presiding]. I'd be glad to, and I'll wrap
    it up as soon as----
        Senator Craig. Can we set funding levels?
        Senator Allard. We'll not abuse the trust that you've put
    in----
        Senator Feinstein. I understand that. I understand that,
    thank you.

                                    GRAZING

        Senator Allard. I want to bring up grazing permits. Senator
    Craig mentioned something on grazing permits in his opening
    comments, and I want to follow up a little bit on these grazing
    permits.
        As you will recall, there was the 1995 Recision Act that
    Congress put a schedule in place for the renewal of the grazing
    permits, and the schedule requires the National Environment
    Policy Act document to be completed on all allotments by 2010.
    That's only 1 year after this budget's completed.
        In the fiscal year 2005 appropriations bill, the committee
    provided additional funds to address the backlog of allotments,
    and also at that time they provided a categorical exclusion
    from NEPA for grazing allotments that met certain conditions,
    and that cap was 900 allotments on this authority.
        By the end of this year, we have used 900 of these
    categorical exclusions. The answer is yes?
        Ms. Kimbell. Yes.
        Senator Allard. Okay. Has this been an effective tool in
    helping you catch up on the backlog of grazing permits that
    must be completed?
        Ms. Kimbell. This has been a very effective tool, and it
    would be a great thing to have it extended, if that was
    possible.
        Senator Allard. How many short are you in meeting the 2010
    deadline as far as you can tell?
        Ms. Kimbell. We expect to complete 460 this year, and 455
    next year. We have been working to keep that schedule updated.
    We will be almost 1,800 short of having all of the allotments
    completed with environmental analysis by the end of 2010.
        Senator Allard. So if we extend these categorical
    exclusions, how far out do you think would be appropriate time
    on it?
        Ms. Kimbell. We can provide that to you, Senator, with some
    real specifics region by region and project by project. But the
    categorical exclusion has been a very helpful tool and would be
    a real good thing to have to meet those.
        Senator Allard. We'll have our staff work with you on that.
        Ms. Kimbell. Great. Thank you.
        Senator Allard. You'll be able to complete the NEPA on
    these allotments consistent with the Recisions Act schedule,
    you think?
        Ms. Kimbell. Consistent with the schedule, the previous
    language allowed for a readjustment of this schedule, and we
    have that prepared and ready to present.
        Senator Allard. Okay. Do you have a follow-up on that,
    Senator Craig?
        Senator Craig. I would like to follow up, because I had
    mentioned the issue out in Idaho as it relates to the conflict
    between domestic sheep grazing, in this instance, and the
    bighorns.
        I don't question the need to create some kind of
    geographical buffer to keep these two different animals apart.
    But what happens is the inability of the Forest Service to
    operate in any timely fashion to make adjustments. You are,
    bureaucratically, tied up.
        For example, you have a good many grazing allotments in
    Idaho that are underutilized or not grazed at all. You could
    propose moving the domestic sheep over to another grazing
    allotment and creating those buffers and those separations. But
    you can't do it because you don't have a plan, and it takes
    years, and that sheep man's out of business.
        Yet, and, of course, these lawsuits have been brought by
    interests who want all grazing off public lands anyway, and
    you're falling right into their game plan by your inability to
    move in a timely fashion. You just talked about how long it's
    now taking you to bring about in a forest plan something that,
    while we need to be very observant of it and its impact on
    resource, it appears that the Forest Service really doesn't
    seem to care about grazing anymore in a timely fashion.
        Of course, in many Western States, when you take that
    ranching community down, you take the community down. Again, I
    talked about that hostility of relationship or, shall I say, a
    growing indifference as to your value and your presence. That's
    part of it. You no longer seem to be able to function.
        I guess my frustration is, okay, we've got a problem, the
    science is still out on the problem, clearly, definitively, so
    let's avoid the problem by a separation. I know that's what
    your regional forester in Missoula would like to do, but can't
    do. How do we deal with that?
        Ms. Kimbell. Senator, the agency remains very committed to
    our multiple use mission, and grazing is an important part of
    that mission. This is not an easy issue with the bighorn sheep
    and the domestic sheep, but we are working with the most
    current science in Idaho.
        With people working together, we really hope for a sheep
    plan, a sheep management plan, for the State of Idaho that is
    agreed to by all the many parties who have an interest in sheep
    grazing and in wild sheep populations. But we remain very
    committed to our multiple use mission.
        Mr. Rey. What we've tried to impress on our Forest Service
    range management and line officers is that the importance of
    maintaining these ranches is crucial to not seeing them
    subdivided and converted into developments, subdivisions, and
    thereby increasing the environmental impacts associated with
    that, including the cost of firefighting.
        So we've gone a long way towards trying to instill in our
    folks the notion that ranching is a preferred land use as
    compared to the alternative that we're seeing in large parts of
    the West.
        With the bighorn sheep, what we've got is a problem that's
    maybe temporary, that's a result of some of the success we've
    had in bighorn sheep reintroduction, and that may be solved,
    eventually, by the help of science as we learn more about how
    to prevent disease transmission between wild and domestic
    flocks.
        So we've got a little problem right now, but----
        Senator Craig. Mr. Secretary and Chief Kimbell, my only
    problem is time is not on our side as it relates to the life of
    that rancher.
        June turnout dates are critical; you don't make them,
    they're gone. There's no other place to go. Once you sell down
    your sheep and you're gone, then guess what happens. We
    subdivide, we build the megahomes, because the last asset that
    goes is the base property that's private. Then you're going to
    be fighting fire to protect the megahome built on the private
    property adjacent to the forested land because you could not
    act in a timely way to make a decision.
        Time is not on anybody's side on this issue, including the
    life of the rancher and possibly the life of the bighorn.

                                 TIMBER BUDGET

        Senator Allard. Let me move on. I want to talk a little bit
    about the timber budget. It's one of the few programs that were
    not cut, and within this budget you provided full funding for
    the Northwest Forest Plan, an increase of $16 million. Even
    though the regions encompassed by the plan were only capable to
    accomplish 60 percent of their targeted sales volume last
    year--now, I acknowledge there are promises that were made to
    the timber industry in the Northwest Plan--but I wonder whether
    such a large increase aimed primarily at two regions of the
    Forest Service, covering Washington and Oregon, is the most
    efficient use of timber dollars.
        I guess the question I have, aren't there still some
    litigation problems with timber sales in Oregon and Washington
    which means they'll not be able to spend the dollars we're
    going to be providing them in the 2010 budget?
        Mr. Rey. Well, first, they do have the capability to spend
    that increase wisely and in a way that does result in
    additional timber outputs.
        Second, you're correct, there are still litigation
    challenges in that region, but then they're not unique in that
    regard; that litigation challenge is elsewhere as well.
        Third, and I guess most importantly, the allocation of
    those dollars is something that we'll work with the committee
    on to achieve whatever the most equitable result is.
        Senator Allard. Well, the point is that they only spent 60
    percent of their dollars in the last budget.
        Mr. Rey. They spent all their dollars; they only hit 60
    percent of their accomplishments.
        Senator Allard. Okay.
        Mr. Rey. Much of the difference was a result of litigation.
        Senator Allard. Okay.
        Mr. Rey. Some of those were sales that were not offered,
    but that have been freed from litigation and appeals, and will
    come on line as they work their way through the lawsuits.
        Senator Allard. Since the overall budget, timber budget is
    flat, if you look at all the whole budget, you know, including
    the Northwest, large increases to this section of the country,
    isn't that an expense to all of the other regions?
        Mr. Rey. What we endeavored to do in our first allocation
    was to give that region the largest increase commensurate with
    our commitment to fully implement the Northwest Forest Plan
    without disadvantaging any of the other regions. They would be
    largely where they were at in 2008.
        Senator Allard. But, you know, we've talked about paying
    for some of the programs that we have in other parts of the
    country--Colorado and Idaho and what not--and yet the response
    I've gotten back off the record was, you know, we get a large
    amount of money, it goes to the Northwest and it's not
    available to you folks.
        So I'd like to know if you can quantify for us the cuts
    being imposed on other regions. Maybe they're not cuts; maybe
    they're lack of program dollars that need to be made available
    to meet their program objectives in a region. What is the
    dollar value to that?
        Mr. Rey. We can break out the regional allocations for you.
        Senator Allard. We'd appreciate it.
        [The information follows:]

                                                                  VEGETATION MANAGEMENT SUMMARY
                                                                    [In thousands of dollars]
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                                                    Regional
     BLI           Fiscal year final allocation             R-1       R-2       R-3       R-4       R-5       R-6       R-8       R-9      R-10     subtotal
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
     NFTM Forest Products                               $21,877   $18,320    $9,157   $13,472   $26,416   $45,970   $24,763   $23,801   $14,519   $198,295
     SSSS Salvage Timber                                  8,701     1,007       659     1,028     5,729     6,495     2,652     7,357       762     34,390
     CWK2 K-V Forest Products                               700  ........     2,000  ........     6,200     2,300     4,900     4,900  ........     21,000
     WFHF Hazardous Fuels                                15,290    23,815    35,714    16,531    46,128    28,362    32,838     9,001       944    208,623
     WFHF Emer. Supplemental/Omnibus Earmarks          ........       800     2,600  ........    42,000  ........  ........  ........  ........     52,600
     PEP2 Sec. 423 Forest Health                          2,921     3,011     1,463     1,545       804       910     1,779     2,567  ........     15,000
                                                      ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Total                                    49,489    54,153    51,593    32,576   127,277    84,037    66,932    47,626    16,225    529,908
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Note.--PEP2 allocation is based upon fire condition class, insect and disease risk, as well as timber sale unit costs.

        Mr. Rey. We are deeply cognizant that the Congress has a
    role in making those allocations, so we'll be working with you
    on that.
        Senator Allard. I understand. Okay, thank you.
        Let's see, we've pretty well covered that.

                             WILDLAND FIRE OUTLOOK

        Now, on the wildland fire outlook for this year, I know
    you're trying to project the severity of the upcoming fire
    season, and it's pretty difficult at this point in time. But
    we're likely to be marking up the supplemental appropriation
    bill later this month.
        With that in mind, can you give us some sense of how severe
    you might expect this fire season to be, based on what you know
    now?
        Mr. Rey. Sure.
        Senator Allard. About snowfalls and those type of things.
        Mr. Rey. Our initial predictions were for above average
    fire activity this year. We're still in a drought situation in
    the Southeast, so we have predicted that we'd hit the fire
    season there earlier than normal. We have gotten near record
    amounts of snowfall in the Northern Rockies and in other parts
    of the West, so depending on how fast that melts that might
    modulate what we were predicting as above average fire year.
        But at least for right now, we think it's going to be an
    above average fire year, comparable to the last couple.
        Senator Allard. So you think you're going to have
    sufficient resources available to get you throughout the year
    without having to borrow any massive sums from other nonfire
    programs?
        Mr. Rey. Past experience would say that that's not likely.
        Senator Allard. Can you give us a figure?
        Senator Craig. I think he's saying past experience with
    this committee would suggest that we're going to help them.
        Senator Allard. I'm looking for a figure that we might be
    able to help you with.
        Mr. Rey. That would be hard to project in anything but an
    arbitrary fashion this early in the season. If, you know, we
    get a cold, wet spring, kind of the same weather pattern that's
    there now in the Northern Rockies, if that holds for awhile, we
    could have a relatively mild fire year in that part of the
    country. But, on the other hand, if we get a hot spell, and
    that snow just all melts really fast, we'll get a flush of
    vegetation and that might prove to be a difficult fire year.

         POTENTIAL MOVE OF FOREST SERVICE TO DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

        Senator Allard. Mark, you've been with the Department of
    Agriculture now for 7 years, and I'd like to know what your
    assessments are on the pros and cons of some suggestion that
    the Forest Service might be moved to the Department of the
    Interior. I value your objective observations in this. I wonder
    if you could share those with the committee.
        Mr. Rey. You know, we agreed to participate in the GAO
    study that the House Appropriations Committee asked for, and
    we're going to do that in as honest a way as we can.
        What strikes me, generally speaking, is that most of the
    issues we've been discussing today aren't issues that lend
    themselves to structural solutions. So no matter where the
    Forest Service is, it's still going to have problems that we've
    been discussing, and those problems aren't going to change if
    we change the structure of the agency or who it reports to.
        So, what I look at in executive branch governance is the
    proposition that form ought to follow function, and if you're
    still arguing about how well the functions are working or what
    some of the functions should be, you probably ought to resolve
    that first before you try to fiddle with the form.
        But----
        Senator Allard. That was a nice nonanswer.
        Mr. Rey. It was about as good as I could give you. What I
    think we'll find as we get into this study, is: That one of the
    aspects of level budgets in discretionary spending have forced
    executive branch agencies to do as much together as they can.
    So what I think the GAO analysts are going to find is that
    we're already doing a lot of things together with the
    Department of the Interior land managing agencies.
        We have a unified command firefighting system that's not
    going to be materially improved by moving the Interior agencies
    to Agriculture or the Forest Service to Interior.
        We have a unified recreation reservation system. We have
    the Service First Initiative where we share staff with
    particular technical expertises.
        Similarly, if you look at the other direction between the
    Forest Service and the other USDA agencies, we've unified a lot
    of functions there. Just, for instance, we have all of the
    payroll work centralized, done in a centralized institution,
    the National Finance Center in New Orleans. We have a common
    computing environment. We have staff that we share with the
    Natural Resources Conservation Service.
        So what you're probably going to find is that, yes, there
    are some efficiencies by making some changes, but there are
    going to be some offsetting inefficiencies that are going to be
    created. Should we decide at the end of that study, for
    instance, to move the Forest Service to the Department of the
    Interior, we'll probably be having to figure out how to justify
    upwards of $100 million in computer expenses that have already
    been incurred to unify the computer systems throughout USDA
    agencies so that we can talk to one another.
        Senator Allard. Since we are waltzing around this question,
    I have a couple more for us to dance around.
        Mr. Rey. Okay.
        Senator Allard. You know, the one thought that's been
    expressed is that the Secretary of Agriculture is so busy with
    the farm programs and what not, he doesn't have the time that
    he probably ought to be allocating to forest issues and land
    management issues. The Department of the Interior, Secretary of
    the Interior, is more experienced in land management issues
    because of their jurisdiction which they now cover.
        I'd like to have you respond to that question. Then the
    other argument that we hear out there is that, well, if you
    move from Agriculture to the Interior, you change the mission,
    where the mission of the Interior--you subtlely change it--
    where the mission of the Interior has been more towards
    preservation.
        Then we get from the Department of Agriculture more of a
    multiple use concept, and I think, at least on this side of the
    aisle, most of the members would like to support the multiple
    use concept. So I wondered if you'd address those two
    questions.
        Mr. Rey. Sure. At least as far as it involves the two
    incumbent secretaries, they actually have very similar
    backgrounds and a similar level of interest in natural
    resources management. They're both Western Governors from
    States with a substantial amount of federally-owned land. It so
    happens that Secretary Schafer, being from North Dakota, is
    much more familiar with the management of the national
    grasslands, which are part of the National Forest System,
    because North Dakota has a very small national forest acreage.
        Secretary Kempthorne, obviously from Idaho, has a great
    deal more national forest acreage, but I think at least as far
    as the two incumbents are concerned, they're both equally
    interested in natural resources management. It's probably not
    an accurate summary to suggest that Secretary Schafer doesn't
    have some background experience and interest therein.
        Both Secretaries, obviously have to focus on what's before
    them at a particular point in time as far as their respective
    agencies are concerned. I don't know that you can generalize
    and say that the Secretary of the Interior or the Secretary of
    Agriculture is more or less interested in natural resources
    management on a continuing basis. At least today, with the two
    incumbents, I'd say they're equally interested in and pretty
    much equally versed in it in most respects.
        In terms of the agency missions, you know, those are pretty
    much set by the statutes. The BLM and the Forest Service are
    going to remain multiple use agencies because the organic
    legislation directs that as the way they approach the issues
    that they have to deal with.
        The Park Service and the Fish and Wildlife Service have
    organic missions that are somewhat narrower. In the case of the
    parks, they have two main initiatives, and that is to preserve
    the resources that they're entrusted with and to make them
    available for visitors. So it's a preservation and recreation
    mission that's somewhat narrower than BLM or the Forest
    Service.
        But I don't think, unless you change those missions as
    they're embodied in their organic statutes, that you're going
    to much change the agencies by moving them from one department
    to another. Just my take on it.
        Senator Allard. Okay. One last question. Did you have some
    questions?
        Senator Craig. I'll only make one observation as to the
    Secretary's evaluation of this proposal. If you stay in
    Washington long enough, I think there is a relatively standard
    axiom that you can accept that bad ideas continue to resurface.
        I think when I first got here in the early 1980s, we were
    talking about the bringing of the agencies together, and I
    think we did that in the mid-1990s. So you see, the House is
    really being very creative: They're repeating a bad idea and
    will study it like mad. We will not be able to break down all
    of the stakeholders of interest that, in part, determine the
    policy and most important, determine the politics of it.
        While I think, Senator Allard, there are some commonalities
    that the Secretary has already spoken to that we can bring
    together, we have a commonality that's created a unifying
    resource group out in Idaho called the Interagency Fire Center
    which pools resources for a variety of broad public
    firefighting interests. That's fine, but there are very
    distinctively different missions in some of these that are
    unique to the BLM and unique to the Forest Service, vis-a-vis
    Agriculture and Interior.
        So when I first began to hear about it, I thought, well,
    it's probably worth the analysis, but it will conclude in
    drawing nothing but dust on the shelves, and out of it may come
    some ideas that are implementable as it relates to cooperative
    interagency relationships. But beyond that I would seriously
    doubt that over the last decade a bad idea has become a good
    idea.
        Mr. Rey. I can tell you from visiting with the GAO auditors
    that they are going to take a very thorough approach to the
    task, and their stated goal is to lay out a variety of
    alternatives for the Congress--most likely the next Congress--
    to consider because they're planning on concluding their study
    sometime late this year.

                            COHESIVE FUELS STRATEGY

        Senator Allard. Well, GAO has been somewhat critical about
    having developed any cohesive strategy that allows us to look
    at long-term results and effects and what not.
        They have also found that the firefighting agencies have
    yet to develop a better process for allocating fuel reduction
    funds to the various regions. Despite these calls from GAO, the
    agencies--you've not developed any cohesive strategy that I'm
    aware of that would allow us to look at a long-term investment
    in hazardous fuels funding, for example, and their impacts on
    the costs of firefighting.
        Can you respond to that question?
        Mr. Rey. Sure. We've been engaged in what I'll call a
    fairly lengthy ongoing dialogue with GAO about what they think
    is lacking in our current cohesive fuel strategy which we
    developed jointly with the Department of the Interior. We are
    in the process of augmenting that strategy to meet some of the
    things that they have indicated they'd like to see.
        Where I think we still are struggling to reach an accord
    with GAO is in the question of how much sense it makes to try
    to project out fuels treatment priorities very far into the
    future and to put dollars around those priorities in out years.
        The reason we take a somewhat skeptical view of the benefit
    of that is that those fuels treatment priorities are going to
    change over time by necessity. We're going to have new
    subdivisions develop in places where they aren't now that's
    going to elevate a certain area to a higher level of priority
    for treatment that we can't necessarily predict right now.
        But I'd say that we're probably pretty far along the way to
    closing out disagreement with them. The question isn't whether
    we have a cohesive fuel strategy or not, we do; the question is
    whether it meets all of the standards for information the GAO
    would like to see in it, and the answer is it doesn't now, but
    likely will as we add components to it over the next several
    months.

                         PROGRAM ASSESSMENT RATING TOOL

        Senator Allard. We're on the issue of accountability. I'm
    also one who pays particular attention to the Government
    Performance and Results Act. It's also known as PART, under the
    President's plan. I'm going to let you off kind of easy on that
    question.
        I have noticed that there are four programs, I think, that
    fall on this budget that are classified as nonperforming. I
    would ask that you submit to the committee and also to my
    office your explanation of why they're nonperforming. I know
    there may be some legitimate reasons, and I just want on the
    record for you to give an opportunity of why you don't--if you
    don't agree with them, fine; if you see that there are some
    shortfalls, what you're doing to correct those.
        Those four programs--one's the USDA Wildland Fire
    Management, and the other one is the Wildlife Habitat Incentive
    Program; the third one is the Forest Service Invasive Species
    Program. Then, finally, one that's very popular with Members of
    Congress but I think we need some explanation, and that is the
    Department of the Interior Land and Water Conservation Land
    Acquisition Fund.
        So those four, if we just have some explanation.
        Mr. Rey. I think we can give you the information on three
    of the four. We'll have to work with Interior on the last one.
        Senator Allard. Okay.
        Mr. Rey. Because it's a joint program.
        [The information follows:]

        PART Ratings That Several Forest Service Programs Received for
                                 Nonperformance

            WATERSHED CURRENT PART RATING--RESULTS NOT DEMONSTRATED

        The Forest Service is responding to the Watershed PART Assessment
    by developing new policy, protocols, and tools to improve program
    delivery and effectiveness. The agency has identified a consistent
    approach for determining watershed condition on National Forest System
    (NFS) lands, supporting efforts to prioritize watershed improvement
    activities. The Forest Service has also developed aquatic inventory and
    monitoring protocols for NFS lands and GIS-based tools to help States
    identify and prioritize critical forest areas on non-Federal lands.
    Through these applications and others, the NFS and State and Private
    Forestry deputy areas are exploring meaningful ways to measure
    effectiveness of programs pertaining to watershed improvement.
        The agency is beginning to implement elements of the PART
    Improvement Plan to improve the program's rating. These actions consist
    of (1) developing a nationally consistent methodology for determining
    watershed condition class as basis for prioritizing watersheds
    management and (2) developing a national approach to describe and
    monitor the status and trend of aquatic resources. Additionally, the
    Forest Service and OMB recently negotiated an ``Action Plan for the
    Development of a Watershed Efficiency Measure and a National Watershed
    Condition Class Rating System,'' establishing a process and timetable
    for improvement.

     CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT AND MAINTENANCE CURRENT PART RATING--RESULTS NOT
                                  DEMONSTRATED

        The PART process for Capital Improvement and Maintenance aligned
    the Forest Service with USDA and OMB's Real Property Initiatives and
    Asset Management Plans. The performance measures developed as a result
    of the assessment have improved planning and assessment of the agency's
    infrastructure, resulting in better priority setting criteria and
    project selection. Better planning and assessment supports the agency's
    effort to determine an optimal infrastructure level, keeping only what
    is necessary to implement the agency's mission and meet public needs.
    To further inform infrastructure maintenance, the agency has adopted
    the industry standards for the Facility Condition Index. The Index is a
    general metric that tracks national trends in the condition of the
    agency's portfolio with respect to the deferred maintenance backlog.
    The Index allows decision makers at the local level to prioritize
    individual assets for funding, repair, or disposal, based on relative
    conditions.
        The Forest Service is developing long-term outcome-based
    performance measures that fully cover the program, including safety,
    condition sustainability and environmental suitability, utilization,
    and mission dependency. It will also develop and implement a strategy
    to prioritize road, facility, and trail improvements that reflect
    investment strategies as common criteria for reducing the deferred
    maintenance backlog. Finally, the agency has used disposal authorities
    to convey excess or unneeded properties through the Facilities
    Realignment and Enhancement Act.

             WILDLAND FIRE MANAGEMENT CURRENT PART RATING--ADEQUATE

        In fiscal year 2007, the Forest Service addressed the following
    actions contained in the PART Improvement Plan: refining program
    delivery, improving procedures for allocating hazardous fuels reduction
    funds, and improving data to reduce the risk of catastrophic fire.
        The Forest Service developed a technical guide that identifies the
    items and strategic nature of discussions in land management plans in
    fiscal year 2007, and is currently developing a new Forest Plan
    template, which should be available by the end of fiscal year 2008.
        Several large fire cost containment audit reports were issued in
    fiscal year 2007. The Office of Inspector General (OIG) issued a report
    containing 18 recommendations on cost containment needs. The Forest
    Service has completed actions on two recommendations, including
    development of a new Master Cooperative Wildland Fire Management
    Agreement template. Work is ongoing on all open recommendations.
        The Forest Service is working with a multi-agency taskforce to
    develop a cost management strategy formulation process to provide a
    better picture of fire suppression costs over the life of an incident,
    establish short-term cost plans for fire resource ordering and
    procurement, and reaffirm the regional and national role in pricing
    fire resources (Federal, State, and local, private contractor, and
    military).
        A post-incident recovery team is developing policy, guidance, and
    tools to provide rapid assessment of rehabilitation needs following
    fires and other events. These actions will enable the agency to
    prioritize the rehabilitation work, along with the regular program of
    work, to ensure the highest priority of work is funded and
    accomplished.

                 INVASIVE SPECIES CURRENT PART RATING--ADEQUATE

        As a result of the Invasive Species PART Assessment, the Forest
    Service has focused the program around outcome-based activities that
    reduce the impact of invasive species on priority Federal and non-
    Federal forests and grasslands and tie directly to the USDA and agency
    strategic plans. Performance measures track treatment prioritization
    based on risk, treatment efficacy, and implementation costs;
    development, delivery, and use of tools; and customer satisfaction with
    tools produced. The Forest Service is also implementing an improved
    system of tabular and spatial record keeping for all invasive species
    management projects.
        New performance measures tracking outputs, outcomes, and
    efficiencies--developed during the PART Assessment process--help the
    agency to better determine program success. Field units have been
    tracking these measures for the past 2 years.

                      ENERGY CURRENT PART RATING--ADEQUATE

        In response to the PART assessment on the oil and gas energy
    resources program, the Forest Service refined performance measures to
    track compliance with agency strategic plan goals and objectives,
    emphasizing the agency's ability to process lease applications in a
    timely manner. The new performance measures have helped the agency to
    direct funding and resources to reduce project processing times while
    assuring compliance with remediation measures. Also a result of the
    PART assessment, the Forest Service now holds regular coordination
    meetings with the Bureau of Land Management, with which it manages the
    energy minerals program. Regular meetings have eased implementation of
    MOUs, facilitating more efficient program delivery.

                 LAND ACQUISITION CURRENT PART RATING--ADEQUATE

        The Forest Service has used the PART process to improve land
    validation, ensuring that land purchases and donations meet the
    agency's strategic plan goals and objectives. The agency has adopted
    two new measures for land acquisition into the Performance and
    Accountability System and Workplan, systems that agency uses to manage
    and track project funding and performance. The Forest Service has also
    updated the Agency Land Purchase Digest system to include case-specific
    information for these performance measures, as well as three new
    efficiency measures. With these improvements, the agency will be able
    to more accurately assess program effectiveness.

        FOREST LEGACY PROGRAM CURRENT PART RATING--MODERATELY EFFECTIVE

        Following its PART assessment, the Forest Legacy Program (FLP)
    developed seven performance measures and national strategic direction
    to further ensure that Federal dollars are spent on those projects of
    highest national importance. FLP revised its national scoring guidance
    for the annual project selection panel to increase the emphasis on
    protecting nationally important resources that fit within a larger
    regional or national conservation landscape level plan. In addition,
    FLP is reducing the average length of time it takes to complete a
    project. FLP is also working to ensure timely quality appraisals to
    reduce the average project completion time.

              RECREATION CURRENT PART RATING--MODERATELY EFFECTIVE

        The Forest Service is using the PART assessment to focus business
    planning and improve cost accounting in the developed recreation sites
    program. The agency is currently going through a Recreation Facility
    Analysis (RFA) process to prioritize recreation site improvements, to
    reduce deferred maintenance, and improve cost analysis. Under this
    analysis, national forests weigh and compare facilities' ability to
    serve public needs and wants with the forest's capacity to operate and
    maintain existing structures at desired quality standards. One of the
    primary goals of RFA is to reduce recreation site deferred maintenance
    by 20 percent in 5 years on each national forest.

                         ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS

        Senator Allard. Very good. Well, at least from your
    perspective on the last, if you would, and we'll go to Interior
    and ask them for their side of it.
        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

                  FIREFIGHTER RETENTION IN SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA

        Question. In your analysis, you acknowledge a morale problem among
    firefighters on these forests, but your analysis also claims that the
    ``perceptions around recruitment and retention in southern California
    are hard to substantiate based on data.''
        Part of your claim is that the overall attrition rate is lower than
    the average attrition rate of all Federal employees, which is 13.4
    percent. However, your analysis also showed that your attrition rate
    among southern California fire personnel was 9.4 percent last year--49
    percent greater than the agency's overall firefighter attrition rate of
    6.3 percent. On the Angeles National Forest, you report an attrition
    rate of 12.2 percent, which is double the Forest Service's firefighter
    attrition average. It also showed that the Forest Service lost 46
    percent of your entry-level firefighters last year in southern
    California--twice the agency's overall attrition average.
        How did the agency compile the attrition rate data presented to the
    Committee?
        Answer. Rates for employees leaving the agency were compiled from a
    10-year database of permanent workforce in California. The position
    series used were 0462 and 0401 for both fire and non-fire positions
    since there is no way to isolate fire positions based on the series.
    The data itself comes from the data warehouse maintained by the
    National Finance Center (NFC)
        Question. You use these data to represent trends in firefighting
    employment, but acknowledge that the data used in your analysis contain
    both fire and non-fire personnel. Is it appropriate to make decisions
    about firefighter retention using data that include an unknown number
    of other personnel? Did the agency conduct an analysis to see how many
    non-fire positions were included in the data?
        Answer. Because there is not a specific job series for wildland
    firefighters, it is not possible to easily isolate firefighters among
    the other job functions included within the 0401 and 0462 job series.
    However, in Region 5 the majority of employees in the 0401 and 0462 job
    series are fire employees. We believe using these job series provide
    the most accurate available data set which encompasses the entire fire
    organization.
        Question. Why did the agency choose to compare the attrition rate
    of firefighters against the attrition rate for all Federal employees as
    the basis of determining whether it has the appropriate retention
    level? Why and how did you decide that was the appropriate baseline?
        Answer. The agency did not utilize this comparison as the sole
    basis of determining whether it has the appropriate retention level. A
    number of factors were assessed in the report including the change in
    permanent fire workforce over the period from 1997-2007, which
    indicated an 82 percent increase in permanent Fire and Aviation
    Management staff. We also used 2007 data on retirements, resignations
    and transfers, which indicated a net gain of 68 employees an increase
    of 3 percent. In short, within Region 5 there are significantly more
    firefighters today than there were 10 years ago. The comparison to
    Forest Service wide and all Federal Service were used to illuminate the
    attrition of firefighters in California in context with broader
    attrition rates of natural resource professionals in the Forest Service
    and Federal Government.
        Forest Service leadership recognizes that some employees have left
    the agency and that this is most visible in the fire organization. As
    noted in the letter to Senator Feinstein from Under Secretary Rey,
    dated May 6, 2008, the Forest Service has a number of initiatives to
    address retention in the fire organization.
        Question. What are the trends over time for attrition rates of
    Forest Service firefighters, both in Region 5 and for the four southern
    California forests? Please provide the Committee with the annual
    attrition rate of all firefighting employees for each of the Region 5
    forests for each of the past 10 fiscal years.
        Answer. Data for this question is readily available only from 1997
    to 2006 and is based upon calendar years instead of fiscal years.
    Please see attachment 1. In general, the number of Region 5 permanent
    firefighters at the end of fiscal year 2006 is more than 50 percent
    higher than the fiscal year 2000 levels, even assuming attrition.

        Question. What effect has this attrition had on the experience
    level and the institutional memory of the Region's firefighting corps?
        Answer. The analysis indicates that the greatest numbers of
    employees leaving the agency are at the GS-04 entry level, where
    employees are in seasonal positions and are more likely to be at the
    beginning of their careers. Experience and institutional memory
    principally lie with permanent employees at grade levels GS-06 and
    above, and there is minimal attrition at that level. Further, because
    the overall number of firefighters in Region 5 remains over 50 percent
    above the number of permanent firefighters at the end of fiscal year
    2000 even accounting for attrition, the amount of institutional and
    professional knowledge available to the Forest Service is greater than
    the pre-2000 levels.
        Even as the Forest Service has expanded its permanent firefighter
    workforce compared to the pre-2000 levels, we share the concerns about
    maintaining institutional memory and experience into the future and are
    committed to actions that provide a continuing qualified,
    knowledgeable, and safe firefighting cadre. Our current recruiting
    efforts and apprenticeship program are focusing on hiring entry-level
    employees, and increasing promotion rates into higher ranks and
    permanent positions by promoting as soon as they acquire the necessary
    skills and experience. This ensures that new employees have a tangible
    career ladder and thus create an incentive to remain with the Forest
    Service. These employees will become our future leaders and will gain
    experience and institutional knowledge as they continue their careers.
        Question. Though it claims that recruitment is outpacing retention,
    the analysis does not provide data on actual vacancy rates that are
    caused by attrition or other factors. Please provide data on planned
    versus actual firefighter employment, by pay-grade and by forest, for
    each of the Region 5 forests as of April 1, 2008. Please provide
    specific statistics for both permanent and temporary firefighters.
        Answer. Please see attachment 2.
        Question. Please provide data on planned versus actual firefighting
    personnel in Region 5, by forest, for each of the past 10 fiscal years.
        Answer. This data is not readily available on a forest by forest
    basis. Please see attachment 3 for a chart describing planned and
    actual hires for permanent, apprentice, and temporary employees 2000-
    2007.

        Question. How will the agency monitor hiring and retention to
    ensure that its firefighting positions are filled to capacity before
    the beginning of fire season? How many positions currently remain to be
    filled? By what date will staffing be complete?
        Answer. The agency's goal is to ensure that we have the capacity to
    meet our wildland fire mission. In the Pacific Southwest Region (Region
    5) the Forest Service has planned for 4,432 permanent, temporary, and
    apprentice positions for the 2008 fire season. It is important to note
    that staffing in the firefighting organization will fluctuate
    throughout the season. As the fires season progresses, Forest
    Supervisors monitor staffing decisions to address the firefighting
    mission and if extreme fire danger warrants, have the ability to hire
    additional resources. There are currently 363 vacant positions in
    Region 5. The region is planning to have another round of fire hiring
    in early July to fill these vacancies before the California fire season
    commences in earnest.
        Question. While the analysis provides a number of short-term
    recommendations that may be considered to improve firefighter morale,
    including retention bonuses, flexibility of scheduling and other
    quality of life improvements, it fails to provide concrete
    recommendations as requested by my directive in the fiscal year 2008
    Consolidated Appropriations Act (Public Law 110-161). It is essential
    that your agency take action immediately to improve morale, and
    additional inducements may also be critical to your efforts to fully
    staff your firefighting positions for this fire season.
        What process will the agency use to determine which of these
    recommendations will be employed? How will you solicit input from local
    firefighters?
        Answer. Region 5 is taking the lead to address these issues. Four
    teams, each led by one or more Forest Supervisors and including one or
    more forest fire managers, have been established to develop
    recommendations, on four key areas: mission, pay, workplace
    improvement, and facilities.
        Region 5's current recruiting efforts and apprenticeship program
    are focusing on hiring entry-level employees, where the attrition rate
    is greatest. The region is increasing promotion rates into higher ranks
    and permanent positions for these employees as soon as they acquire the
    necessary skills and experience.
        It is recognized that the high cost of living in California is an
    important factor affecting employees. Region 5 is working with local
    forests to determine if retention allowances can immediately assist
    with retaining employees.
        Question. When and by whom will a decision on to implement
    recommendations be made?
        Answer. The team's recommendations will be completed by June 30.
    The Regional Forester will make a decision on the recommendations at
    that time and implementation will begin immediately.
        Question. What is the agency's long-term plan for analyzing the
    agency's firefighting mission, and for addressing firefighter pay and
    benefits issues, both in California and agency-wide?
        Answer. The agency has begun an assessment of mission related
    activities and workload within the wildland-urban interface and is
    assembling the appropriate information for analyzing mission related
    activities across the Nation, as well as functions that are less
    congruent with the agency's land management mission. We will review the
    finding of this assessment and determine the need to make national or
    regional decisions based on this analysis.
        In terms of pay and benefits for fire fighters in California, the
    Regional Forester has created teams specifically focused on pay and
    workplace improvement. In addition the region is evaluating and
    implementing actions related to focused recruitment and retention
    bonuses ensuring that employees have a tangible career ladder. Beyond
    California there is currently no indication that significant issues
    exist agency-wide with firefighter pay and benefits.
            fuels/use of healthy forest restoration act authorities
        Question. According to your agency's Healthy Forests Report 2007,
    you have only treated 295,000 acres under HFRA Title I authorities over
    the past 3 years, while 12.8 million acres were treated using other
    authorities. You treated 163,000 acres using HFRA authorities in fiscal
    year 2007, which is a fraction of the agency's authorized HRFA limit of
    20 million acres.
        Why is the agency still only treating a fraction its acres using
    HFRA authorities? Why is the pace of implementation so slow?
        Answer. Most of the acres treated are being carried out under pre-
    existing authorities. The planning authorities available under HFRA are
    important tools to help the agency achieve its goals for restoring
    forest and rangeland health, reducing hazardous fuels, and creating
    sustainable conditions to facilitate protection of communities and
    resources. Land managers and communities are often focused on outcomes
    and not on the use of a particular authority. While accomplishments
    achieved under other authorities do not count as ``HFRA acres'' they
    nevertheless contribute to the overall objectives of the act.
        Question. How many acres will the agency treat in fiscal year 2008
    using HFRA authorities? How many acres are planned for treatment under
    HFRA in fiscal year 2009?
        Answer. Each year the number of acres treated using HFRA
    authorities increases and we expect this trend to continue. In fiscal
    year 2007, a total of 163,000 acres were treated using HFRA, an
    increase of 65 percent above the 2006 level. Treatments using
    authorities under Healthy Forest Initiative accounted for an additional
    417,000 acres.
        In fiscal year 2008 and fiscal year 2009 we anticipate further
    expanding the use of HFRA authorities. The use of HFRA and HFI
    authorities has been on an increasing trend and lands treated under
    those authorities in fiscal years 2008 and 2009 will meet or exceed the
    580,000 acres treated using both HFRA and HFI in fiscal year 2007.
        Question. What specific steps has the agency taken to increase the
    number of acres treated under HRFA authorities in the past fiscal year?
        Answer. The Forest Service has taken several actions to support
    accomplishment of all vegetation treatments that contribute to the
    overall HFRA objectives. For example:
      --Increased Leadership at the National Office to support use of HFRA
            authorities.--The National Office has conducted an assessment
            of the impacts of the recent U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of
            Appeals decision declaring the Hazardous Fuels Reduction
            Categorical Exclusion (HFRCE) developed under the President's
            Healthy Forest Initiative invalid. The Chief has directed the
            Forest Service to refrain from approving new projects using the
            HFRCE, and avoid advertising or awarding contracts to implement
            decisions made after October 8, 2004 approved under the HFRCE.
            We expect additional use of HFRA authorities due to this
            direction.
      --Increased Focus on Improving Communication and Sharing Success
            Stories.--Considerable information about the requirements of
            HFRA, and tools to help in understanding its application are on
            the Washington Office intranet. One of these tools is a Web
            Guide that walks the reader through the decision process to
            determine whether HFRA authorities might be used in particular
            situations. Another is the Healthy Forests Initiative and
            Healthy Forests Restoration Act Interim Field Guide (Field
            Guide) providing a wealth of information on the law's
            interpretation and application.
      --Increased Use of Strategic Assessments.--Regions are capitalizing
            on leadership of States and local government in the development
            of community wildfire protection plans (CWPPs). Nearly 5,000
            communities are now covered by CWPPs.
      --Increased Focus on Training and Reviews.--Several regions are
            targeting training to Line Officers, Planners, and Resource
            Specialists on use of the entire suite of authorities to manage
            vegetative conditions in collaboration with communities.
      --Enhancing Stewardship Contracting to Build Collaborative Capacity
            and Accomplish Restoration.--Many of the successes in our use
            of stewardship contracting are a direct result of the
            development and implementation of projects through
            collaborative partnerships with groups of diverse interests.
      --Forest Restoration Framework and Policy.--The Forest Service has
            completed a strategic, science-based framework for restoring
            and maintaining forest and grassland ecological conditions
            titled the ``Ecosystem Restoration Framework.'' This framework
            has informed the development of an agency wide restoration
            policy--expected to be released late spring 2008. The policy
            addresses requirements to plan, implement, monitor, and
            evaluate ecological restoration activities in consideration of
            current and future desired conditions and the potential for
            future changes in environmental conditions, including climate
            change.
      --Release of the Forest Service Woody Biomass Utilization Strategy.--
            The strategy describes how Forest Service programs can better
            coordinate to improve the use of woody biomass in tandem with
            forest management activities on both Federal and private land.
        In addition, the following direction was included in the fiscal
    year 2007 and fiscal year 2008 program direction to the field:
    ``Project planning and implementation associated with a Community
    Wildfire Protection Plan must take priority over other projects within
    the Region or Forest, unless prevented by extenuating circumstances.''
    A large number of community wildfire protection plans have been
    prepared under HFRA. The numbers climb each year as managers
    effectively facilitate successful collaborative planning efforts, and
    this approach becomes the planning standard.
        Question. Does the agency evaluate each of its proposed fuel
    treatment projects for possible use of HFRA authorities? If not, how
    does the agency choose which projects to evaluate for possible HFRA
    use?
        Answer. Every project is evaluated for the suitability of utilizing
    an HFRA authority. The decision authorities provided by the HFRA are a
    tool that line officers consider when evaluating the most effective and
    efficient means of accomplishing their hazardous fuels reduction and
    ecological restoration objectives.
        Question. Your recent Healthy Forests report from December, 2007
    indicates that only 16 percent of all acres treated with hazardous
    fuels dollars last year were mechanical treatments, while approximately
    84 percent of acres accomplished were treated through prescribed fire.
    How does the agency decide how many acres to treat through mechanical
    thinning versus prescribed burns? Why isn't the agency using mechanical
    thinning for a greater proportion of its fuels acres?
        Answer. Our total hazardous fuel reduction accomplishment includes
    acres treated by other program areas with a secondary benefit of
    reduced hazardous fuels, such as mechanical treatment, not just those
    acres treated with hazardous fuels dollars. When considering all
    hazardous fuels reduction from all funding sources, 38 percent of the 3
    million acres treated in fiscal year 2007 were accomplished using
    mechanical methods. Accomplishing our hazardous fuel reduction
    objective includes use of all management tools available to us,
    including both prescribed burning and mechanical fuel reduction.
    Managers select the appropriate treatment method based on site
    conditions; opportunity for commodity recovery via timber sale or
    biomass removal; accessibility; proximity to wildland urban interface
    or other high valued resources; and the potential to use prescribed
    fire safely. Mechanical treatments can approximate the impacts of a
    natural disturbance regime through fire, but it cannot completely
    replace fire's beneficial effects on the site which include nutrient
    cycling, preparation of the seed bed, and selection of fire-adapted
    plants. Fire must continue to be an important part of our management of
    fire-adapted ecosystems.

                             TRAVEL MANAGEMENT RULE

        Question. What is the agency's schedule for implementing the travel
    management rule, which calls for the agency to codify its cross-country
    motorized vehicle use? Who or what determined this schedule?
        Answer. The planned schedule has all administrative units
    identifying those roads, trails, and areas which are open to motor
    vehicle use and publishing a Motor Vehicle Use Map by December 31,
    2009. The Chief of the Forest Service determined the planned schedule.
        Question. Is the agency preparing a travel analysis for each
    individual National Forest?
        Answer. Travel analysis is a pre-NEPA process explained in the 2005
    Motor Vehicle Route and Area Designation Guide and in regional training
    sessions. Proposed directives published in the Federal Register on
    March 9, 2007 also included proposed direction regarding travel
    analysis. We expect final directives to be published some time this
    year. Currently, some national forests are conducting travel analysis
    as a part of travel management planning.
        Question. Is there a standard policy that each forest must follow
    in order to make travel management decisions? How is the Forest Service
    ensuring that its policies are being applied consistently?
        Answer. Subpart B of the Travel Management Rule at 36 CFR 212
    provides direction on how to identify routes and areas open for motor
    vehicle use. The Rule identifies the requirement for public
    participation; coordination with Federal, State, county and other local
    governmental entities, and tribal governments; and criteria which must
    be considered when making designation decisions. The proposed
    directives include a process for completing travel management planning.
    The 2005 Motor Vehicle Route and Area Designation Guide provides a
    process framework that may be used. To enable consistent interpretation
    of the Rule and its implementation, regional training sessions were
    conducted.
        Question. Is there a formal process that each forest will use to
    decide whether to add or remove additional routes? Who participates in
    this process?
        Answer. The Travel Management Rule identifies criteria that must be
    considered when making decisions regarding which roads, trails, and
    areas to designate for motor vehicle use. The Rule requires that the
    public be given the opportunity to participate, and requires
    coordination with governmental entities and tribal governments.
        Question. Is there universal standard for public participation in
    the travel management decision-making process? What is that standard?
        Answer. The Travel Management Rule identified two specific
    requirements for public participation. First, that the public be
    allowed to participate in the designation process, and second, that
    advance notice be given to allow for public comment. Public
    notification, including publishing of the Motor Vehicle Use Map, is
    sufficient where motor vehicle use is already restricted to designated
    routes and areas.
        Question. How much funding has the agency spent to date on the
    travel management planning process? How much will the agency spend in
    fiscal year 2008 on this process? How much do you propose to spend in
    fiscal year 2009?
        Answer. Over the past 2 years the agency has spent an estimated
    $200,000 for national training on route designation, issuance of Forest
    Service manual and handbook direction, and implementation support. It
    is estimated that an additional $25 million per year over 4 years will
    be spent on the full range of travel planning activities, although
    these costs are not clearly distinguishable from other program
    management costs and vary widely from forest to forest depending on the
    local situation and issues. Funding provided for travel management
    planning is used to: (1) assemble and review existing motor vehicle
    travel management information; (2) inventory, analyze, and complete the
    requirements established by the National Environmental Policy Act for
    travel management decisions; and (3) publish Motor Vehicle Use Maps.
        Question. How many miles of motorized trails do you anticipate that
    the travel management process will add to the National Forest System
    trails system nationwide? How many miles will be specifically added in
    California?
        Answer. Decisions on which trails to designate for motor vehicle
    use are made by local responsible officials. Since most national
    forests have not yet made their designation decisions, we do not have
    an estimate as to how many miles may be added to the National Forest
    System of trails. The same would be true for California.
        Question. How many miles of motorized trails have already been
    added to the National Forest System to date by this process? How many
    of these are in California?
        Answer. Between fiscal year 2006 and 2008 it is estimated that the
    total miles of National Forest System (NFS) trail open to motor vehicle
    use increased by 1,400 miles. There are a number of factors which
    influence this figure. Changes to the miles of NFS trail open to motor
    vehicle use include both additions and subtractions, and may or may not
    be a result of route designation decisions. Many of the added miles
    represent the conversion of NFS roads to NFS trails. Currently no miles
    of trails open to motor vehicle use have been added for California
    during this same timeframe.
        Question. Do you have any estimates of what additional funding--
    construction, maintenance, enforcement--will be required for additional
    routes that have been or will be designated? Please provide the
    Committee with these estimates, if applicable.
        Answer. Implementation of the travel management rule is a Forest
    Service priority and available funding within the agency's budget will
    be used to cover travel management decisions. Preliminary budget
    projections once route designations are completed are shown below.
    These projections do not include maintenance, decommissioning of
    routes, road route markers and signs, and law enforcement needs as they
    are not currently known at this time.
      --Route markers and junction signs for trails--$3-7 million (one time
            cost)
      --Forest Service Educational and Patrol Personnel--$9-$16 million/
            year
      --Volunteer Program Management--$8 million/year
      --Bulletin Boards and Kiosks--$15 million (one time cost)
      --Signs at entrance to forest areas--$6 million (one time cost)
      --National educational efforts--$1.5 million (one time cost)
        Question. What role do budget resource considerations play a role
    in determining what routes may or may not be added?
        Answer. The Travel Management Rule requires the consideration of
    the availability of resources for needed road and trail maintenance and
    administration. That consideration is one amongst a variety of other
    considerations including effects to natural and cultural resources,
    public safety, provision for recreation opportunities, access needs,
    and conflicts among uses of National Forest System lands.
        Question. What kind of analysis is the Forest Service preparing to
    ensure adding additional trails is not damaging the watersheds,
    wildlife habitat or other natural resource values?
        Answer. The Travel Management Rule requires the consideration of
    various criteria for designation of trails. The responsible official is
    required to consider effects to natural resources including, potential
    damage to soil, watershed, vegetation, and other forest resources, and
    harassment of wildlife and significant disruption of wildlife habitats.

                          OPM FIREFIGHTER CREDENTIALS

        Question. What is the purpose or goal of transitioning your upper
    level fire managers to the professional GS-0401 classification series?
        Answer. This effort began several years ago as a result of wildland
    fire incident reviews. The death of 14 wildland firefighters on Storm
    King Mountain in 1994 was a turning point. These studies highlighted
    the fact that we needed more stringent, uniform qualification standards
    for employees in certain fire management positions to assure
    firefighter safety. The fire organizations worked with the Office of
    Personnel Management (OPM) to establish an appropriate series. The 0401
    series is similar to other resource management professional series and
    stresses a positive education element that strengthens analytical
    skills and resource management fundamentals. These two elements are
    essential to both the safety of the workforce and Forest Service
    resource management mission.
        Question. Why did the educational requirements for upper-level
    firefighters change?
        Answer. The change was not the education requirements, rather it
    was the acceptable standard necessary for meeting the education
    requirement. This policy change was effective on February 15, 2005.
        Question. What was the agency's initial plan to meet these
    requirements? Did you work with OPM on this? Was a supplemental
    qualification standard for your fire managers developed and approved by
    OPM?
        Answer. The plan to meet OPM requirements is the Interagency Fire
    Program Management (IFPM). Yes, OPM was involved in this effort. Among
    the components of the IFPM Standard is the Office of Personnel
    Management-approved Supplemental Qualification Standard for GS-0401
    Fire Management Specialist positions which was originally issued in
    July of 2002.
        Question. What is the OPM policy change that excludes your in-house
    courses? When was it implemented? When and how did the agency first
    become aware of it? When were your field employees notified?
        Answer. The specific policy change that excluded our in-house
    coursework is the revision to Part E.4 (a) of the General Policies and
    Instructions, located in the Operating Manual for Qualification
    Standards for General Schedule Positions. This policy change was
    effective on February 15, 2005. The Forest Service became aware of the
    change in April, 2007 when an OPM representative, and numerous human
    resources personal attended an IFPM implementation meeting in order to
    discuss this change. Informal communication on this issue began almost
    immediately. A formal letter informing agency employees of this policy
    was signed and sent May 31, 2007.
        Question. Did you request a waiver from OPM to allow your in-house
    courses to continue to count toward meeting the positive education
    requirement? If so, how did OPM respond to your request?
        Answer. Yes, the Forest Service requested a waiver from OPM asking
    us to continue using our in-house courses (Technical Fire Management
    (TFM) and the National Wildlife Coordinating Group (NWCG) classes)
    toward meeting the positive education requirement. We received an OPM
    response that stated they could not approve our proposal because that
    course of action would not resolve the fundamental issue that all
    Federal employees must meet the educational requirements prescribed by
    the qualification standard for the series to which their positions are
    classified, as specified by Title 5, Code of Federal Regulation, par
    338, section 301. The OPM response stated the courses requested for
    waiver do not meet the requirement that all courses must receive credit
    from an institution with accreditation status from a body recognized by
    the Secretary of the Department of Education in order to be creditable
    when determining qualifications for Federal positions.
        Question. It is our understanding that the intent of the new OPM
    policy at issue here is to exclude credits bestowed by ``diploma
    mills'' from meeting positive education requirements needed to qualify
    for Federal employment. In your discussions with OPM, did OPM ever
    indicate that an analysis had been performed or criteria applied to
    determine that the exclusion of your in-house courses was consistent
    with this intent?
        Answer. No indication was provided. We defer to OPM regarding their
    analyses.
        Question. How many of your fire program managers have been or are
    scheduled to be converted to GS-0401 positions? How many have lost
    credits as a result of the OPM policy change? When will those who do
    not obtain the required academic credits be removed from their
    positions?
        Answer. From the time of the new policy in May, 2007 a total of 820
    employees from the 5 Federal agencies were identified for conversion
    within the IFPM GS-0401 management positions. We initially estimate 200
    Forest Service employees have lost credits. OPM has offered to extend
    the removal date to October, 2010 for employees who do not meet the
    requirements. The agencies have requested written confirmation of this
    offer, given verbally April 11, 2008.
        Question. What is the estimated financial cost to the agency
    associated with assisting incumbent employees in replacing their lost
    credits? What are the estimated human capital costs, i.e., effects on
    morale and retention?
        Answer. The estimated financial cost is $1,000 per credit, and an
    average of 5.5 credits required. The Forest Service has approximately
    200 employees in this situation requiring an investment of about
    $1,100,000. This is an estimate of the average travel costs which
    employees may incur. This does not include university fees or employee
    time. Initial indications showed that this change had moderately to
    seriously affected employee morale. Over time the situation has
    improved. There has been no known indication of employee retention
    problems related to the IFPM program.
        Question. How many accredited colleges or universities award a BS
    in wildland fire program management or an equivalent field of study?
        Answer. Very few institutions award a specific Bachelor of Science
    in Wildland Fire Management degree. A handful of institutions offer
    minors in fire management. The 0401 series requirements may be achieved
    through a number of different science programs which may or may not
    include courses in Wildland Fire Management such as fire weather, fire
    behavior, and fire ecology.
        Question. How many accredited colleges or universities provide
    courses equivalent to the National Wildfire Coordinating Group (NWCG)
    courses originally envisioned as counting toward the GS-0401 basic
    education requirement? How does the cost of these courses compare to
    the cost of providing identical training in-house?
        Answer. Currently somewhere between 20 and 25 colleges or
    universities provide these types of courses. The additional expenses
    range from 20 to 100 percent more expensive than in-house training.
        Question. Are there any other barriers faced by employees seeking
    to meet the GS-0401 education requirement of which we should be aware?
        Answer. No, with the 1 year extension provided by OPM employees
    have both the time and institutional support to meet these
    requirements.
                                     ______

                    Question Submitted by Senator Judd Gregg

        Question. In fiscal year 2009, the President's budget includes only
    $12.5 million for the Forest Legacy Program. This is more than a 70
    percent cut in the program from the fiscal year 2008 enacted levels. In
    addition, there are only three projects recommended for funding
    nationwide. Yet, my understanding is that this year 45 States submitted
    a total of 87 projects, including New Hampshire. Again, your budget
    request seems to contradict the Forest Service's own research reports,
    ``Forests on the Edge'' and ``Cooperating Across Boundaries.'' These
    reports highlight increased development and the loss of open space as
    significant threats to America's forests which provide substantial
    environmental and economic benefits to communities across the United
    States. When the Forest Legacy Program was reviewed by this
    administration, it received one of the highest scores for success
    agency-wide. Given the pressing need to prevent forest fragmentation,
    as your own agency well documents, and the fact that this program is
    clearly working well, can you please explain the dramatic drop in your
    funding request this year?
        Answer. The agency maintains high regard for the accomplishments of
    the Forest Legacy Program. We had to make very difficult choices in the
    fiscal year 2009 budget request and reduced or eliminated programs
    whose needs can be served using non-Forest Service funds. The
    administration's proposal for the 2008 Farm Bill explicitly includes
    forests, forestry, and NIPF landowners and provides new funding for the
    same key programs for which many cooperators receive funding from the
    Forest Service.

                              SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS

        Senator Allard. Okay. Thank you very much. I don't have any
    more questions and there are no other committee members here,
    so I declare the committee recessed.
        [Whereupon, at 11:45 a.m., Thursday, April 1, 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 2009

                                  ----------

                            TUESDAY, APRIL 15, 2008

                                           U.S. Senate,
               Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The subcommittee met at 10:07 a.m., in room SD-124, Dirksen
    Senate Office Building, Hon. Dianne Feinstein (chairman)
    presiding.
        Present: Senators Feinstein, Dorgan, Nelson, Allard, Craig,
    Stevens, Cochran, and Alexander.

                           DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

                            Office of the Secretary

    STATEMENT OF HON. DIRK KEMPTHORNE, SECRETARY
    ACCOMPANIED BY:
            JAMES CASON, ASSOCIATE DEPUTY SECRETARY
            PAM HAZE, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF BUDGET

                 OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR DIANNE FEINSTEIN

        Senator Feinstein. The meeting will come to order. This is
    the Interior Subcommittee on Appropriations, and we are having
    a hearing this morning on the Interior Department's budget.
        The distinguished Secretary of the Interior has joined us,
    and I understand he has to be at the White House in the late
    morning and must be out of here by 11:30. So for all members'
    advisement, please know that and we will try to move along as
    rapidly as possible. Question rounds will be 5 minutes and we
    will use the early bird rule.
        Testifying is the Secretary of Interior. Joining him is Jim
    Cason, the Department's Associate Deputy Secretary, and Pam
    Haze, the Director of the Office of Budget. We would like to
    welcome all three of them.
        Mr. Secretary, with the change of administration set for
    next year, this will most likely be your last appearance before
    this subcommittee, and I want you to know--and I think I speak
    for all my colleagues when I say that we deeply appreciate the
    degree of dedication you have brought to your job. I have had
    the privilege of working with you, as had Senator Craig, as a
    Member of this body. I do not think Senator Alexander or Allard
    did.
        Senator Allard. I did.
        Senator Feinstein. You did? Well, let me speak for Senator
    Allard then, as well.
        Your collegiality is always very much appreciated.
        Secretary Kempthorne. Thank you very much.
        Senator Feinstein. You have brought a very distinct level
    of cooperation to us and our staff. We think you exemplify
    public service and we sincerely wish you the very best in all
    of your endeavors.
        Secretary Kempthorne. Thank you.
        Senator Feinstein. Turning now to your budget, though, this
    is a horse of another color. I want to thank you for retaining
    some of the programmatic increases the Congress provided in the
    2008 bill. The extra funding for park operations, for refuge
    operations, for maintenance of refuges, and for law enforcement
    on Indian lands are all critically important to us, and we
    think they will make a real difference in the field.
        But despite those successes, this proposal leaves us in a
    very difficult position, and I think the best I can offer is
    please work with us as we work on this budget.

                              2009 BUDGET REQUEST

        All in all, the Department's 2009 request is a reduction of
    $189 million, or just 2 percent from the current level. The
    real cut, however, we find is much larger when you factor in
    the $165 million in fixed cost increases that have to be
    covered and the additional $45 million needed to meet the 10-
    year average for fire suppression. Taking these costs into
    account, the request more realistically represents a reduction
    of nearly $400 million, or 4 percent below the 2008 level.
        Now, to be fair, there are two sizeable increases: the $160
    million for park operations and an additional $45 million for
    fire suppression. But those increases are offset by hefty cuts.
    Consider construction at parks, refuges, and Indian schools cut
    $99 million, or 21 percent; land acquisition at parks and
    refuges cut $51 million, or almost 60 percent; Bureau of Indian
    Affairs overall cut $100 million, down 4 percent; and Payments
    in Lieu of Taxes, fondly known around here as PILT, cut $34
    million, or 15 percent; State and local historic preservation
    projects cut $25 million, or 19 percent; and State land
    acquisition grants cut $25 million. That is 100 percent.
        As we look at these cuts, it is clear to me that the budget
    is the product of some rather arbitrary decisionmaking at the
    Office of Management and Budget. Given the size of the backlog
    maintenance problem, for example, there is simply no way to
    justify a 21 percent reduction in the construction programs,
    nor can a $100 million cut at the Bureau of Indian Affairs be
    explained away as good public policy. BIA may be a lot of
    things, but overfunded it is not. So I suspect that as we begin
    drafting this appropriations bill, members of the subcommittee
    will largely be in agreement that many of the proposed
    reductions are untenable and need to be fixed.
        Before turning to our distinguished ranking member for any
    opening comments, I want to thank you for your leading role in
    negotiating the San Joaquin River Restoration Settlement
    Agreement and the implementing legislation as well. I am one
    that believes that a negotiated settlement is much better than
    a judge becoming master of this river, and I want you to know
    how much I appreciate your help in the outcome. I think it is
    going to be marked up in the Energy Committee in May or June of
    this year. So I am very pleased about that.
        I would now like to turn to my distinguished ranking
    member, Senator Allard, for any comments you may care to make.

                   OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR WAYNE ALLARD

        Senator Allard. Well, thank you, Madam Chairman, and I
    would like to just reiterate your comments at the first of your
    opening statement about what a pleasure it has been to work
    with Secretary Kempthorne both as a colleague, as well as head
    of the Department of the Interior.
        I want to thank you, Madam Chairman, for calling this
    hearing today.
        I appreciate, Secretary Kempthorne, you joining us this
    morning to testify on the fiscal year 2009 budget for the
    Department of the Interior. Again, I know this will be your
    last year, most likely, at the helm of that Department, and you
    probably will not miss us much, but we will definitely miss you
    at Interior.
        I think I speak for all of us in saying that we, again,
    appreciate your leadership. It is not an easy job. It is a
    controversial job. You have handled the challenges
    exceptionally well despite those challenges.
        Your Department administers 507 million acres, or roughly
    one-fifth of the land area of the United States. The most
    beautiful public lands you manage are in my State of Colorado.
    For example, Rocky Mountain and Mesa Verde National Parks rival
    anyplace in North America for their majestic scenery, as well
    as their cultural importance.
        Your Department also controls some of the most economically
    important public lands in Colorado, in particular, the oil and
    gas resources of the Roan Plateau which are under the
    jurisdiction of the Bureau of Land Management. There is
    vigorous debate among the people of Colorado about how best to
    manage the resources of the Roan. I think most people want
    responsible development of this area, but at the same time,
    they want it done in an environmentally sound way. I share this
    view and hope to discuss the development of the Roan Plateau
    with you further today and hopefully get a commitment from you
    to work together with me and others in delegation to address
    this issue that is so critical to my State.
        The chairman went through most of the budget numbers, so I
    will just mention a few that are of particular interest to me.
    The total request of the Department is $9.8 billion for the
    programs under this subcommittee's jurisdiction, which is $199
    million less, or 2 percent below the fiscal year 2008 enacted
    level. But most of the proposed cuts have come from the land
    acquisition and construction programs of the Department.

                           NATIONAL PARKS CENTENNIAL

        Similar to last year, the most significant increase in the
    Interior budget by far is $160 million for the National Park
    Service as part of the Centennial Initiative. There is also
    legislation pending before the Energy and Natural Resources
    Committee that would provide an additional $100 million
    annually in mandatory spending on a matching basis for the
    Centennial Challenge Fund.
        Since the authorizers had yet to act on this proposal in
    fiscal year 2008, this subcommittee provided $25 million in
    matching funds to kick off the centennial matching funds
    initiative last year, and I understand that you will be
    announcing the recipients of those matching funds later this
    month.
        While I support providing these matching funds, it is my
    hope that we will not do that again this year. But do not get
    me wrong. I am a strong advocate of our national parks.
    However, in my view this subcommittee does not have the
    resources to fund the centennial matching fund initiative that
    is appropriately before the authorizing committee. If we
    continue to go down this path by funding what is intended to be
    a mandatory program each year out of our limited discretionary
    dollars, my fear is that in lean budgetary times, the
    centennial matching program may well come at the expense of the
    basic operations of our national parks.
        I will be interested in hearing today about your efforts to
    work with the authorizing committee to pass the centennial
    matching fund legislative initiative.

                           PAYMENTS IN LIEU OF TAXES

        There are a couple of cuts in your budget that I find
    especially disappointing. First, once again, I see that PILT
    has been reduced dramatically by $34 million. This is
    absolutely critical to many of our rural communities in the
    West that are dominated by Federal lands, as you are well aware
    of, I am sure, Mr. Secretary.

                            NAVAL OIL SHALE RESERVES

        Second, I cannot support the budget proposal to cancel
    $24.7 million of balances in the Naval Oil Shale Reserve site
    restoration fund account. You have been working with me on
    certifying this site so that the cleanup can commence, and I
    appreciate that. But if the Department had not taken so long to
    reach the point of certifying the site, then half of the money
    that is going into the fund from oil and gas production, which
    currently is about $2 million per month, would be going to the
    State of Colorado pursuant to the Mineral Leasing Act. It is my
    intention to work with the chairman to see that all these funds
    do not simply go to the Treasury, but that Colorado receives
    its rightful share of these royalties that were derived from
    oil and gas development in my State.
        That concludes my opening statement, and once again, I
    appreciate the Secretary appearing before the subcommittee
    today and I look forward to asking him some questions this
    morning.
        Senator Feinstein. Thank you very much, Senator. I
    appreciate your testimony.
        It would be my intent to proceed directly to the Secretary
    because of his time constraints, unless members really want to
    speak. Is that agreeable with everyone?
        Senator Allard. Certainly.
        Senator Feinstein. Thank you very much.
        Mr. Secretary, we will turn it over to you.

                   SUMMARY STATEMENT OF HON. DIRK KEMPTHORNE

        Secretary Kempthorne. Madam Chairman, thanks very much and
    thank you for the very kind remarks which you made at the
    beginning of your statement. Senator Allard, thank you as well.
        Senator Allard, you said that I may not miss you. I would
    say that I know that I will miss all of you because when I made
    the conscious decision to leave the U.S. Senate to run for
    Governor, I left behind tremendous friendships, and this
    position has allowed me to reconnect and to work with you
    again. Madam Chairman, our friendship began when you were mayor
    of San Francisco and I was mayor of Boise and then to have had
    the great pleasure and honor of serving with Senator Allard,
    with Senator Cochran, Senator Craig, who is one of the great
    men of Idaho. Then, to have the friendship of Senator Alexander
    and Senator Nelson where we established that when we both
    walked the paths as Governor, you know about collegiality. I
    think that Senator/Governor Alexander and Senator/Governor
    Nelson would say that there is not quite the same collegiality
    between a Governor and his or her legislature.
        So I do enjoy this camaraderie.
        I want to thank you for your strong bipartisan support that
    this committee provided in enacting our budget request with
    fixed costs and our 2008 budget initiatives. I appreciate your
    leadership.
        In 2008, we charted a course of excellence for our national
    parks. We broadened our planning horizons to achieve Healthy
    Lands, while securing energy for the Nation, and we put the
    needs of Indian country center stage.

                                  2009 BUDGET

        In 2009, we build on these commitments, but more challenges
    confront us, challenges that will require our action. We are
    proposing four new initiatives in 2009 to address water crises,
    manage our oceans, reverse the dramatic decline in wild birds,
    and protect our borders. Our 2009 budget also retains many of
    the increases that you provided in key areas, such as refuges.
        Our 2009 budget is $10.7 billion and it benefits every
    American each day in some way. This budget slightly exceeds our
    2008 request. You will see that our budget includes strategic
    reductions primarily in construction, land acquisition, and for
    congressional earmarks. For programs under the purview of this
    subcommittee, the $9.8 billion budget is $199 million, or 2
    percent, below the 2008 enacted budget.

                               OPERATING BUDGETS

        Despite this overall decrease, we propose operating
    increases of 4 percent over 2008 for our land management
    bureaus. Strong funding of base operations supports ongoing
    programs in conservation, recreation, and resource management
    on public lands. This budget will allow them to continue to
    serve America in continued and new ways through 2008 and
    through 2009.

                           NATIONAL PARKS CENTENNIAL

        Last year we announced our National Parks Centennial
    initiative. We held listening sessions across the country. We
    asked Americans to tell us their vision for our parks. The
    public spoke and we listened. We are adding 3,000 seasonal park
    rangers this year to enrich visitor experiences. Our 2009
    request for park operations is historic. We are requesting an
    increase of $161 million, or 8 percent. Together with 2008
    funding, the 2-year increases total $283 million, or 14
    percent. With these increases, the total park operating budget
    is $2.1 billion.
        Our initiative also proposes the National Parks Centennial
    Challenge, which would provide up to $100 million in mandatory
    funding to match philanthropic contributions to enhance our
    national parks in time for the 100th anniversary of the park
    system in 2016. I am particularly appreciative, Chairman
    Feinstein, that you and Senator Allard provided the first
    segment of funding for the National Parks Centennial Challenge
    matching projects. It is greatly appreciated by many.
        We are preparing to announce the projects that will be done
    with the $25 million appropriated in 2008. We have received 321
    written letters of commitment from Americans across the country
    pledging $301 million of their money for centennial projects.
    Once Congress approves the Centennial Challenge matching fund
    legislation, those pledges and the matching Federal funds will
    be available to benefit parks all around the country.

                            HEALTHY LANDS INITIATIVE

        Interior's responsibilities extend beyond parks to 258
    million acres of public lands in the West, lands key to
    communities and economies of the West. In some of these areas,
    world-class wildlife habitat sits on top of world-class energy
    reserves. We must maintain healthy lands, sustain wildlife, and
    secure energy for this Nation. Our Healthy Lands Initiative
    launched in 2008 provides that holistic framework. It allows us
    to maintain wildlife corridors while providing continued access
    to significant energy resources. Our 2009 budget proposes a $14
    million, or a 200 percent, increase over the 2008 funding
    level.

                               INDIAN INITIATIVES

        Last year we also launched two initiatives in Indian
    country: one to battle the drug scourge from the drug cartels
    invading reservations; and the other to bring hope to Indian
    youth by improving their schools. Both of these initiatives
    received overwhelming support by this Congress.

                       SAFE INDIAN COMMUNITIES INITIATIVE

        Under the Safe Indian Communities Initiative, we proposed
    an additional $16 million last year to battle the scourge of
    methamphetamine that threatens an entire generation of Native
    Americans. Congress supported our proposal and added an
    additional $8 million to this initiative. The bipartisan
    message is clear. We must get drug dealers off reservations and
    behind bars.
        In 2009, we sustain the full $24 million in funding
    increases provided in 2008, and we propose to add $3 million
    more for the initiative, for a total of $27 million.

                           IMPROVING INDIAN EDUCATION

        In 2008 under the Improving Indian Education initiative, we
    proposed increases of $15 million to help Native American
    children reach their potential. Congress endorsed our vision
    for Indian education, funding our request and investing another
    $9 million, bringing our initiative total to $24 million in
    2008.
        In 2009, we uphold our promise to Indian children. We
    sustain the 2008 funding and provide another $2 million,
    investing a total of over $25 million. The issues of safety and
    education go beyond the budget. They are at the very heart of
    the future of Indian country. We must act now to ensure that
    the dreams of today's youth will become the realities of
    tomorrow.

                          WATER FOR AMERICA INITIATIVE

        As I mentioned earlier, we also have four new initiatives
    in our budget, initiatives that address some of the most
    critical issues facing this Nation. Last year the National
    Science and Technology Council reported that ``abundant
    supplies of clean, fresh water can no longer be taken for
    granted.'' Water scarcity is not just a problem of the West. It
    is a problem of this Nation. America increasingly faces water
    scarcities, particularly in areas of rapid population growth.
    We are seeing prolonged droughts and water conflicts in areas
    such as the Southeast where people are used to having unlimited
    water.
        We are proposing a Water for America Initiative to ensure
    that communities have reliable water supplies in this 21st
    century. Under this initiative, we will partner with States to
    conduct the first water census for this Nation in 30 years. The
    initiative includes $8 million for the U.S. Geological Survey.

                    OCEANS AND COASTAL FRONTIERS INITIATIVE

        Our second new initiative advances our knowledge of our
    oceans and protects spectacular ocean ecosystems. Under our
    oceans initiative, we are proposing an additional $8 million to
    support the President's Ocean Action Plan. Our ocean initiative
    will broaden our knowledge, and we will undertake extensive
    mapping of our extended outer continental shelf. Coastlines are
    littered with marine debris ranging from soda cans and small
    plastic objects to derelict fishing gear and abandoned vessels.
    We are losing coastal wetlands that protect us from major
    storms, purify water, and serve as nurseries for marine
    fisheries. Through our oceans initiative, we will join with
    partners worldwide to embark on a global marine debris and
    coral reef campaign.

                            BIRDS FOREVER INITIATIVE

        Together we have another task before us, reversing the
    decline in bird populations across America. Our initiative
    addresses the sharp decline of many populations of wild birds.
    On average, populations of common birds have plummeted 70
    percent since 1967. We add $9 million in 2009 for our Birds
    Forever initiative to help us reverse these trends. Our budget
    sustains $36 million in refuge increases funded in the 2008
    budget. We will improve over 200,000 acres of vital stopover
    habitat for migratory birds, the equivalent of over 150,000
    football fields.

                                   DUCK STAMP

        We are also proposing the first increase in the sale price
    of the Duck Stamp in over 15 years. This increase will result
    in protections of an additional 17,000 acres of habitat.

                          SAFE BORDERLANDS INITIATIVE

        Our final new initiative addresses another issue in the
    Nation's headlines, an initiative that I raised with you last
    year and I have witnessed firsthand, and that is border
    security. The Department of the Interior manages public lands
    along more than 40 percent of our southwestern border with
    Mexico. Our employees, residents, and visitors face daily
    dangers. In many locations, families can no longer live or
    recreate without fear of coming across drug smugglers. As urban
    borders become more secure, illegal activity is shifting to
    remote areas. Drug cartels run violent drug smuggling
    operations across the border, as evidenced by the nearly 3,000
    pounds of cocaine and 740,000 pounds of marijuana seized in
    2007.
        We are proposing an $8 million increase in the 2009 budget
    to aggressively confront this problem. Combined with increased
    funding in 2008, we will place additional officers along the
    border.

                                ENERGY SECURITY

        Another critical issue facing this Nation is energy
    security. With the price of oil rising ever higher, it is
    imperative that we continue to offer access to our energy
    resources. Our new 5-year plan for offshore energy development
    provides access to an additional 48 million offshore acres. The
    Minerals Management Service will invest over $8 million in
    preparations for new leasing activity as identified in the 5-
    year plan. Our recent lease sales in the Chukchi Sea and in the
    Gulf of Mexico generated $5.5 billion in bonus bids,
    historically high levels for lease sales. We will also help
    broaden the Nation's energy mix by providing opportunities to
    implement renewable energy on public lands and offshore.

                               PREPARED STATEMENT

        So, Madam Chairman, it is a budget we place before you. I
    look forward to working with you for your good thoughts and
    ideas as we achieve some very fine things together. Thank you.
        Senator Feinstein. Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary.
        [The statement follows:]

                   Prepared Statement of Hon. Dirk Kempthorne

        Madam Chairman and members of this subcommittee, I appreciate the
    opportunity to present our 2009 budget priorities and to update you on
    our progress in implementing our 2008 programs. I thank this
    subcommittee for your support of our 2008 budget request. Support by
    the chairman and members of this subcommittee for the Parks Centennial,
    Healthy Lands, Safe Indian Communities, and Indian Education
    initiatives resulted in significant funding to advance our goals. I
    look forward to continuing our collaborative relationship as we pursue
    these priorities and address emerging challenges of water scarcity,
    ocean management, declining bird populations, and borderland security.

                                  INTRODUCTION

        The Department of the Interior's mission is complex and
    multifaceted. Our programs and mission stretch from the North Pole to
    the South Pole and across 12 time zones, from the Caribbean to the
    Pacific Rim. Our extensive mandate rivals any government agency in its
    breadth and diversity--and its importance to the everyday lives of
    Americans. In a recent poll of Federal agencies, the Department of the
    Interior received the highest rating for its public service.
        Nearly every American lives within a 1-hour drive of lands or
    waters managed by the Interior Department. With 165,000 facilities at
    2,400 locations, Interior is second only to the Department of Defense
    in managed assets. The Department's law enforcement agents, over 4,000,
    comprise the third largest civilian law enforcement presence in the
    Federal Government.
        Approximately 31 million people in the West rely on drinking water
    provided through water systems managed by the Department. Interior
    irrigation systems deliver water to farmers who generate over half of
    the Nation's produce.
        The lands and waters we manage generate one-third of the Nation's
    domestic energy production. Managing these areas, Interior generates
    $18 billion annually in revenues that exceeds Interior's $10.7 billion
    appropriated budget.
        Interior fulfills special responsibilities to Native Americans as
    the manager of one of the largest land trusts in the world--over 10
    million acres owned by individual Indians and 46 million acres held in
    trust for Indian Tribes. In addition to lands managed in trust, the
    Department manages over $3.3 billion of funds held in over 1,800 trust
    accounts for approximately 250 Indian Tribes and over 370,000 open
    Individual Indian Money accounts. Interior also operates one of only
    two school systems in the Federal government, the Bureau of Indian
    Education school system. The Department of Defense operates the other.
    A total of $65.5 billion in revenues from offshore and onshore mineral
    leases collected from 2001 to 2007 provided resources for Tribes,
    States infrastructure and other Federal programs.

                          OVERVIEW OF THE 2009 BUDGET

        The 2009 budget request for current appropriations is $10.7
    billion, $388.5 million or 3.5 percent below the level enacted by
    Congress for 2008, excluding fire supplemental funding, but $59.0
    million above the amount requested in the 2008 President's budget.
        Permanent funding that becomes available as a result of existing
    legislation without further action by the Congress will provide an
    additional $6.0 billion, for a total 2009 Interior budget of $16.7
    billion. Including permanent funding and excluding 2008 fire
    supplemental funding, the 2009 budget for Interior is $83 million above
    2008 amounts.
        The 2009 request includes $9.8 billion for programs funded by this
    subcommittee. Excluding fire supplemental funding, this is a decrease
    of $198.9 million, or 2 percent, below the level enacted for 2008. The
    2009 budget sustains and enhances funding for parks and public land
    health, the safety of Indian communities, and Indian education. The
    2009 budget funds these initiatives and addresses other nationally
    significant issues within a budget that maintains the President's
    commitment to fiscal restraint.
        We focus funding on these priorities while proposing reductions in
    construction and land acquisition, as well as programs that are
    duplicative or receive funding from alternative sources. We also
    propose to cancel some unobligated balances.

                              THE CHALLENGES AHEAD

        Interior's responsibilities are expanding as the Nation looks to
    its public lands for energy, water, wildlife protection, and
    recreation. Since 2001, the Nation has created 13 new parks and 15
    wildlife refuges. Population has grown dramatically near once-rural or
    remote public lands, increasing access to public lands and complicating
    land management. In the last 10 years, 60 percent of the new houses
    built in America were located in the wildland-urban interface. Changing
    land conditions, including the effects of a changing climate, have
    heightened threats from fire and other natural hazards, complicating
    land management.
        The Department is improving program efficiency, setting priorities,
    and leveraging Federal funds through partnerships and cooperative
    conservation to meet these challenges. Interior's accomplishments have
    been many and varied, with noteworthy advances in management
    excellence.
        Interior has made progress on all dimensions of the President's
    management agenda--a result achieved despite decades-long challenges in
    Indian trust management, a highly decentralized organization structure,
    and a highly dispersed workforce. In 2001, Interior had 17 material
    weaknesses reported in the annual financial and performance audit. With
    the annual audit just completed for 2007, we have eliminated all
    material weaknesses. Despite these successes, as public lands become
    increasingly important to the economy, national security, and the
    public, continued success will require a strategic focus of resources
    to address emerging challenges, achieve key priorities, and maintain
    current levels of success.

                           INTERIOR'S ACCOMPLISHMENTS

        The Department's accomplishments exemplify Interior's core values:
    Stewardship for America with Integrity and Excellence. Our
    achievements, in combination with an outstanding workforce, create a
    strong foundation for continued stewardship of the Nation's resources.
    Since 2001, the Department has:
      --Restored or enhanced more than 5 million acres and 5,000 stream and
            shoreline miles through cooperative conservation.
      --Restored, improved, and protected wetlands to help achieve the
            President's goal to protect, enhance, and restore 3 million
            acres by 2009.
      --Improved park facilities for visitors by undertaking over 6,600
            projects at national parks and earning a 96 percent
            satisfaction rate from park visitors.
      --Reduced risks to communities from the threat of catastrophic fire,
            conducting over 8 million acres of fuels treatments on Interior
            lands through the Healthy Forests Initiative.
      --Enhanced energy security by more than doubling the processing of
            applications for permits to drill and increased the production
            of renewable energy with new wind, solar, and geothermal
            projects.
      --Awarded $9.8 million to 140 Preserve America projects involving
            public-private partnerships that serve as nationwide models for
            heritage tourism, historic preservation, education, and other
            Federal programs.
      --Leveraged a four-to-one investment through a water conservation
            challenge grant program, generating more than $96 million for
            122 water delivery system improvements and conserving over
            400,000 acre-feet of water to help meet the water needs of
            people across the West.
      --Completed planned lease sales and generated a new 5-year plan for
            2007-2012 that opens up an additional 48 million acres to
            leasing and has the potential to produce 10 billion barrels of
            oil and 45 trillion cubic feet of natural gas over the next 40
            years, enough to heat 47 million homes for 40 years. The
            October 2007 Central Gulf of Mexico OCS lease sale generated
            $2.9 billion, $1.6 billion more than originally estimated.
      --Removed the American bald eagle from the endangered species list
            and put in place a set of management guidelines to secure the
            future of our Nation's symbol.
      --Advanced protection of the Papahanaumokuakea Marine National
            Monument in Hawaii, the largest marine protected area in the
            world, with the publication of regulations codifying management
            measures.
      --Hosted over 464 million visitors to parks, refuges, public lands,
            and Bureau of Reclamation sites and increased the number of
            fishing programs on refuges by 24 and the number of hunting
            programs on refuges by 34.
      --Established a new Recreation Reservation Service, a unified pass to
            public lands, and clarified entrance and recreation fees, in
            coordination with other agencies.
      --Distributed over $79 million to individual Indian money account
            holders whose whereabouts were previously unknown and archived
            400 million pages of trust documents in a state-of-the-art
            facility.
        Our 2009 budget continues investments the Congress provided in 2008
    for our top priorities. We continue our Centennial Initiative with
    record funding levels for park operations. We propose to augment
    funding for our landscape-scale Healthy Lands Initiative to protect
    wildlife and assure access to energy resources on public lands. We
    propose to sustain funding increases in 2008 to combat the
    methamphetamine scourge in Indian country and improve education
    programs for students in Indian schools.
        Fulfilling the President's commitment to cooperative conservation,
    since 2001, the Department has provided $2.5 billion in conservation
    grants to achieve on-the-ground protection, restoration, and
    enhancement of lands and waters with partners. This commitment
    continues with $321.7 million requested for cooperative conservation in
    2009 for challenge cost share and partnership programs that leverage
    Federal funding, typically more than doubling the Federal investments
    with matching funds.
        We also propose four new initiatives. We request $21.3 million for
    a Water for America initiative that will enhance knowledge of water
    resources and improve the capacity of water managers to avert crises
    caused by water supply issues and better manage water resources to
    assist in endangered species recovery. We will advance efforts to
    improve the status of birds, including migratory birds, and avert
    further declines in bird populations with an increase of $9.0 million
    for a Birds Forever initiative. The budget continues the $35.9 million
    refuge funding increase provided by the Congress in 2008, which will
    restore 200,000 acres of bird habitat. The 2009 budget seeks an
    increase of $7.9 million to collect data that is needed to define U.S.
    jurisdiction of the extended continental shelf under the Law of the
    Sea, protect wildlife and habitat in ocean environments from marine
    debris, and conduct high priority research to support coastal
    restoration. Lastly, the 2009 budget includes $8.2 million to increase
    the protection of employees, visitors, lands and resources that are
    increasingly at risk from illegal activities at parks, refuges, public
    lands, and Indian lands along the border with Mexico.

                         THE NATIONAL PARKS CENTENNIAL

        Last May, we responded to the President's charge to prepare for the
    National Park Service's 100th anniversary. Our report to the President
    on the National Parks Centennial initiative encompassed the ideas and
    input from 40 listening sessions and 6,000 public comments. The report
    frames the 10-year effort to strengthen visitor services and other
    programs in parks in time for the National Parks Centennial. On August
    23, 2007, we announced more than 200 centennial proposals eligible as
    potential partnership projects in national parks as part of the
    National Parks Centennial Challenge.
        The 2008 President's budget set forth the initial investments to
    achieve the goals of the Centennial initiative, with $100.0 million in
    operating funds for the Parks Centennial initiative to fund new levels
    of excellence in parks. The President's proposal received broad
    bipartisan support in Congress. With the 2008 funding, our parks will
    hire 3,000 seasonal national park rangers, guides and maintenance
    workers; repair buildings; enroll more children in Junior Ranger and
    Web Ranger programs at the parks; and expand the use of volunteers in
    parks.
        The administration also introduced Centennial Challenge Fund
    legislation that would authorize the use of $100.0 million per year of
    Federal mandatory funding to match $100 million or more in
    philanthropic donations to the National Park Service. Both the House
    and Senate introduced bills based on the administration's legislative
    proposal. While the Congress continues to work on passage of the bill,
    the 2008 appropriation included $24.6 million in discretionary funding
    to begin the Centennial Challenge and match private philanthropic
    contribution for signature projects. I appreciate the strong support of
    this Committee for these matching funds.
        In 2009, our budget continues the President's commitment to the
    parks with a historic $2.1 billion budget request for the Operation of
    National Parks. This increase of $160.9 million, or 8 percent above the
    2008 enacted level would provide the largest budget ever for park
    operations. Cumulatively over 2 years, park operations increase by 15
    percent. This funding will allow the parks to preserve our Nation's
    natural and cultural heritage, improve the condition of parks and park
    facilities, and prepare a new generation of leaders to guide NPS into
    the 21st century. The budget also supports the President's proposed
    Centennial Challenge matching fund of up to $100.0 million annually.
        The 2009 budget will continue to build park operational capacity,
    including increases for core operations, facility management, U.S. Park
    Police operations, and youth partnership programs. The increase will
    improve the health of natural and cultural resources and continue to
    bring park assets into good condition using a predictive maintenance
    cycle. We will also develop a 21st century workforce with enhanced
    organizational capacity and employee development through a professional
    development program, performance management tools, and an expanded
    safety program. I am committed to addressing management issues raised
    in a recent report of our Inspector General on the U.S. Park Police.
        Complementing park operations, the 2009 budget includes a combined
    $25.0 million for Preserve America and Save America's Treasures.
    Launched in 2003 by the President and First Lady, the Preserve America
    initiative encourages States and local communities to partner with the
    Federal Government to preserve the multi-textured fabric of America's
    story. The administration has submitted legislation to the Congress to
    permanently authorize the Preserve America and Save America's Treasures
    programs. To date, 585 communities in all 50 States and the U.S. Virgin
    Islands have been designated as Preserve America communities.
        Through $9.8 million appropriated to the National Park Service
    through 2007, the program has supported 140 projects in communities
    throughout America. The 2008 appropriation will support an additional
    95 projects. The 2009 budget request includes $10.0 million for
    Preserve America grants, an increase of $2.6 million over the 2008
    enacted level. The budget also provides $15.0 million for Save
    America's Treasures grants, $4.0 million more for competitive grants
    than what was appropriated in 2008.

                            HEALTHY LANDS INITIATIVE

        In 2007, the Department initiated the Healthy Lands Initiative--a
    major, long-term effort to improve the health of public and private
    lands in the West. Through the Healthy Lands Initiative, Interior
    agencies are working with State and local governments, private
    landowners and other interested groups to conserve and restore vital
    habitat. This Initiative will preserve our public lands for recreation,
    hunting and fishing, and for their significant habitat for species,
    while helping to secure energy for this Nation. The Healthy Lands
    Initiative takes, for the first time, a landscape-scale approach to
    restoration and land-use planning. The Initiative considers the health
    of the land from ridge-top to ridge-top instead of acre by acre.
        Using $3.0 million in 2007 as a model for our Healthy Lands
    Initiative, BLM funded improvements to 72,000 acres of BLM land. The
    investments improved wildlife habitat conditions on 45,896 acres of
    shrubs, grass and woodland; reduced woody fuels and improved the
    composition of herbaceous vegetation on 18,377 acres outside the
    wildland urban interface and 4,986 acres within the interface; and
    improved 580 acres of wetlands. BLM leverage this funding with partner
    investments to treat additional acres within the same critical
    watersheds on non-BLM lands.
        With Congress's support for the initiative, in 2008 we will be
    expanding these efforts to $7.9 million and improving the health of
    Western landscapes impacted by drought, wildfire, weed invasions, and
    stresses associated with population growth and increased development
    and use of the public lands. The Healthy Lands Initiative will restore
    and maintain habitat for many species such as the sage grouse, a
    species almost entirely dependent on sagebrush ecosystems. Some 72
    percent of sage grouse habitat is under Federal management. The current
    range of the greater sage grouse has declined an estimated 45 percent
    from the historically occupied range, prompting recent petitions to
    list the species under the Endangered Species Act. The Initiative will
    also focus on protecting wildlife corridors as we take a holistic
    perspective in our land use planning process for energy development and
    recreation.
        The 2009 budget provides $21.9 million for the Healthy Lands
    Initiative, an increase of $14.0 million over the 2008 enacted level,
    including an increase of $10.0 million that BLM will deploy to
    accelerate and increase efforts at the original six geographic focus
    areas; expand one of the focus areas; and add a seventh focus area in
    California. The Initiative includes increases of $3.5 million for USGS
    and $492,000 for FWS to provide critical scientific support and
    complement BLM's on-the-ground conservation and restoration efforts.

                            SAFE INDIAN COMMUNITIES

        In 2008, Interior proposed the Safe Indian Communities initiative
    to help Indian Country resist organized crime and foreign drug cartels.
    These cartels have taken advantage of the widely dispersed law
    enforcement presence on tribal lands to produce and distribute drugs,
    resulting in a violent crime rate in some communities that is 10 to 20
    times the national average.
        The 2008 enacted appropriation provided increases totaling $23.6
    million for the Safe Indian Communities initiative to increase our
    capacity to combat this growing epidemic. In 2009, we sustain this
    funding and request an additional $2.9 million, for a total Safe Indian
    Communities initiative of $26.6 million. With a cumulative investment
    of $50.2 million over 2 years, Interior will assist Tribes to suppress
    the production and distribution of methamphetamine by organized crime
    and drug cartels, address related effects including drug abuse, child
    neglect and abuse, and increase staffing at detention centers.
        In 2009, Interior will provide: (1) additional officers for law
    enforcement; (2) specialized drug training for existing officers; (3)
    public awareness campaigns for the Indian public; (4) additional
    resources to protect tribal lands located on the United States border;
    and (5) additional social workers. Combined, the 2008 and 2009 funding
    increases will put 193 additional law enforcement agents on the ground
    in targeted communities in Indian Country and invest in more training
    for the current force to more effectively combat the problem. The BIA
    will also expand the use of a mobile meth lab to train tribal police
    and others about methamphetamine labs, environmental and personal
    safety hazards, and interdiction and investigation strategies. Funding
    will target communities based on a needs analysis that looks at the
    violent crime rate, service population, and current staffing levels.

                           IMPROVING INDIAN EDUCATION

        In 2008, Interior proposed the $15.0 million Improving Indian
    Education initiative to enhance student performance in Bureau of Indian
    Education schools. As one of just two Federal school systems, the BIE
    system of 184 schools should be a model of excellence and achievement
    of the goals of the No Child Left Behind Act. Student performance,
    however, has lagged. In 2006, just 30 percent of Indian schools were
    achieving their annual progress goals. Through this initiative, the
    Department is implementing a set of education program enhancements to
    increase the number of schools reaching adequate yearly progress goals
    to 33 percent by 2009. Though we still have much work to do, our
    assessment for 2007 shows 31 percent of schools now achieving Annual
    Yearly Progress.
        The 2008 appropriation provided an increase of $24.1 million over
    the 2007 level for programs to improve student achievement. Our 2009
    budget continues the increased funding Congress provided for these
    programs and adds another $1.4 million over 2008 for certain activities
    for a total of $25.5 million. This request includes $5.2 million for
    Education Program Enhancements to restructure schools under the No
    Child Left Behind Act and for reading programs, tutoring, mentoring,
    and intensive math and science initiatives. In 2008, Congress provided
    $12.1 million for these enhancements. With the 2008 boost in funding
    and the continued $5.2 million in 2009, BIE will focus on improved
    student achievement. The budget also includes a $6.3 million increase
    in funds allocated to all schools to improve per student funding.
    Funding allocated by formula is the primary source of funding for BIE's
    170 elementary and secondary schools and 14 dormitories. This funding
    directly supports all schools for core costs of operating education
    programs such as salaries for teachers, aides, administrators, and
    support staff; supplies; and classroom materials.
        The 2009 budget increases funding for four new initiatives: Water
    for America, Birds Forever, Ocean and Coastal Frontiers, and Safe
    Borderlands.

                               WATER FOR AMERICA

        In 2007, the National Science and Technology Council reported that
    ``abundant supplies of clean, fresh water can no longer be taken for
    granted.'' The Council of State Governments echoed this concern,
    concluding that ``water, which used to be considered a ubiquitous
    resource, is now scarce in some parts of the country and not just in
    the West. The water wars have spread to the Midwest, East, and South,
    as well.''
        Competition for water is increasing because of rapid population
    growth and growing environmental and energy needs. These water needs
    are escalating at a time of chronic drought and changes in water
    availability resulting from a changing climate.
        In 2009, our budget includes a Water for America initiative to help
    communities secure reliable water supplies through information,
    technologies, and partnerships. This collaborative effort, which
    involves the Bureau of Reclamation and the U.S. Geological Survey, will
    help address the water needs of the Nation.
        Knowing how much water is available--and how much we consume--lies
    at the foundation of good water management. Yet this Nation has not
    completed a water census in over three decades. Our Water for America
    initiative will fill this void. The U.S. Geological Survey request of
    $8.2 million will fund the first water census in 30 years. USGS will
    begin a nationwide assessment of water availability, water quality, and
    human and environmental water use. The census, planned for completion
    by 2019, will generate information to assist others in managing water
    in a context of competing demands. The census will provide a national
    groundwater information system, new technology that integrates surface
    and groundwater information, and better measurements that result in
    better management of water resources.
        In addition to the census, through our Water for America
    initiative, we will modernize the Nation's 7,000 streamgages. In the
    first phase of modernization, USGS will upgrade 350 streamgages and
    reinstate 50 streamgages that were shut down previously.

                                 BIRDS FOREVER

        In June 2007, the National Audubon Society issued a report, Common
    Birds in Decline, based on analysis of the Society's Christmas bird
    counts and breeding bird surveys performed by the U.S. Geological
    Survey. The report indicated significant declines occurring in 20
    common species. On average, populations of common birds have plummeted
    70 percent since 1967.
        As manager of one-fifth of the Nation's lands, Interior, working
    with a Nation of citizen stewards, can help reverse these declines.
    Since 2004, Interior has improved the status of five migratory bird
    species. Current efforts focus on ensuring that more than 62 percent of
    the Nation's migratory bird species thrive at sustainable levels.
        On October 20, 2007, the President announced a new effort to
    conserve migratory birds. This effort included cooperative conservation
    with Mexico to protect birds that know no border, expanded migratory
    bird joint ventures, and production of a State of the Birds report. The
    Department's Birds Forever initiative builds upon the President's
    initiative.
        Madam Chairman, we appreciate your strong support for the Nation's
    National Wildlife Refuges. Our budget sustains the FWS refuge budget
    increase of $35.9 million provided by Congress in 2008. Conserving
    migratory birds is a primary goal of the Refuge System and the
    increased funding in 2008 will support migratory bird conservation and
    habitat protection. More than 200,000 acres of habitat will be
    improved, some of which will directly benefit migratory birds.
        Our 2009 budget also proposes to improve the status of wild birds,
    including migratory birds, and avert further declines in populations
    with $9.0 million in increased funding for FWS joint venture
    partnerships, inventory and monitoring, and habitat restoration
    programs and the U.S. Geological Survey's strategic habitat
    conservation and monitoring efforts such as the breeding bird survey.
    These funds, together with refuge increases, will help reverse the
    decline in bird populations by focusing on species of greatest concern
    and leveraging Federal investments through partnerships.
        The initiative targets 36 species that are part of the FWS Focal
    Species Strategy. By emphasizing these priority species, benefits will
    accrue to other species as well because they often have similar
    conservation needs and utilize the same habitats. Employing this
    strategy, FWS and USGS will improve understanding of these species,
    restore habitat, and monitor species status and trends. Through
    collaborative projects with States and others, these efforts will lead
    to improved protection of habitats that are important to these bird
    species. Interior will complete action plans for 30 focal species and
    coordinate them with State Wildlife Action Plans.
        Interior collaborative efforts with nonprofit organizations, State,
    and Federal programs through Joint Ventures will set conservation
    priorities and increase investments through extensive leveraging.
    Interior will focus on Joint Ventures along the coasts and central
    flyways including the Atlantic Coast, Texas and Gulf Coast, and Prairie
    Potholes and Playas. Working in coordination with these programs
    through the Birds initiative, States will be able to leverage their
    funds against Federal grant program dollars to target multi-state bird
    conservation priorities. The Fish and Wildlife Service has signed Urban
    Bird Treaties with cities such as New Orleans and Houston to preserve
    bird habitat in urban environments. With five treaties in place, FWS
    will sign up more cities and promote partnerships that will conserve
    parks and tree islands for bird habitat and engage the citizens in
    conservation activities.

                          OCEAN AND COASTAL FRONTIERS

        Healthy and productive oceans, coasts, and Great Lakes waters are
    vital to America's prosperity and well-being. The President's U.S.
    Ocean Action Plan sets forth a pioneering vision for ocean management
    premised on regional partnerships, State leadership, and Federal
    coordination.
        Interior has extensive ocean and coastal responsibilities, managing
    35,000 miles of coastline, 177 island and coastal refuges, 74 park
    units comprising 34 million acres, 92 million acres of coral reef
    ecosystems that include 3.5 million acres of coral reefs, and 1.8
    billion underwater acres of Outer Continental Shelf lands. Interior
    also assists the U.S. Territories and Freely Associated States in the
    management of 3.6 million square miles of oceans in the U.S.
    Territories and Freely Associated States. The Department also conducts
    the science needed to guide better decisionmaking in managing these
    resources.
        The 2009 budget request includes $7.9 million to support the
    Department's diverse ocean, coastal, and Great Lakes program activities
    and to implement the highest priorities of the U.S. Ocean Action Plan.
    Included is an increase of $4.0 million for mapping the extended
    continental shelf to assure that the United States defines the
    boundaries for these areas potentially rich in energy and mineral
    resources.
        Our budget also funds partnerships to reverse the trend of marine
    debris accumulating in waters and coasts of Midway Atoll National
    Wildlife Refuge and conserve coral reefs and improve ocean science at
    the Palmyra Atoll National Wildlife Refuge. Marine debris kills marine
    life, interferes with navigation safety, negatively impacts shipping
    and coastal industries, and poses a threat to human health.

                          SAFE BORDERLANDS INITIATIVE

        The Department's land management bureaus manage lands along 793
    miles, or 41 percent, of the southwest border. This includes seven
    national wildlife refuges, six national parks, lands managed by the
    Bureau of Reclamation along 12 miles of the border, and public lands
    managed by the Bureau of Land Management along 191 miles of the border.
    In addition, five Indian reservations are on the international boundary
    with Mexico.
        These remote, once pristine landscapes are home to many unique
    plants and wildlife, some of which are endangered species. However, the
    situation along our international border with Mexico has changed. In
    some locations, our employees, residents, or visitors are facing
    significant risks from illegal activities and portions of the public
    lands are closed to visitors. Employees who live on site and residents
    of Indian communities contend with the potential threat of vandalism,
    theft, and confrontation with illegal activities. Wildlife populations
    and their habitats and cultural resources are affected and damaged by
    these activities.
        Increased border enforcement in urban areas has resulted in a shift
    in the flow of illegal drugs and unauthorized people to rural areas and
    the lands managed by the Interior Department. The number of illegal
    entrants crossing public lands has increased 11-fold since 2001.
    Narcotic traffickers, smugglers, and other criminals, who operate
    extensively near the border, impact public lands and resources.
        There has been loss to human life. National Park Service Ranger
    Kris Eggle was shot and killed in 2002 at Organ Pipe Cactus National
    Monument by a drug runner. At San Bernardino National Wildlife Refuge,
    drug smugglers threatened an officer and his family at his home if he
    didn't return a load of marijuana seized earlier in the day. These are
    not isolated incidents. Interior employees are concerned that they are
    under constant surveillance by drug smugglers who establish observation
    posts on our lands and are equipped with assault weapons, encrypted
    radios, night vision optics, and other sophisticated equipment.
    Employees cannot go to some areas of some of the parks, refuges, and
    other public lands without an escort. The impacts to lands and
    resources are extensive, including abandoned vehicles and personal
    property, roads and trails through sensitive areas, and elevated
    threats to at-risk species.
        The Department is requesting an $8.2 million increase for our Safe
    Borderlands initiative to enhance safety of public land visitors,
    residents, and employees and reduce the impacts affecting Interior-
    managed lands along the southwest border. The Safe Borderlands
    initiative targets resources toward multiple bureaus and high-priority
    areas. The Department will coordinate border efforts among the land
    management bureaus and the Bureau of Indian Affairs, deploying
    additional law enforcement personnel into five high-priority areas with
    the highest safety risks. We propose to focus on Interior borderland
    responsibilities, including public lands management and visitor and
    employee safety.
        We also propose to mitigate environmental damage along the
    southwest border. Trails and illegal roads made by smugglers are
    destroying cactus and other sensitive vegetation impacting the
    ecological health of many of the national parks, wildlife refuges,
    national monuments and conservation areas Interior manages. Projects
    include repairing and maintaining roads and trails on BLM lands;
    improving signage for visitors; assisting with environmental compliance
    for border infrastructure projects; removing tons of abandoned personal
    property such as vehicles from bureau and tribal lands; and closing
    abandoned mine lands on BLM lands in New Mexico and California where
    illegal aliens hide.

                      SUPPORTING THE DEPARTMENT'S MISSION

        The 2009 budget aligns resources to achieve these and other high-
    priority goals guided by the Department's integrated strategic plan.
    The Department's strategic plan links the Department's 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.
        Key to attaining these strategic goals is our 2009 request for
    fixed costs. Pay and benefits for the Department's 70,000 employees are
    a significant cost component of Interior's core programs, comprising 51
    percent of operating budgets. The proportion of Interior's budget
    committed to personnel costs places it among the top three Federal
    agencies. This workforce composition largely reflects the need to
    maintain staff at the geographically dispersed locations that serve the
    public including 391 parks, 548 refuges, and 71 fish hatcheries.
        Interior's programs by their very nature require staff. Interior
    continues to utilize the services of over 200,000 volunteers and
    extensive seasonal employees. However, the workforce capacity of the
    Department's programs is an essential ingredient for the uninterrupted
    delivery of programs and services to the American public.
        The 2009 budget includes $142.5 million to keep apace with most
    increased costs in pay and benefits and other fixed costs. The pay and
    benefits component is $128.6 million, including a 3.5 percent 2008 pay
    raise, a 2.9 percent 2009 pay raise, and a 3.0 percent increase in
    health benefits. A total of $22.5 million in pay and health benefits
    costs is absorbed. There is a reduction of $16.9 million for one less
    pay day in 2009. The request fully funds nondiscretionary bills from
    others, including space rental costs and associated security charges;
    workers compensation and unemployment compensation; and centralized
    administrative and business systems, services, and programs financed
    through the Working Capital Fund.

                            OTHER BUDGET PRIORITIES

        In addition to the initiatives already highlighted, the 2009 budget
    includes funding for programs key to achieving the Department's goals
    and objectives.
        Cooperative Conservation Programs.--Through partnerships, Interior
    works with landowners and others to achieve conservation goals across
    the Nation that benefit America's national parks, wildlife refuges, and
    other public lands. The 2009 budget includes $321.7 million for the
    Department's cooperative conservation programs, $10.4 million more than
    the 2008 enacted level. These programs leverage Federal funding,
    typically providing a non-Federal match of 50 percent or more. They
    provide a foundation for cooperative conservation 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.
        Challenge cost share programs in FWS, NPS and the Bureau of Land
    Management are funded at $18.1 million. These cost share programs
    provide resources to land managers to work with adjacent communities,
    landowners, and other citizens to achieve common goals through
    conservation and restoration of wetlands, uplands, riparian areas and
    other projects.
        The 2009 cooperative conservation budget incorporates the
    Department's $21.9 million Healthy Lands initiative. Building on the
    $7.9 million enacted in 2008 for Healthy Lands, the 2009 budget
    increases resources for this multi-agency initiative to enlist States,
    local and tribal governments, industry and non-government entities to
    restore habitat on a landscape scale.
        The 2009 budget for FWS cooperative conservation programs proposes
    $14.9 million for the Migratory Bird Joint Ventures program, including
    an increase of $4.0 million to focus on improving the status of focal
    species of birds as part of the Migratory Bird initiative. The 2009
    budget also includes $13.2 million for the Coastal program, $48.0
    million for the Partners for Fish and Wildlife program, $4.9 million
    for the Fish Passage program, and $5.2 million for the National Fish
    Habitat Action Plan.
        The 2009 request for cooperative conservation programs includes
    $195.9 million for FWS grant programs, an increase of $1.9 million.
    This includes $42.6 million for the North American Wetlands
    Conservation Fund, an increase of $666,000 above the 2008 enacted
    level. The 2009 budget for the Cooperative Endangered Species
    Conservation Fund is $75.5 million (including $80.0 million in new
    budget authority reduced by a cancellation of $4.5 million in
    unobligated balances). This request is an increase of $1.7 million
    above the 2008 level. The 2009 budget includes $4.0 million for the
    Neotropical Migratory Bird program, a reduction of $470,000 from the
    2008 level, and $73.8 million for the State and Tribal Wildlife Grant
    program, sustaining the 2008 funding level.
        Enhancing Energy Security.--The Interior Department helps to meet
    the Nation's energy needs and ensure energy security. Roughly one-third
    of the energy produced in the United States each year comes from
    Federal lands and waters managed by Interior. Interior's 2009 budget
    enhances energy security with a program that seeks to increase
    production while achieving important environmental protections,
    attaining energy conservation goals, and expanding the use of new
    technologies and renewable energy sources. The 2009 budget provides
    $528.1 million for energy-related programs, an increase of $15.1
    million over the 2008 enacted level.
        The BLM will continue to support implementation of Section 349 of
    the Energy Policy Act to address the environmental risks posed by
    legacy orphaned wells. The 2009 request includes an increase of $11.2
    million for the remediation of the Atigaru site on the Alaska North
    Slope. In addition, BLM will increase its capacity for conducting oil
    and gas inspections in 2009.
        In 2009, as in 2008, legislation is proposed to repeal the permit
    processing fund and the prohibition on charging cost recovery fees for
    processing applications for permits to drill. Estimated cost recovery
    collections for Applications for Permit to Drill are $34.0 million in
    2009, an increase of $13 million from the 2008 proposed level. The 2009
    budget relies on permanent legislation to allow cost recovery for APDs,
    rather than the $4,000 APD fee included in the 2008 Consolidated
    Appropriations Act.
        In 2009, MMS will apply $8.5 million to increase environmental
    studies, resource assessments, and leasing consultations in areas of
    new leasing activity in Alaska and the Gulf of Mexico as identified in
    the 2007-2012 Five Year Plan. These lease sales could produce as much
    as 10 billion barrels of oil and 45 trillion cubic feet of natural gas
    over the next 40 years, enough energy to heat 47 million homes for 40
    years. With an additional $1.0 million, MMS will implement its
    alternative energy responsibilities by funding environmental work and
    permitting for offshore alternative energy projects. This increase
    builds on the increased funding level provided in 2008 for alternative
    energy and provides a total funding level of $6.6 million.
        The MMS will also use a $1.1 million increase to improve its
    information technology system to keep pace with industry's use of
    geoscientific analysis of resources and ensure that lease bids meet
    their fair market value; provide $2.0 million for improvements to
    mineral revenue compliance operations; and apply $1.7 million to
    implementing automated interest billing, allowing MMS to streamline and
    expedite interest invoicing, enhance internal controls, reduce manual
    intervention, allow the closure of audit cases sooner, and redirect
    staffing to other high-priority projects.
        Climate Change.--With lands that range from the Arctic to the
    Everglades, Interior's managers are observing the sometimes dramatic
    effects of a changing climate, including melting permafrost and melting
    glaciers, apparent long-term changes in precipitation patterns, dust
    storms, and sea level rise. In this dynamic context, Interior managers
    need the information, tools and resources to understand on-the-ground
    landscape changes and develop strategies to adapt to these changes. As
    one of the largest land managers in the world, Interior is positioned
    to pioneer adaptive management approaches to address the effects of
    climate change.
        Interior's science agency, the U.S. Geological Survey, has been an
    active participant in the Federal Global Climate Change Science
    project. In 2008, the Congress provided an increase of $7.4 million to
    expand high-priority research and establish a National Global Warming
    and Wildlife Science Center.
        Work has begun to examine the most pressing issues faced by land
    managers, including the impacts of melting permafrost on energy and
    other infrastructure, modeling of watersheds to better manage timing
    and delivery of water by taking into account changing precipitation
    patterns, and investigation of the potential for geologic formations to
    sequester carbon. Interior has also undertaken habitat restoration to
    promote carbon sequestration and has pioneered use of alternative
    energy and energy conservation in its facilities and transportation
    systems. Approximately 18 percent of Interior's facility electricity
    comes from alternative energy technologies, a ratio six times greater
    than required for the Nation in the Energy Policy Act.
        The 2009 budget for the U.S. Geological Survey continues its
    climate change program of $31.4 million, sustaining $5.0 million of the
    increases enacted in 2008 by the Congress. The 2009 budget will focus
    on priority climate change needs to fill critical information gaps. The
    2009 budget and the Department's climate change management priorities
    will benefit from the results of the Secretary's Task Force on Climate
    Change. The three subcommittees that comprise the task force will guide
    Interior's comprehensive approach to the study and modeling of the
    impacts of climate change on lands, waters, and wildlife, as well as
    guide adaptive management programs for the Department's land managers.
        Indian Trust.--From 1996 through 2008, the Department will have
    invested $4.4 billion in the management, reform, and improvement of
    Indian trust programs. These investments have allowed Interior to
    better meet fiduciary trust responsibilities, provide greater
    accountability at every level, and operate with staff trained in the
    principles of fiduciary trust management. The 2009 budget proposes
    $482.3 million for Indian trust programs. This amount includes a net
    program increase of $2.9 million over the 2008 enacted budget. The 2009
    Unified Trust Budget reflects savings from the completion of certain
    trust reform tasks as well as new investments in probate services.
        The 2009 budget of $482.3 million for Indian trust programs
    includes $181.6 million in the Office of the Special Trustee and $300.7
    million in the Bureau of Indian Affairs. The budget for Office of the
    Special Trustee includes $125.2 million for operation of trust
    programs, an increase of $1.2 million above the 2008 level. The 2009
    budget proposal includes $56.4 million to support the Office of
    Historical Trust Accounting. The Office of Historical Trust Accounting,
    which is included in the Unified Trust Budget, plans, organizes,
    directs, and executes the historical accounting of 365,000 Individual
    Indian Money and Tribal Trust accounts. The OHTA expects to allocate
    approximately $40 million to historical accounting for individual
    Indian accounts, with the balance used for tribal trust accounting.
        The remainder of the funding supports work on tribal trust cases,
    for a total of $16.4 million. At present, there are 102 tribal trust
    lawsuits, including a class action case seeking certification of a
    class of over 250 Tribes. The workload associated with these cases
    includes tribal reconciliation reports, document production, data
    validation, litigation support, analyses of mismanagement claims,
    historical accountings, and settlement negotiations.
        The 2009 BIA budget provides $300.7 million to meet the
    requirements outlined in the Fiduciary Trust model and continue trust
    reform initiatives, including a funding increase of $10.6 million that
    will address a number of priority activities including the probate
    backlog.
        The 2009 budget also includes an increase $2.6 million for BIA and
    OST to meet the ongoing demand for probate services, while continuing
    to reduce the excess probate caseload. This funding increase will also
    support the Office of Hearings and Appeals and their role in resolving
    probate cases.
        The 2009 budget reduces funding by $9.8 million and eliminates the
    Indian Land Consolidation program. Although the program is terminated
    in 2009 the Department will explore other options for addressing the
    critical issue of fractionation.
        Financial and Business Management System.--The Financial and
    Business Management System, an enterprise-level, integrated,
    administrative management system, is replacing the Interior
    Department's existing legacy systems. When fully implemented, the
    project will support the business requirements of all Interior bureaus
    and offices including core accounting, acquisition, personal property
    and fleet, travel, real property, financial assistance, budget
    formulation, and enterprise management information.
        In 2006, the Minerals Management Service and the Office of Surface
    Mining were successfully migrated to the Financial and Business
    Management System. These bureaus are now conducting financial and
    accounting operations on this new system. In 2007, the acquisition
    module was deployed to MMS and OSM. In 2008, the Department anticipates
    that it will deploy core financial, acquisition, property, and grants
    components of FBMS to BLM. The 2009 budget request of $73.4 million
    includes an increase of $33.3 million for additional deployments that
    will eventually allow the Department to retire duplicative legacy
    systems currently in operation, including 27 acquisition systems, 16
    finance systems, 43 vendor databases, and 107 property management
    systems.
        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 2009 budget proposes $195.0 million for these
    payments, an increase of $5.0 million over the 2008 President's budget,
    reflecting an adjustment to keep abreast of inflationary cost
    increases.

                             LEGISLATIVE PROPOSALS

        The 2009 budget is accompanied by legislative proposals that will
    affect receipt or spending levels in 2009 or in future years. These
    proposals will be transmitted to the Congress for consideration by
    authorizing committees.
        Many of these legislative changes were presented in the 2008
    President's budget, including proposals for: full payment of bonuses on
    all new coal leases at the time of lease sale, modification of the
    Federal Land Transaction Facilitation Act, net receipts sharing for
    energy minerals, discontinuation of the mandatory appropriation from
    the BLM Range Improvement Fund, reallocation of the repayment of
    capital costs for the Pick-Sloan Missouri Basin program, and
    authorization for the San Joaquin River Restoration settlement.
        The budget also assumes the enactment of legislative proposals to
    repeal provisions of the Energy Policy Act related to permit
    processing, geothermal revenues and geothermal payments to counties,
    and ultra-deepwater research. The budget assumes enactment of
    legislation that would open the 1002 area of the Arctic National
    Wildlife Refuge to exploration with lease sales to begin in 2010,
    generating estimated bonus bids of $7 billion in 2010 and future
    streams of revenue from royalty collection once production commences.
        The 2009 budget assumes enactment of legislation to provide a new,
    dedicated source of funding for the Centennial Challenge providing up
    to $100.0 million per year for 10 years of mandatory funding to match
    contributions for projects and programs that will fulfill the
    commitment to prepare parks for their next century.
        The 2009 budget also assumes enactment of legislation to authorize
    an increase in the price of the Federal duck stamp. The price of the
    stamp has remained at $15.00 since 1991. At the same time, the price of
    land has increased significantly in the past 17 years. The Duck Stamp
    fee increases will generate more revenues to support the acquisition of
    fee title and easement areas that would provide 17,000 additional acres
    of important breeding, migration resting, and wintering areas for
    birds.
        The 2009 budget proposes to cancel $5.0 million from multiple
    accounts, as the balances have remained unused for some time. The
    budget proposes to cancel $24.7 million of balances in the Naval Oil
    Shale Reserve Account that are excess to the estimated remediation
    costs and to cancel $4.5 million in the Cooperative Endangered Species
    Fund for uncommitted funding that was recovered from funds surplus to
    project needs.
        The 2009 budget proposes $34.0 million in increased cost recovery
    fees for the Bureau of Land Management oil and gas program and
    estimates an increase of $11.0 million in offsetting collections from
    rental receipts and cost recovery fees by the Minerals Management
    Service's OCS program.

                                   CONCLUSION

        Our 2009 budget will--in its entirety--make a dramatic difference
    for the American people. We will continue efforts to improve our
    national parks, protect our wildlife and its habitat, and make
    investments in Indian Country for safe communities and Indian
    education. In addition, we will help communities address water supply
    needs, conserve wild birds and ocean resources, improve the safety of
    public lands along the border for employees and visitors, and continue
    to address other ongoing mission priorities. We look forward to working
    with the Subcommittee on these challenges this year. Just as we did in
    2008, I feel confident that we can collaboratively craft a 2009 budget
    for this Department that will address all of the priorities I've
    discussed. This concludes my overview of the 2009 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. Let me see. The order will be after my
    questions, Senator Allard. Then it will alternate. Senator
    Nelson, Senator Craig, Senator Alexander, and Senator Cochran.

                             RURAL FIRE ASSISTANCE

        I think one of the things that I find really objectionable
    in the budget is the zeroing out of the $6 million for the
    wildland fire grants. When I left the office, Mr. Secretary,
    CNN was on my television, and it said a wide swath of the
    United States is under threat of catastrophic fire. I think to
    cut these grants right now is really a mistake.
        My understanding is you are taking that money and you are
    putting it in the Healthy Lands initiative. You are proposing a
    Birds Forever by taking money away from initiatives to protect
    native fish, and we have just had the entire salmon run
    collapse in Oregon and California.
        So why are you singled out for the elimination of rural
    fire assistance grants?
        Secretary Kempthorne. Madam Chairman, it is a very fair
    question. We do have a very close cooperative working
    relationship with the U.S. Forest Service where they provide
    many of the same programs. We do retain grants that help us
    with the training. We utilize funds from the preparedness
    budget to do so.
        You are right about the devastation of these fires. You
    experienced them firsthand when I called you in October and we
    talked about the Santa Ana winds that were whipping up, and
    where we were able to anticipate that, pre-deploy our assets,
    rolling stock, aircraft, and personnel and were able to make
    the best of a very bad situation.
        We do use it for the Healthy Forest initiative because if
    we can continue to thin these forests, if we can remove the
    fuel load, that is going to save not only acreage but lives and
    certainly lives of the fire fighters.
        Senator Feinstein. Yes, but for me it is a catch 22. I want
    the Healthy Lands money, but I also want the wildland fire
    protection money. So if you take one from the other, you
    essentially diminish both. At least, that is my view on it. So
    I just want you to know up front that is a real problem for me.

                                ABANDONED MINES

        Another problem in California is we have roughly 47,000
    abandoned mines, and 13,000 are on lands managed by the BLM.
    Thousands have safety or water quality hazards. Last month I
    introduced a bill, the Abandoned Mine Reclamation Act. It
    created an abandoned mine cleanup fund, but unlike the House
    bill, it has three sources of revenue for that cleanup. I added
    $1.9 million in the 2008 bill to help BLM and the National Park
    Service identify and remediate hazardous abandoned mines in
    California. Your budget request removes this funding.
        My first question is, does your Department have a
    prioritized list of abandoned mine sites on public lands?
        Secretary Kempthorne. This is a critical issue for us. I
    will get back to you if, in fact, there is a prioritization of
    mines. The categorizing and the inventorying of abandoned mines
    has been occurring by the BLM and by the National Park Service.
        Senator Feinstein. Well, I would like to ask you to do a
    prioritized list, and I would like you to share it with this
    committee. I mean, I think we are entitled to know where
    abandoned mines on public lands create real hazards for people
    who use those public lands.
        Secretary Kempthorne. Yes. Madam Chairman, the National
    Park Service--I believe it was five abandoned mines they
    addressed based on funds that you provided in the current
    budget last year.
        Senator Feinstein. Right. But you removed the funding.
        Secretary Kempthorne. Yes.
        Senator Feinstein. Why is that?
        Secretary Kempthorne. In most cases, Madam Chairman, where
    there were additions by Congress, we had to remove those
    earmarks.
        Senator Feinstein. Why?
        Secretary Kempthorne. To remain within the budget that was
    given as the guidance by the administration.
        Senator Feinstein. Well, you know, I feel if the
    administration is not going to regard our concerns of
    priorities, I do not know why we should observe theirs. I mean,
    the fact of the matter is we have got 13,000 abandoned mines on
    Interior properties in California, and people use those lands
    and we need to do something about it. So I am really concerned
    about that, and you will be hearing more.

                                U.S. PARK POLICE

        Let me go to the Park Police. The IG's report stated,
    ``Park Police have failed to adequately perform either mission,
    either protecting the national monuments or functioning as an
    urban police department.'' So this has resulted in deficient
    security at national icons and monuments.
        My understanding is you do have money in the budget for
    that, for additional police officers. Your current staffing is
    590. You request an additional $4.7 million so you can increase
    staffing by 36. How many of those 36 will be sworn officers,
    and how many are administrative?
        Secretary Kempthorne. I believe, Madam Chairman, that those
    officers will be sworn officers.
        Senator Feinstein. So all 36 of your new people will be
    sworn officers.
        Secretary Kempthorne. Yes. I will tell you that it will
    take a little bit of time to achieve this. We are adding 12 new
    officers this month. We are then putting 15 more in the Federal
    Law Enforcement Training Center. The goal is that by the end of
    2009, we will have 630 sworn officers. Our objective is to
    reach 639 sworn officers, which we believe can be accomplished
    at the beginning of 2010.

                                     SALMON

        Senator Feinstein. All right. If I can quickly, I would
    like to go to the Pacific Fisheries Council recommendation for
    a complete closure of the Oregon and California salmon fishery
    for the first time in 150 years. News articles suggest that
    part of the problem may be deteriorating ocean conditions
    caused by climate change.
        What is your finding? What is the cause of this?
        Secretary Kempthorne. Well, Madam Chairman, we have been
    working with NOAA and the National Marine Fisheries Service,
    which has jurisdiction for this. There has been an
    identification at this point that conditions in the sea which
    provide the food source for the salmon are one of the key
    factors. There is continuing discussion as to what may be the
    reason for all of that, but it is the jurisdiction of the
    National Marine Fisheries Service. We will continue to work
    with them.
        Senator Feinstein. I would hope you would. I would hope you
    would take a major role. I mean, fishing on our coasts is an
    important industry. It is estimated that this disaster is $150
    million. People lose their homes. They lose their boats. They
    lose everything because they cannot make payments. They have no
    job. So I would just like to request that Interior play a role
    in really delving into this and coming up with some solutions--
    --
        Secretary Kempthorne. Yes.
        Senator Feinstein [continuing]. Or I think we are in deep
    trouble with respect to fish.
        Secretary Kempthorne. It is very serious, and I am very
    familiar with it, as Senator Craig would be as well from the
    State of Idaho, because we too have the salmon fish runs. It is
    an issue that we have been working on for some years.

                                U.S. PARK POLICE

        Madam Chairman, perhaps before we leave this hearing, I
    could address a little further about the Park Police.
        Senator Feinstein. Certainly. My time is expired. Let me
    turn to the others and then on the second round, if it is
    agreeable with you, we will go to the Park Police first up.
        Secretary Kempthorne. That would be great. I appreciate it.
        Senator Feinstein. Senator Allard.

                                NAVAL OIL SHALE

        Senator Allard. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Mr. Secretary, I
    would like to go first to the Naval Oil Shale question.
        Secretary Kempthorne. Yes.
        Senator Allard. In the President's budget, you requested a
    proposal to cancel $24.7 million of balances in the oil shale
    reserve. Now, this is money over and above what it would take
    to clean up the Anvil Point area and cleanup costs in that
    particular area. I oppose it. In my view, those funds are--at
    least the half that represents the royalties that would be paid
    under the Mineral Leasing Act belongs to the State of Colorado.
    This has been provided for in legislation that was passed by
    the Congress.
        The Naval Oil Shale restoration account fund is growing at
    the rate of $2 million per month, and royalties are not being
    paid to the State only because the Department of the Interior
    has dragged their feet in the certification of those funds to
    clean up the site. I believe that everyone now acknowledges
    that there are more than enough funds in the account to do the
    cleanup.
        I would like to have you tell me when you would expect to
    be able to certify this site so that Colorado can start
    collecting its fair share of royalties being generated at the
    Naval Oil Shale Reserve, which we also share with the Federal
    Government, by the way.
        Secretary Kempthorne. Senator Allard, I appreciate working
    with you on this issue. As you know, there was a key point in
    January this year when the State of Colorado agreed with the
    cleanup proposal by the Federal Government, by the Bureau of
    Land Management. I sent you and Senator Salazar and Governor
    Ritter letters on this. It allows us to now move forward.
        We anticipate that by June of this year, we can have a
    contract let that would then allow us to go forward with the
    actual cleanup. We believe that in this fund will be sufficient
    monies to cover that cleanup.
        I must say specifically to the $24 million that you are
    referencing, the Solicitor's interpretation of the law passed
    by Congress does not provide for that to be distributed to the
    State of Colorado because it is to begin distribution of funds
    to Colorado once certification begins on prospective collection
    of monies. That is the determination of what the law currently
    reads.
        Senator Allard. Well, we have had some discussion on their
    interpretation on certification, and we will probably continue
    to have that discussion. I think if you look at the intent, I
    think the intent of the legislation is pretty clear. I frankly
    feel that their interpretation does not match with the rest of
    the language.
        I guess I still need an answer. You have let the contract--
    you are letting out in June.
        Secretary Kempthorne. Yes.
        Senator Allard. So then does this immediately lead to
    certification once that contract is let? When does
    certification occur after the contract is let?
        Secretary Kempthorne. There would be additional elements,
    details that would have to be worked out, but we are going to
    move expeditiously so that we can achieve that certification.
        Senator Allard. So you cannot give us a time specifically
    when you think they would. So you are saying that letting the
    contract is the first step. There are several steps after that,
    and we do not know what is going to happen on those steps. That
    is my concern.
        Secretary Kempthorne. Right. Senator, I would say letting
    the contract is probably not the first step. The identification
    of the game plan of how to clean this up, and then to have the
    State of Colorado agree in January with that proposed cleanup
    was a huge step. I believe we can now move expeditiously and
    get you to the point that you have certification.
        Senator Allard. Well, we will continue to push you on that
    particular issue, Mr. Secretary. I will continue to make a
    nuisance of myself I guess.
        Secretary Kempthorne. Well, it is no nuisance because I can
    understand where you would be coming from.
        Senator Allard. Well, thank you.
        As you know, there is a planned lease sale by BLM on the
    Naval Oil Shale Reserve this summer that could bring in as much
    as $1 billion in bonus bids. If certification has not happened
    by that point, the State of Colorado, in effect, will lose $500
    million, and this is simply not acceptable. I just want to have
    your assurances from the Department that you will continue to
    work on this issue so that we can get this resolved prior to
    the lease sale.
        Secretary Kempthorne. Senator, you have my assurance.
        Senator Allard. There is a good bit of urgency here.
        Secretary Kempthorne. I fully respect that and understand
    it.
        Senator Allard. Thank you.

                       APPLICATIONS FOR PERMITS TO DRILL

        On the backlog of applications for permits to drill, I have
    been hearing from many energy companies throughout the interior
    of the West that it is taking longer and longer to get their
    applications for permits to drill approved by the BLM. This is
    particularly frustrating to me. I do not like increasing fees
    particularly, but we increased fees, allowed that to $4,000
    last year, and we have put this in place. Now with the increase
    in fees, they are complaining that they are getting slower and
    slower service and things are being dragged out, which I think
    the anticipation was that if you increased the fees, there
    would be more employees and there would be a quicker processing
    of their permits.
        What are you doing to address this backlog that is
    happening?
        Secretary Kempthorne. Senator, your characterization of
    dragging their feet I would not concur with. BLM is doing
    everything that it possibly can. I will give you a sense. Over
    the last 7 years, BLM has processed over 47,000 APD's and
    approved over 39,000 APD's. APD's processed have increased from
    a low of 2,300 in 1999 to an all-time high in 2007 of nearly
    9,000. It is a sheer number of APD's that we are dealing with
    as opposed to just a static line that remains flat. It is the
    increased APD's, but we are doing all that we possibly can.
        The 2009 budget seeks cost recovery of a higher fee.
    Funding will be retained by BLM for these APD's.
        Senator Allard. I see. Okay.
        Now, how many people are you anticipating that you are
    going to be needing to handle the workload that you have now?
        Secretary Kempthorne. I do not believe, sir, that we are
    adding any personnel.
        Senator Allard. Do you need to?
        Secretary Kempthorne. We will examine that again, but at
    this point we are not requesting that.
        Senator Allard. So how can we speed up the process if we
    are not hiring more people? What is being done by the
    Department to have that happen?
        Secretary Kempthorne. It would be possible to make
    modifications in the information that is provided and look at
    what the long-term plan would be. We can evaluate information
    on the employees at BLM.
        Senator Allard. I would assume that you have some offices
    that are facing a greater workload on applications than other
    offices.
        Secretary Kempthorne. We are.
        Senator Allard. So it is a difference in having personnel
    on hand to process in those cases, is it not? So for those
    offices that are being pushed so hard because of oil and gas,
    just changing the processing and everything else does not seem
    to help them. How do you help them out?
        Secretary Kempthorne. Well, we will examine that, but
    again, at this point from BLM, I have no request for additional
    personnel.
        Senator Allard. Well, we would like to talk to you about
    that so we fully understand how these applications are being
    processed.
        My time is expired. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
        Senator Feinstein. Thank you, Senator.
        Senator Nelson.
        Senator Ben Nelson. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        Mr. Secretary, it is good to see you. I would like to have
    you confirm that in your position, you get to hunt and fish
    anywhere in the country on company time.
        Secretary Kempthorne. As long as I buy a license.
        Senator Ben Nelson. As long as you buy a license. All
    right.

                         PLATTE RIVER RECOVERY PROGRAM

        Last fall, the Senate passed what is called the
    Consolidated Natural Resources Act, which contained the Platte
    recovery implementation program. I am hopeful that the House is
    going to be able to pass it soon and that the President will
    sign the bill so that we can begin to move forward with this
    program. If it gets signed into law soon, it authorizes over
    $157 million for the Department to carry out its provisions,
    whereas I believe in the Department's budget, there were only
    about $11 million provided.
        So my question is, in terms of priority, if this bill is
    signed into law, will the Department be able to aggressively
    pursue the content of the legislation on behalf of this
    recovery of a very important and vital river in our country,
    the Platte River?
        Secretary Kempthorne. Yes. Senator, that is our full
    intent. We have been very supportive of the agreement that had
    been reached.
        Senator Ben Nelson. Including the invasive species, as well
    as water flow issues and hydrologic issues as well?
        Secretary Kempthorne. Yes.
        Senator Ben Nelson. The entire picture of the recovery that
    we would like to see. We hope that that is a high priority
    within the Department.
        Secretary Kempthorne. Yes. Senator, again, when you speak
    of invasive species, that is critical. The proliferation of
    these species and then the loss of habitat, the loss of the
    native plants, native aquaculture.
        Senator Ben Nelson. The consumption of water that the
    invasive species involve as well.
        Secretary Kempthorne. Correct.
        Senator Ben Nelson. Okay. Well, we will be watching. It may
    not all happen under your watch because of the time frame, but
    we certainly hope it gets started under your watch.

                     SPECIES CONSERVATION ON PRIVATE LANDS

        Last year, regarding the species conservation on private
    lands, the landowner incentive program was eliminated. The
    focus of that program was to help landowners become involved in
    species conservation on their lands, and while eliminated, the
    committee did direct the Department to work with the States to
    develop a new grant program as part of State and tribal
    wildlife grants that would direct funding to species
    conservation projects on these private lands.
        Now, the Fish and Wildlife Service requested flat funding
    in their fiscal year 2009 budget for State and tribal wildlife
    grants. Obviously, that concerns me that while we directed the
    Department to move on these private conservation matters, Fish
    and Wildlife seems to have taken a different approach or at
    least have not provided funding that would satisfy, in my
    opinion, that they take this seriously or that it is a priority
    for them.
        Secretary Kempthorne. Senator, it is taken seriously
    because it is a good program. In the Department's budget, we
    have a variety of grants which we believe through other
    programs, we can still provide the objectives of the program.
    It is just a different set of funding sources.
        Senator Ben Nelson. Well, but is it a bigger pie or is it
    just the same pie that is going to be cut into smaller pieces
    now?
        Secretary Kempthorne. I would say that it is at the same
    level. We have been able to at least hold the same level in a
    time of budget constraint, but without loss.
        Senator Ben Nelson. What assurances can we have that we
    will see the money directed to the States and to the tribal
    lands or whether the grant requests that are put in will truly
    have that high priority that this committee has given them?
        Secretary Kempthorne. Well, Senator, I would be happy to
    work with you on determining how you would like to have that
    communique.
        Senator Ben Nelson. Because you can say that the money is
    available. Then, of course, the other priorities will prevail.
    Unless this is given a high priority, we cannot be sure that
    there will be that priority by the bureaucracy.
        Secretary Kempthorne. Senator, I understand what you are
    saying. Just to affirm, it is a good program. It is achieving
    some very fine results. These are competitive grants among the
    States, but the funds are there. I would be happy, again,
    Senator, with your experience as Governor, to work with you on
    this.
        Senator Ben Nelson. Well, with our experience as Governor,
    we understand the bureaucracy. The we be's. We be here when you
    come. We be here when you go.
        That is what we want to overcome and make sure that this
    does have that high priority.
        Secretary Kempthorne. Right.
        Senator Ben Nelson. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
        Secretary Kempthorne. Thank you, Senator.
        Senator Feinstein. Very good, Senator. Thank you very much.
        Senator Craig.
        Senator Craig. In fact, Madam Chair, I would suggest that
    oftentimes the Senate says that of administrations. We be here
    when you come. We be here when you go.

                                  INITIATIVES

        Let me approach it from a slightly different angle because
    I love the artistry of your words, Mr. Secretary. Here with
    your budget you call these initiatives. In fact, you speak of
    four new initiatives, and you fund them from what were once
    Senate earmarks. Might we call those administrative earmarks,
    those new initiatives?
        I think, Madam Chair, we ought to turn our phrase a bit and
    suggest that we have a variety of initiatives. In fact, many of
    us who lecture on this issue might suggest that we only gave
    you the authority to be here and present a budget less than 40
    years ago, and constitutionally that responsibility rests
    solely with the Congress and not with the executive branch of
    Government.
        So we do appreciate your initiatives and the artistry of
    your words, but we have noted that you have funded them by
    defunding Senate initiatives. Now, that is simply rhetoric, Mr.
    Secretary. I want to be kind to you for the balance of my time,
    but I was sitting here listening to the artistry of those
    marvelous words and not in any way questioning the validity of
    the concepts and the programs as it relates to oceans, as it
    relates to birds, certainly as it relates to the kinds of
    initiatives you have launched in Indian country. This committee
    has not disagreed with any of them.
        So may I suggest, Madam Chair, that there is so much to do
    and so little money? What we have is, on the other hand, the
    taking from the other hand. That in itself is a bit of a
    frustration.
        Secretary Kempthorne. May I respond?
        Senator Craig. Well, okay.
        Senator Feinstein. Before you do, Mr. Secretary, do you see
    the sensitivity of this?
        Secretary Kempthorne. Of course.
        Senator Feinstein. We feel we are equals in the budget.
        Senator Craig. Oh, no, that is not true constitutionally,
    Madam Chair. Uphold your responsibility.
        Senator Feinstein. So it is very difficult when this kind
    of thing happens.
        Secretary Kempthorne. You can, I hope, appreciate that I
    used to sit up there and I remember asking an administration
    about the budget, so I understand where you come from.

                                    EARMARKS

        On the part of earmarks, this process is as you described
    it to be. We do not have the opportunity to add earmarks after
    the process. Many of the earmarks that you have provided--for
    example, on the initiatives of 2008, you plused-up Indian
    country. The administration retained those and is now
    recommending additions to that. With regard to the parks, the
    $25 million, that was tremendous. The refuges which, Madam
    Chairman, you referenced. We have retained those because it was
    a committee process, and it was building upon a budget which
    the administration had proposed to you. I do not believe that
    we are taking from your earmarks and simply putting on it the
    name ``administration earmarks.'' These are initiatives that we
    are placing properly before the committee for your deliberation
    and your good counsel.
        Senator Craig. Well, I appreciate that. I think our
    frustration remains when you propose, as you do, in your budget
    four new initiatives in a relatively flat or declining budget.
    That money has to come from somewhere.

                                  PREPAREDNESS

        Now, for example, in the area that the chairman has already
    approached, I would guess that you and the Department of
    Agriculture, the Forest Service and BLM, did not sit down and
    do this with your fire money because if you had, you would have
    both recognized substantial cuts in both Departments as it
    relates to preparedness.
        You were out, as was I, and traveled over one of the
    largest fires in the grasslands of southwestern Idaho this last
    summer. Following that, I spent a good deal of time with all of
    the parties involved. There is no question in my mind and in
    the locals' and the State's mind that had we prepared a little
    better, had local people been a little more involved, had the
    teams been in place a little more, that that fire might not
    have been as bad as it was. Nearly a quarter of the land burned
    in the country last year. A near unprecedented fire season
    happened in our State of Idaho. So preparedness is critical.
        The Forest Service has slashed its budget. You have cut
    yours substantially. You are the two primary fire agencies of
    our Federal Government. We have that cooperative tool in Idaho
    known as the National Interagency Fire Center, and yet, I am
    not quite sure I can go back to Idaho not yet knowing what the
    fire year will be--we do not yet--and suggest that we are going
    to be better off this year than we were last year.
        Take us through that scenario a little bit, if you would,
    Mr. Secretary.
        Secretary Kempthorne. Sure. Our strategy is to attack
    fires. We have a 97 percent success rate of attacking fires so
    that they do not get out of hand and become the enormous fires
    that begin to go.
        We are entering a new phase of fire behavior, much of it
    because of the 10 years of drought, and the bug infestation.
    The fuel load is there. As you know, Senator, it is not unusual
    during the summer that you may get 2,000 lightening strikes in
    a day, and to have as many resources as we have, but there are
    some fires that are going to get away.
        I would also point out that part of the budget is based
    upon the 10-year average of the fire costs. Because of the
    nature of the fires that are getting so much larger, that 10
    years still keeps some of the low numbers included. A 5-year
    view would be a different number.
        Senator Craig. I was just going to say you ought to average
    on 5 years now versus 10 because----
        Secretary Kempthorne. It would be a different number.
        Senator Craig [continuing]. The landscape has changed
    dramatically.

                                     SALMON

        My time is up. Madam Chair, let me make another comment as
    it relates to salmon and your concern and expression.
        I will get you the address of probably one of the leading
    fish scientists in the University of British Columbia's Marine
    Biology Center who a decade ago said quite simply at a time
    when Idaho and Oregon and Washington were embattled over salmon
    on the Snake and Columbia system. He said it quite simply.
    Because of the change of temperatures and ocean waters and,
    therefore, the biota and the food sources for fish, no matter
    how many young fish you send us, meaning the ocean, it will not
    send them back because the habitat has changed dramatically in
    the oceans.
        The problem is the take has not, and you have to couple it.
    We are spending as much as $300 to $400 a fish on the Snake and
    the Columbia system by ratepayers paying their power bills so
    that the fish industry can continue to fish. There is a
    subsidy. You are just not putting it in your budget. It is in
    the ratepayers' base of the public power systems of those
    States.
        Now, that is a reality that nobody wants to deal with
    because we are so frantically trying to save these fish, and
    yet we must. I suspect the science is now going to suggest that
    our oceans simply cannot sustain those populations if the take
    continues to be as large.
        I will come back for a second round. Thank you.
        Senator Feinstein. Thank you very much, Senator.
        Senator Alexander, you are up.
        Senator Alexander. Thank you, Madam Chairman.

                                  STEWARDSHIP

        Mr. Secretary, you have had a very effective stewardship. I
    compliment you on it. I especially want to give you credit for
    the conceptual design of--I will give the President the credit
    for the proposal, but the Centennial Challenge. It is a
    brilliant idea. We welcome you as you are coming back to the
    Great Smokey Mountains area on April 28 to the Governor's
    Sustainable Tourism Conference for Gateway Communities. I think
    it is your third visit to the Great Smokeys in a relatively
    short period of time.
        Secretary Kempthorne. Yes, sir.
        Senator Alexander. We appreciate a westerner recognizing
    the importance of eastern national parks.
        I have two areas I would like to discuss briefly.

                        LAND AND WATER CONSERVATION FUND

        Twenty years ago, I was chairman of President Reagan's
    Commission on Americans Outdoors. One of our recommendations
    was that we use money from offshore drilling to fully fund the
    Land and Water Conservation Fund. We have never done that.
        I notice in your testimony that you talk about MMS doing
    studies in Alaska and the Gulf of Mexico that might produce 10
    billion barrels of oil, 45 trillion cubic feet of natural gas.
    Even if you take the Alaska part out, that is a lot. It
    provides, it seems to me, an opportunity here because 2 years
    ago, thanks to Senator Domenici's leadership, when we approved
    a new lease for Lease 181 in the Gulf of Mexico, we created the
    conservation royalty really for the first time to give funding
    to the Land and Water Conservation Fund from offshore drilling.
    Fifty percent went to the Feds; 37.5 to the States; 12.5
    percent to the Land and Water Conservation Fund.
        My goal is that we get the Land and Water Conservation Fund
    up to $450 million Federal, $450 million State. There is a lot,
    particularly in the East, city parks, open space, greenways,
    communities that could use that.
        My question to you is would it be possible that a part of
    the planning by the Department of the Interior could identify
    those areas where the so-called Domenici one-eighth, the 12.5
    percent, of the proposed new drilling for oil and gas in the
    Gulf of Mexico especially, or anywhere else, could go to fully
    fund the Land and Water Conservation Fund?
        Secretary Kempthorne. Senator Alexander, in fiscal year
    2009, the stateside Land and Water Conservation Fund will begin
    to receive revenue from that source.
        Senator Alexander. From Lease 181?
        Secretary Kempthorne. Correct. It is a little over $6
    million. That will continue to grow now because of this new
    formula that has been put in place. It does give us for the
    first time, as you have stated, an identified source of funds
    for the Land and Water Conservation Fund.
        Senator Alexander. Well, I would hope that in your
    planning, you could include this concept, and I would say to
    the chairman of the subcommittee that as we look ahead at the
    Land and Water Conservation Fund, here may be a source of
    royalties for it. In a way, we have the worst of both worlds
    because some of the environmentalists do not like any drilling,
    and some of the western Senators do not like any more Federal
    land. But in the East, we have a need for that. Perhaps we can
    resolve that.
        Secretary Kempthorne. Senator, to highlight what you are
    saying, I think it makes a great deal of logical sense that
    when you extract a natural resource, that a portion of the
    benefit of that is reinvested back into nature.
        Senator Alexander. That was the concept really 40 years ago
    when the Land and Water Conservation Fund was created, that
    there would be an environmental burden and an environmental
    benefit.

                      GREAT SMOKEY MOUNTAINS NATIONAL PARK

        Now, my last question would be about base funding for the
    Great Smokey Mountains National Park, which you have been very
    attentive to, and we appreciate it very much. Take four of our
    major parks that we all admire: the Smokeys, Grand Canyon,
    Yellowstone, and Yosemite. The Smokeys has twice as many
    visitors as Grand Canyon, three times as many as Yellowstone,
    about three times as many as Yosemite. It has about the same
    number of trails and roads as Yellowstone and Yosemite and more
    than the Grand Canyon. Yet, when we add all the dollars
    together, fees and Federal funding, we spend three times as
    much on Yellowstone, two times as much on Yosemite, one and a
    half times as much on Grand Canyon as we do on the Great
    Smokeys.
        Senator Feinstein. Be careful, Senator. Be careful where
    you are going.
        Senator Alexander. I know.
        If the Senator from California were--she is an eminently
    fair person. She would want all these four grand parks to
    have--it is hard for me to understand how there could be three
    times as much spending on one of these parks.
        Now, one part of the answer is the fees that the other
    three parks have. The Smokeys, of course, were given to the
    Federal Government by the States and the people under the
    express agreement there would not be an entrance fee. That was
    the deal in the 1930's. But even when you take the fee out,
    Grand Canyon, Yellowstone, and Yosemite have more of a base
    operation than the Smokeys.
        I am aware of the increase this year. We are very grateful
    for that. I have talked with Ms. Bomar about that. I would urge
    you to continue to look as an element of fairness. I do not
    want to hurt the other three parks, but the most visited
    national park by far in America is the Great Smokeys. For us to
    be spending three times as much and two times as much and one
    and a half times as much on other grand parks as we do on the
    Smokeys does not seem right to me or the people in Tennessee
    and North Carolina that I represent.
        Secretary Kempthorne. Senator, you represent an absolutely
    beautiful part of the country. The Great Smokeys, I believe,
    has the highest visitorship of any of our national parks.
        Senator Alexander. Twice as much.
        Secretary Kempthorne. In the base budget for the Great
    Smokey Mountains, other than the Grand Tetons, it actually gets
    more than Grand Canyon, Yellowstone, and Yosemite, slightly
    more than Yosemite. These are the 2009 increases.
        Senator Alexander. Well, that might be increase. Madam
    Chairman, I know my time is up, but my information is--you can
    correct me--in fiscal year 2008, the Smokeys get $18.6 million;
    Grand Canyon, $21 million; Yellowstone, $33 million; Yosemite,
    $27 million, and that is before any of the fees.
        Secretary Kempthorne. Right. Being cognizant of that, that
    is why in the 2009 base we propose beginning to raise funds to
    the Great Smokeys.
        Senator Alexander. I thank you, and I hope that interest
    continues.
        Secretary Kempthorne. Thank you.
        Senator Alexander. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
        Senator Feinstein. Thank you, Senator. We will have more to
    comment on that later.
        Senator Cochran.
        Senator Cochran. Madam Chairman, thank you.

                  HURRICANE KATRINA BARRIER ISLAND REBUILDING

        Mr. Secretary, Hurricane Katrina dealt a very serious blow
    to the State of Mississippi and other gulf coast States. Since
    that hurricane hit, we have seen no construction undertaken to
    replace structures, shaded areas in the Mississippi coastal
    area on the barrier islands and on previously very popular
    sites for sunbathing, fishing, and just access to the beautiful
    outdoors in that gulf coast area.
        It is my hope that someone can be designated by the
    Department to get with Governor Haley Barbour and try to map
    out a plan for restoration and repair and rebuilding an
    appropriate number of facilities that would restore that area
    to its previous popular vacation, boating, and fishing area. I
    do not have a specific suggestion, a dollar amount of money,
    but there is no request for funding in this budget from the
    Department, and I would hope we would look at it and see what
    you think would be a fair amount to designate for that purpose.
        Secretary Kempthorne. Senator Cochran, I appreciate that
    you have identified that. I have had conversations with
    Governor Barbour. One of the things, too, that we are working
    with the U.S. Geological Survey on is to get what had been the
    footprint of the barrier islands in 1917, which is our
    baseline, because there has been a dramatic, as you know, loss
    of much of those barrier islands. That would be part of this
    whole restructuring.
        Senator Cochran. Well, I appreciate the fact that you are
    aware of the challenge we face there, and we look forward to
    working with you. We will be glad to help, through the
    appropriations process, provide the funds that we agree ought
    to be spent there.

                                 HERITAGE AREAS

        One other issue I wanted to raise was the National Park
    Service's National Heritage Program. This is a program to
    identify areas where Federal funds could be used to protect,
    restore, enhance the appreciation within the National Park
    Service of sites that are important to preserve and protect for
    the benefit of future generations. I had introduced legislation
    specifically creating two heritage areas in our part of the
    country, but there is nobody at the Department we have been
    able to talk with or find to be interested in working with us.
        I would like to ask you to see if there could be some
    administrative staff of the Department designated or given the
    responsibility of helping us with this program, at least
    discussing what we could use and what would be consistent with
    the administration's policy on the National Heritage Area
    program.
        We had hoped that we would have more money. Instead of
    more, we are getting a decrease of $8 million from last year's
    enacted level, and that is a problem as far as we are
    concerned. We do not think we are going to see any progress at
    all made if we do not appropriate some money.
        Secretary Kempthorne. Senator Cochran, as you stated, the
    administration's process, is to do an analysis, a survey, and a
    study. We would be happy to work with you on that.
        Senator Cochran. Thank you very much.
        Secretary Kempthorne. Yes.
        Senator Cochran. Thanks, Madam Chairman.
        Senator Feinstein. Thank you very much, Senator Cochran.
        Senator Stevens.
        Senator Stevens. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
        Good morning, Mr. Secretary.
        Secretary Kempthorne. Good morning.

                                 MARINE MAMMALS

        Senator Stevens. I am a little disturbed about the
    reduction in funding for the marine mammals program off our
    coast. For instance, there is a reduction in the monitoring of
    walrus along the Chukchi Sea coast. Yet, we have an enormous
    proposal out there to start producing oil and gas, which we
    support. But I do not know why we would reduce, actually
    eliminate, funding for the Pacific walrus.
        Can you tell us why that happened?
        Secretary Kempthorne. Senator, there is a reduction in the
    Fish and Wildlife, but the Minerals Management Service
    continues a study and then NOAA is also doing a study on the
    mammals in that area.
        Senator Stevens. All right. Well, I will check with NOAA
    then to make sure that is the case.

                                REVENUE SHARING

        I am concerned that as we go forward now with the Chukchi
    Sea development, that Alaska has not received the same type of
    revenue sharing as other coastal States have. We have provided
    revenue sharing for Florida even for Lease Sale 181 that is
    140-150 miles off their shore. We have got revenue sharing for
    Louisiana and Texas, and Alaska has two-thirds of the outer
    continental shelf of the United States and no development
    primarily because there continues to be opposition since there
    is no funding that would come to the State from development off
    our shores.
        Can the Department change its position on revenue sharing?
    It seems to me if we had revenue sharing, we would have a
    greater support base from Alaskans for development off our
    shores.
        Secretary Kempthorne. Senator Stevens, I think it is a
    sound concept, which you have identified. With the revenue
    sharing that currently takes place in the Gulf Coast, I think
    that continues to incentivize the States. As you know, in the
    5-year plan, we have now included the State of Virginia. I
    think absent revenue sharing, I do not know that Virginia will
    pursue offshore development, but with revenue sharing, I think
    it does provide a great incentive. I think it also, as Senator
    Alexander has pointed out, is an opportunity for funds that can
    be directed toward the Land and Water Conservation Fund.
        Senator Stevens. We would be pleased to have some direction
    over the funds, and I personally would like to see part of it
    directed--the State's share of revenue sharing be directed to
    indigenous people along the coast who face the greatest risk
    and really need funds. If you are not going to manage the
    walrus and keep track of the walrus, they would. They certainly
    would keep track of all the mammals since they depend on them
    so heavily.
        But I would hope that you speak up as a member of the
    cabinet for revenue sharing for the State of Alaska. I do not
    think you are going to have oil and gas development off our
    shores until we get it. Frankly, there are so many people up
    there opposed to oil and gas development, with the risks
    involved and based upon their memories of the Exxon Valdez
    spill, that it is just a built-in situation. Why go forward and
    have a risk unless there are some funds that are built up to
    help offset that risk?
        Secretary Kempthorne. I appreciate your point.

                                  ENERGY COSTS

        Senator Stevens. I do not know how much time I have got,
    but I am really worried about the basic problem of keeping up
    with the increased cost of energy in our State. You know, we
    pay really substantially more than the rest of the United
    States for oil and gas and yet we produce substantial amounts
    of oil and gas. I really wonder somehow if there is not some
    way we can make the country understand and maybe some of the
    people at this table understand that the problem we have in the
    country, as we continue to import so much oil--and now I
    understand we are going to start importing natural gas. They
    told me last week 40 percent of our natural gas will come to us
    from offshore by 2013. Now, that is an enormous cost. At $100 a
    barrel, the 7 million barrels a day, day in and day out,
    sending money out of the country. That is what is causing the
    price of gasoline to go up. There is no investment in the
    United States in domestic resources.
        I see the President has an item in the budget for
    proceeding with ANWR. I really do not see much of a drive from
    the administration to fulfill that item in the budget. How are
    we going to get the support we need for development of
    alternative and renewable resources unless we have a cash flow
    from our own resources? Why has there not been more talk from
    the administration about this?
        Secretary Kempthorne. About ANWR in specific?
        Senator Stevens. Well, about the concept of domestic
    production.
        Secretary Kempthorne. Senator, I believe that in a variety
    of forums, it is discussed. I know that I discuss it. I know
    that Secretary Bodman, the Secretary of Energy, discusses it,
    and I know that it is discussed often at the White House.
        Senator Stevens. It is headlines today that Russia's
    production is declining and they are going to face a financial
    crisis because of it. Well, ours is gone and we face a
    financial crisis. I do not think anyone has connected our
    financial crisis here at home to the fact we are sending so
    much money out of the country to buy oil and gas we could
    produce.

                                 ALASKA FUNDING

        I see my time is over. I do not want to speak beyond the
    time. I have questions here concerning the allocations to our
    State from the various functions here. From national parks, we
    have 51 million of the 78 million acres. Yet we get 2.4 percent
    of the budget. We have 76 million acres or 85 percent of the
    wildlife refuge lands. We get 8 percent of the budget. In terms
    of wildlife refuge lands, the overall concepts of the Federal
    lands, we have more than half of the Federal lands in every
    category and we have more than two-thirds of every category
    that are reserved Federal lands. Yet, we get less than 10
    percent of the money in every category.
        Why is that? Why do you allocate the budget based on
    population instead of acreage?
        Secretary Kempthorne. Well, I understand from your
    perspective why you would be concerned about that.
        Senator Stevens. My perspective. It is the people of the
    United States that go see those lands. They cannot get into
    them. There are no roads. There is no access. You have to fly
    into most of these places with a twin engine float plane. Do
    you know how many commercial twin engine float planes are left
    in my State? Three. There is no access. With the increased cost
    of flying, it is going to disappear entirely. I do not
    understand it. I think you have got to find a way to start
    working out ground access to all of this land that has been
    reserved for the public, but the public cannot get there.
        You are a great friend. I hate to speak that way to you.
        Secretary Kempthorne. That is all right. I have gotten used
    to it.
        Senator Feinstein. I did before.
        Senator Stevens. Well, I do speak that way, but I do not
    lose friendships, I hope.
        Thank you.

                                    REVENUES

        Secretary Kempthorne. Senator, if I could just respond to
    that. When you consider the last sale that we had--and I
    believe it was Sale 206 in the gulf coast last month--it
    brought in record bonus bids, the highest ever in United States
    history. The Chukchi Sea, which we went forward with, which OMB
    had scored at $68 million, we actually brought in $2.66
    billion. The 205 back down in the gulf coast, we brought in
    over $9 billion in the last 6 months, moving us toward further
    energy development.
        The concerns which Senator Allard has raised about the
    Roan, but we believe that there are tremendous oil resources
    there.
        In the State of New Mexico, we believe that there--excuse
    me, North Dakota. We believe that there are tremendous
    resources.
        Part of it is we are being criticized by the pace by which
    we are proceeding with this, but we are using technology that
    has been learned from offshore oil and gas drilling. Now,
    onshore what traditionally used to be 10 acres for a wellhead,
    we are now down to a footprint of half an acre. We have learned
    from Alaska the use of ice roads so that in the spring, when
    the ice disappears, there is no footprint on the land in
    getting out to those wellheads. We are now doing the same thing
    with wooden pallets as roads onshore and then removing those
    wooden pallets once the construction is done. There has been no
    disturbance. We really are, I believe, moving as aggressively
    as we can on oil and gas development because of both our
    national security, our energy security, and our economic
    security.
        Senator Stevens. Well, our State alone can produce more oil
    than Iraq, and we spent a hell of a lot of money to protect the
    oil in Iraq, but none to make our oil available from Alaska.
        Senator Feinstein. Thank you very much, Senator. Senator
    Dorgan.
        Senator Dorgan. Mr. Secretary, thank you very much for
    being here.
        Secretary Kempthorne. Thank you.

                                  BAKKEN SHALE

        Senator Dorgan. Last Thursday, we announced the USGS
    assessment of 3.6 billion barrels of recoverable oil in the
    Bakken shale formation. Some of us have worked to open up Lease
    181. We got less of that opened up than we should. The greatest
    resource in the outer continental shelf is in the Gulf of
    Mexico first, California second, and Alaska third. We do need
    to do more production, and I have legislation to open up more
    of Lease 181.
        But, Mr. Secretary, let me ask you. You and I talked some a
    while ago. I am going to ask you about some Indian issues.

                               DETENTION CENTERS

        There is an Indian jails report that you paid for by
    Shubnum Consulting. It is done, and I cannot get it. I called
    you about it, and the BIA says it is not available. We had
    testimony in the Congress last year, almost a year ago now,
    saying that it was going to be available in a matter of a month
    or 2. Then they said Christmas. Yet, the taxpayers have paid
    for that. If it is available, I want to see it. Have you been
    able to check on that and tell me why we are not able to access
    it?
        Secretary Kempthorne. Yes. Senator Dorgan, as late as
    yesterday, I have checked on this. The report, while it is
    bound, and it looks like it is a final report--there are still
    questions that are now being answered and added to this report.
        Also, it is a snapshot of the situation, but it does not
    have an implementation plan. It does not have what is the next
    step. What should we be doing in 2009, 2010, and 2011? That is
    what they are working now to identify. What does this mean, and
    therefore, what can we bring to Congress and say, here is the
    game plan.
        Senator Dorgan. But, Mr. Secretary, I think the Indian
    jails are in desperate condition, and I think this report
    probably is going to upset somebody. But if there is not a
    follow-on plan with it, why was that not part of the consulting
    contract?
        Whatever the consulting contract is and has been paid for,
    why not share it with this committee, with the Indian Affairs
    Committee? I mean, we are in the process of trying to evaluate
    what kind of resources we should allocate to Indian jails. Yet,
    I am told by the head of the BIA and you and others, well, this
    is kind of done, but for whatever reasons, we cannot see it. We
    paid for it. I would like to see it, Mr. Secretary.
        Secretary Kempthorne. Yes.
        Senator Dorgan. I would like to see it soon.
        Secretary Kempthorne. Senator, again, I will send a team up
    here.
        Senator Dorgan. Just send the report up. I forget what
    Senator Stevens said. You are a great friend of mine. But you
    know, you sent people up before. I do not want people. I want
    the report. We paid for the report, and you have it. The BIA
    and the Department of the Interior, I think, should give it to
    us. So I will wait by the mailbox for the next several days.
        Senator Feinstein. Bring your lunch.
        Senator Dorgan. We are great friends. I think he is going
    to send it this week.

                        UNITED TRIBES TECHNICAL COLLEGE

        Mr. Secretary, let me ask you a question about what is
    judged to be one of the finest Indian schools in the country.
    The United Tribes Technical College serves Indians from about
    34 States, and it has been authorized by the Congress. It has
    always been funded up until this administration took office,
    and then it fell out of the budget. I remain disappointed by
    that again this year. I mean, it is zero funding for that
    college. It is judged to be one of the really terrific Indian
    colleges in the country.
        I know you cannot do much about that. This goes to OMB, and
    they do their grading or whatever they do with budgets. Then
    they send it up to the White House, and then it gets some
    cosmetics and is sent down here. Everybody says how beautiful
    it is, at least to those that sent it.
        But I really think that zeroing out funding for the United
    Tribes Technical College makes very little sense. I mean, I
    feel the same way about the Johnson-O'Malley program, which is
    so important to Indian children across the country. So I
    understand that you have to come up here.
        The last time we had a fellow named Mike Parker come up to
    the Hill, and in a fit of uncommon candor, when asked by
    Senator Bond in another appropriations subcommittee, do you not
    think these programs are underfunded, the former Congressman
    Mike Parker said, yes, I do. I think that they are underfunded.
    The next morning he was fired. So I understand the answer you
    must give me at this point.
        But I do not want the moment to pass without telling you
    that we will almost certainly fund this tribal college. We are
    going to try to do everything we can to improve the situation
    of the tribal jails and other things. But I do regret that
    somehow in this budget process the priorities get somewhat
    skewed with those issues.
        Secretary Kempthorne. Yes. If I may, Senator Dorgan. You
    have been a champion for Indian country. I acknowledge that.
    You are a pleasure to work with.
        You and Senator McCain, a little over a year ago, when I
    met with you, asked if we would come forward with an
    administration number to try to settle the Cobell case. As you
    know, that was difficult, but we, at least for the first time
    ever, came forward with a number, which was $7 billion, in
    response to you.
        You mentioned the Johnson-O'Malley. There is also the
    tribal technical colleges program. There is the housing
    program. Johnson-O'Malley--we believe there is a funding source
    in the Department of Education that will cover that.
        We believe that on the housing, it would help 200 families,
    but that there is a program in HUD identified that would help
    them. We have made a real effort with regard to the classrooms
    of the schools, and that is why that plus-up, which you made,
    we have retained and added to that. It is $27 million to help
    in the classroom so that these kids are ready for higher
    education.
        The methamphetamine. Indian leaders say this is the second
    smallpox epidemic to hit Indian country, and so that is why we
    have made it a priority.
        We truly are addressing, with limited resources, but Indian
    country is critical. Of our four initiatives in 2008, two of
    them were for Indian country because I too believe in our role
    to help the Indians.
        Senator Dorgan. Madam Chairman, in just 30 seconds, let me
    just say this, however, about the United Tribes Technical
    College. It is a great disappointment to see, once again, zero
    funding for it because it is judged to be a remarkable and an
    effective institution that all of us should celebrate. All of
    us ought to say this is a great place. They are graduating and
    giving opportunities to so many young men and women. So my hope
    is this is the last year where we will have this complaint, and
    this wonderful school will receive the funding Congress has
    always insisted upon providing this school.
        I have overstayed my welcome here.

                                  2009 BUDGET

        Senator Feinstein. No, you have not. Thank you. I think
    members of this committee agree with you. I think this is an
    unacceptable budget. I think it is going to receive change, and
    I think that we are going to work our will on this budget. So
    thank you.
        I just want to take this opportunity, because I know you
    have to leave. We will try to get as many people in as we
    possibly can. I think most people do not realize that now in
    the end of 2008, 72 percent of the monies spent went for
    entitlements and interest on the debt. Seventy-two percent.
    Twenty percent went for defense, and everything else was 18
    percent of the money that was spent.
        Now, in many respects, Mr. Secretary, you have the crown
    jewels of this country, the beauty of our parks, our
    wilderness, all of the things that people love to go to, care
    about that makes this country particularly great. My feeling is
    that people do want to spend the money that is necessary to
    protect those things.
        But we have to come to grips clearly. I hear candidates
    saying, oh, you know, I will cut all discretionary spending.
    Well, only 18 percent of what is spent is discretionary.
    Defense really is not. Ergo, you can cut 18 percent of
    everything and not solve the budget problem that this Nation
    faces. So we have got to come to grips with it.
        A quick question, if I might.
        Secretary Kempthorne. Madam Chairman, for those who wish to
    remain, I am happy to respond to your questions.
        Senator Feinstein. We can take some additional time?
        Secretary Kempthorne. Absolutely.
        Senator Feinstein. All right. Excellent.

                      MMS INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY INCREASE

        Oil and gas royalties. In the 2008 appropriation, we
    provided $2.3 million for systems improvements, and that is the
    recommendations of Kerrey-Garn, the Mineral Revenue Committee.
    Your 2009 request includes increases of $3.7 million to
    continue these ongoing enhancements and develop a risk-based
    automated compliance tool for use.
        My question to you is, does this $3.7 million complete it?
    Will it be functioning? Because $6 million seems to me is an
    awful lot of money to spend for this.
        Secretary Kempthorne. Madam Chairman, can I get back to you
    with a response on that?
        Senator Feinstein. Sure. Would you please do it before we
    do the budget, though?
        [The information follows:]
            Minerals Management Service--Minerals Revenue Management
        The Department's fiscal year 2008 and 2009 requests for MRM
    encompassed not only a risk-based compliance tool, but three additional
    system components and 8 additional FTE as summarized in the table and
    the bullets below.

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Fiscal                                                            FTE                      System       Total
     year                        Initiative                         request     FTE amount     amount      request
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
     2008Adjustment Line Monitoring                                       4     $520,000     $420,000     $940,000
     2008Interactive Payment Reconciliation and Billing         ...........  ...........    1,450,000    1,450,000
     2009Implement OIG Compliance and Audit Recommendations               4      480,000    1,520,000    2,000,000
          including a risk-based compliance tool
     2009Improve Automated Interest Billing to Companies        ...........  ...........    1,700,000    1,700,000
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------
               2008-2009 Total                                            8    1,000,000    5,090,000    6,090,000
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

        In relation to the requested ongoing enhancements, the Minerals
    Revenue Management Support System (MRMSS) was designed and implemented
    between 1998 and 2001; therefore some of its design elements and
    underlying technology are approaching a decade old. Spending $5 million
    over a 2-year period on system enhancements to a major integrated
    financial system is not out of line with government and industry
    benchmarks.
        The enhancement initiatives requested for 2008 and 2009 address
    three areas of system improvement:
        1. Technology enhancements that were not yet mature or economically
    feasible in the late 1990's.
      --Interactive Payment Reconciliation and Billing Initiative.--These
            system improvements will automate MMS's interface with its
            customer base on numerous activities, and enhance online
            reporting and verification capabilities, as well as enforcement
            efforts. The funding will address an area of concern in the
            Bureau's financial audit, as well as provide a strong return on
            investment.
      --Improved Automated Interest Billing to Companies Initiative.--This
            initiative continues MRM's commitment begun in 2007 and 2008 to
            improve the timeliness and efficiency of the interest
            assessment to payors by implementing system enhancements to the
            MRMSS interest module.
        2. Implementation of new legislation that was not an initial
    priority in the design of the new system in the late 1990's.
      --Adjustment Line Monitoring Initiative.--The requested systems
            improvements and staff to perform this function are required to
            ensure company adjustments are made only within allowable time
            frames.
        3. Address new mission requirements and recommendations.
      --Implement OIG Compliance and Audit Recommendations Initiative.--
            This proposal ensures MRM's ability to address recommendations
            by the OIG in its December 2006 report regarding MRM's
            Compliance Review activities. The requested funding will allow
            MMS to increase the audit staff by 4 FTE, to expand company and
            property compliance coverage, and to develop and implement a
            risk-based automated compliance tool for use in targeting audit
            and compliance resources.
        MMS expects that the funding requested for these improvements will
    be sufficient to ensure full functionality and complete these
    initiatives.

                             ROYALTY POLICY REPORT

        Secretary Kempthorne. Yes. May I add? You mentioned the
    Garn-Kerrey report. They made 110 recommendations to us, and 19
    have been implemented. We are now moving on a large number of
    others. Twenty-two of those 110 mirrored what the Inspector
    General had recommended. I think out of all of that, there will
    be three that we will have to come and ask for legislative
    help, but we are moving because it was a very fine report by
    former members of this institution and other talented people
    who work with them. I think it really has helped us.
        Senator Feinstein. Thank you.

                                  POLAR BEARS

        One other quick question. Is the polar bear on its way to a
    finding of endangerment?
        Secretary Kempthorne. I cannot answer that. I will tell you
    that we are proceeding with a decision on the issue of the
    polar bear. I will tell you, Madam Chairman, that January 2007
    the Fish and Wildlife Service issued a proposed listing with
    regard to the polar bear. I asked the U.S. Geological Survey
    then to take a significant portion of that and examine the
    science. They came back with nine different reports, all peer-
    reviewed. We knew then, upon receipt of this new science and
    data by USGS, that it was going to cause us to have to take
    additional time. We knew that at that point.
        We also felt it was incumbent upon us, based on this data
    from USGS, to now reopen the public comments and even to extend
    that. We have 670,000 comments that we have received. It is a
    tremendously critical, important issue. I want to ensure that
    we do it properly with the right science and the right legal
    input.
        Senator Feinstein. So what you are saying is the decision
    will likely be made by the next administration.
        Secretary Kempthorne. No.
        Senator Feinstein. No, you are not.
        Secretary Kempthorne. No.
        Senator Feinstein. So the decision will be made this year.
        Secretary Kempthorne. Yes.
        Senator Feinstein. Thank you very much.
        Secretary Kempthorne. Absolutely.
        Senator Feinstein. Thank you.
        Senator Allard.
        Senator Allard. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Just a couple
    things I want to follow up on.

                             CANYON OF THE ANCIENTS

        Also in the Canyon of the Ancients down in southwestern
    Colorado, there is a draft resource management plan that was
    kicked out. It is a national monument. There is a resource
    management plan that has been kicked out. It seemed to
    deemphasize the importance of oil and gas development on the
    management plan. There are a lot of cultural resources down
    there, and I support that. But my impression is with the
    current technology we have and everything, that we can
    accommodate both without injuring the other.
        The question I have is, does the BLM have an obligation to
    ensure that oil and gas exploration can coexist with culturally
    rich areas?
        Secretary Kempthorne. Senator, I do not believe that they
    are by their very nature mutually exclusive. They have to be
    done with all sensitivity. We have to find the balance so that
    we do not overlook our responsibility with regard to the
    cultural and historic values.
        Senator Allard. That is a very sensitive area on the
    cultural.
        Secretary Kempthorne. Yes. It has to be done carefully, but
    our attitude is to find the means that you can do it. That is
    why, as I have said earlier, you have world-class habitat
    sitting right above world-class energy resources. They are not
    mutually exclusive, but you have to do it holistically. You
    have to find the sensitive balance to this.

                                  ROAN PLATEAU

        Senator Allard. I would like to go back to the Roan Plateau
    again. These are parochial issues. We have a lot of oil and gas
    development in Colorado, as you are aware, because we have huge
    reserves there.
        There is an estimate of about 8.9 trillion cubic feet of
    natural gas within the area known as the Roan Plateau, and
    obviously, with that much reserve, it would play a vital role
    in our country's energy security and being less dependent on
    foreign oil.
        Now, it is my understanding that the resource management
    plan for this area, which was released by the BLM in 2006, is
    the most restrictive in the agency's history. I appreciate what
    your Department, specifically Steven Allred, has done in
    working with the Governor of Colorado and other existing
    parties on this management plan.
        Now, two of the most unusual parts of the plan is the
    surface occupancy restrictions and the unitized operator
    approach. Now, under the BLM plan, the surface occupancy on top
    of the plateau would be limited to 1 percent at any one time.
        Secretary Kempthorne. Correct.
        Senator Allard. Which means that about 350 acres can be
    disturbed, and before you can disturb any more, you have to
    reclaim all that, which seems reasonable to me.
        Now, it is my understanding the Governor's primary
    outstanding concern is the request for phased leasing rather
    than selling all the leases at once as the Department plans to
    do.
        Can you tell me why the Department decided against the
    approach of phased leasing?
        Secretary Kempthorne. Senator, the thoughts of the BLM are
    that the phased leasing would lead to a greater disturbance on
    the surface. Again, the objective is to keep the disturbance to
    a minimum.
        Senator Allard. Can you tell me whether you feel this would
    have any effect on the length of the process to develop the
    Roan management plateau plan and what kind of time line you
    might have on that in your plans?
        Secretary Kempthorne. On a time line, really, I would
    rather get back to you with a very accurate, detailed response
    on that.
        [The information follows:]
                    Bureau of Land Management--Roan Plateau
        The Department does not recommend phased leasing to develop the
    Roan Plateau.
        Under the BLM's plan for phased development all leaseholders
    participate in a single federal unit and there are strong incentives
    for minimizing disturbance and reclaiming lands more quickly and
    efficiently. The sooner one phase is developed and reclaimed, for
    instance, the sooner the next phase can begin. All leaseholders have a
    financial stake in this profit-sharing Federal unit. Under the phased
    leasing approach, the financial incentive to ensure timely
    development--and especially reclamation--is not nearly as strong.
    Because each lease is issued competitively, the lessee may not be a
    part of the profits in the next ``phase.'' The phased leasing approach
    provides no incentive in this instance for minimizing disturbance or
    hastening reclamation efforts. Phased leasing and reclamation standards
    would significantly extend the timeframe for leasing the Roan Plateau.

        Senator Allard. Well, that is fine. You have worked a lot
    with local governments and local governments have been having
    their input in there. The State has had input working with the
    BLM, and we all appreciate the fact that everybody has worked
    together on that.

                           COLORADO OIL AND GAS RULES

        Now, there has been some discussion about the new draft
    rules regulating oil and gas development in Colorado which has
    been proposed by the Oil and Gas Conservation Commission. Have
    you had a chance to review the proposed rules? If you have, can
    you share with the subcommittee some of the rules and how they
    would affect your Federal activities?
        Secretary Kempthorne. What I would ask you is if I could
    have Steve Allred provide an evaluation of that.
        Senator Allard. Okay, very good. We will have some
    questions on that when you get a chance to follow up on it.
        Senator Feinstein. Thank you. Excuse me, Senator.
        Senator Allard. Go ahead. My time is expired.
        Senator Feinstein. If you have another question, go ahead.

                           NATIONAL PARKS CENTENNIAL

        Senator Allard. Just one thing briefly, if I might. We
    provided you with $25 million in the matching grant funds for
    the centennial initiative.
        Secretary Kempthorne. Yes.
        Senator Allard. You will be announcing those awards
    shortly. However, the legislation you sent up last year to the
    authorizing committee, which would set up the annual $100
    million mandatory matching grant fund for the centennial, has
    not been acted upon.
        Can you tell us where this legislation stands?
        Secretary Kempthorne. Yes. We now have legislation that has
    been introduced both in the House and in the Senate. In the
    House, the issue thus far has been the offset. There seems to
    be bipartisan agreement on the concept, but it is what is the
    offset for the $100 million mandatory spending each year
    leading up to 2016. There have been five different proposals
    that have been placed on the table. For a variety of reasons,
    there has not been consensus on any of the five.
        Senator Allard. You are continuing to pursue this
    vigorously with the authorizing committee?
        Secretary Kempthorne. Yes, we are.
        Senator Allard. Because it is important because if we have
    a limited amount of resources here and then they need to pick
    up their burden on this.
        Secretary Kempthorne. I agree. We are very actively working
    with both Members in the Senate and in the House and also
    actively having discussions with OMB.
        Senator Allard. Oh, good.
        Thank you, Madam Chairman.
        Senator Feinstein. Thank you very much.
        Senator Craig, you have another question?

                          SAFE BORDERLANDS INITIATIVE

        Senator Craig. One last question, Madam Chair, because I
    know the Secretary, from his very first days in office,
    expressed frustration. It is a commonality that you and I share
    and have worked very closely on, Madam Chair, as it relates to
    providing a legal foreign national workforce for our country.
    In fact, the chairman and I are now engaged in trying to save
    American agriculture's workforce that is dramatically
    diminishing, in part because of our successes along the border
    and effective enforcement.
        You have added to your budget about $8.2 million for 2009
    as it relates to the DOI's management of the 793 miles of
    southern border. Would you visit us with that issue a little
    bit about the safe borderlands initiative that you are working
    on and where we are with that?
        Secretary Kempthorne. Yes, thank you.
        With regard to the border security, as the country has
    become more successful and effective at closing illegal
    crossings of drugs and individuals at the urban centers, it has
    caused them to go to the remote areas, and that is where our
    properties come into play. We work closely with the Department
    of Homeland Security. There are significant areas along the
    border that are not safe for American families to visit, to
    spend an overnight camping opportunity because of the drug
    smuggling that is taking place by the national drug cartels. So
    as the efforts continue that include personnel, that include
    radio interoperability, and that include the fencing, it will
    help us to then have a safe border that meets the
    responsibility and the goals of this country.
        Senator Craig. Well, I thank you for that.
        Madam Chair, I had the Mexican Government in last week to
    talk about the joint initiative between the United States and
    Mexico in relation to drug apprehension. The Ambassador made
    the most stark statement that sticks in my mind. They
    apprehended a fellow who was a major sourcer of the input of
    meth, the product coming out of China, interestingly enough,
    coming through a major port in California and then moving
    through to Mexico to be processed. They discovered in one room
    in this apprehension $210 million in $100 bills that this one
    man had stacked up in a room. In fact, it was a room, they
    said, about the size of my office at the time and it was
    stacked about 5 feet deep. That was sourced out of China
    through a California port into Mexico to be processed and back
    into the United States. I know our Presidents are working on
    that initiative now.
        Senator Feinstein. If you would excuse me just for a moment
    because I did this precursor chemical bill, and I have got to
    take a look at exactly what that is because those precursors,
    even in transit should not be coming in.
        Senator Craig. You are right. They should not be and there
    is every effort to stop it. But that was a pretty stark reality
    of the phenomenal organizational effort and the money involved
    in this.
        We have got Organ Pipe I think is one of the areas that you
    talked about where it is no longer safe for the citizen to be
    even out on our national lands. So I appreciate the effort
    underway here by BLM and the Park Service as a part of the
    total.
        Senator Feinstein. This was a congressional add that we
    added.
        Senator Craig. Yes, that is right.
        Senator Feinstein. This was an earmark.
        Senator Craig. It is now an initiative. It is a good idea.
        Secretary Kempthorne. I love your initiatives.

                                U.S. PARK POLICE

        Senator Feinstein. In any event, you wanted to speak about
    the Park Police.
        Secretary Kempthorne. I would like to, Madam Chairman, just
    very briefly. This is an organization that goes back to 1791.
    The officers, the men and women, that proudly carry the badge
    of the U.S. Park Police are not properly reflected in some of
    these items that have been brought to our attention, management
    issues. It is management issues. It is not the officers. With
    regard to the issue of qualifications of weapons, the safety
    equipment such as their Kevlar vests, we now are correcting
    that, and we put an urgency on that.
        Senator Feinstein. San Francisco and----
        Secretary Kempthorne. Absolutely.
        Also, though, Madam Chairman, I would just say that when
    you add all of the law enforcement that we have within the
    Department of the Interior, we are the third largest law
    enforcement entity in the Federal Government. I am using the
    information from the Inspector General to go across the entire
    Department with regard to qualifications, safety equipment,
    interoperability of equipment.
        I will have a meeting this month with my assistant
    secretaries, the bureau directors and the chiefs of our
    respective law enforcement entities so that they know this is a
    priority. It is not lip service. These officers deserve our
    full support and backing.
        Senator Feinstein. We certainly will support them any way
    we can.
        Let me make one other point about drug money in your
    budget.
        Secretary Kempthorne. Yes.

                               MARIJUANA IN PARKS

        Senator Feinstein. You know, I met with DEA, FBI, everybody
    that was working on marijuana in the parks. I think we put
    what? $18 million. Oh, we did it in the Forest Service.
        Secretary Kempthorne. Yes.
        Senator Feinstein. But Interior is also part of that.
        It is really very important that these surges continue and
    that you clean out the parks because California parks are
    riddled with marijuana growth, and it is run directly by
    Mexican cartels and foreign nationals. They carry weapons and
    it is very problematic. I will not get into your weapons
    policy, but as you know, I really worry about people walking
    into these parks with weapons and you have got cartels with
    weapons and what might happen. So you need to help clear the
    parks out.
        Secretary Kempthorne. I agree with you, Madam Chairman. As
    you have identified, we have used the surge of BLM, National
    Park Service, BIA, and Fish and Wildlife Service in a concerted
    effort going into these areas. We have been successful. We
    appreciate your help on that.
        You are correct. Those that are tending these gardens have
    been told that they are to defend those gardens with their
    life. It is all being driven by the national drug cartels. Some
    of those individuals, it is our understanding, that are tending
    those gardens are themselves----
        Senator Feinstein. It is more than gardens. Gardens means
    small. These sometimes are huge.
        Secretary Kempthorne. Plats.
        Senator Feinstein. Yes, with millions of plants.
        Secretary Kempthorne. But under threat that if they do not
    defend it with their life, members of their family, their
    children, will be executed back in Mexico. We are dealing with
    ruthless, ruthless thugs that are peddling this poison.
        That is why both in the Indian initiative, Safe Indian
    Communities, the Border Patrol--you mentioned Senator Craig
    Organ Pipe. We estimate that $1 million a day of illegal drugs
    are going through that national park. That is where Chris
    Eggle, one of our law enforcement rangers, was shot down and
    killed in 2005. We cannot send our staff to carry out normal
    functions in these refuges, parks, and Bureau of Land
    Management and reservations without two armed officers with
    them. That is how tough this area is.
        Senator Feinstein. Well, I tell you, we will put in what
    you need.
        Secretary Kempthorne. That is greatly appreciated.
        Senator Feinstein. So, I mean, forget OMB. I mean, we are
    not going to see our parks get loaded with drugs. That is just
    the way it is going to be. If they want to come up and arm
    wrestle us, so be it.

                         ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS

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

                   Questions Submitted by Senator Ben Nelson

        Question. Last year, unfortunately the Landowner Incentive Program
    was eliminated. As you know the focus of this program was to help
    landowners become involved in species conservation on their lands.
    While eliminated, the committee did direct the Department to work with
    the States to develop a new grant program as part of State and Tribal
    Wildlife Grants that would direct funding to species conservation
    projects on private lands.
        Excerpt from the fiscal year 2008 Interior Appropriations report
    110-91 as adopted by the Senate Appropriations Committee and carried as
    part of the fiscal year 2008 Consolidated Appropriations Act:
        In fiscal year 2008, the Committee accepted the Department's
    decision to discontinue the private stewardship and landowner incentive
    grants programs but recognizes the need for species conservation
    efforts on private lands to continue. The Committee urges the Service
    to work with the States to develop a new subset of funding under the
    State and tribal wildlife grant program that can direct grants toward
    species conservation projects on private lands. The Committee is
    receptive to ideas from the Service and the States on how best to
    accomplish the goal of continued Federal support for conservation on
    private lands within the framework of the State and tribal wildlife
    grant program
        Question. What has the Fish and Wildlife Service thus far
    accomplished with respect to creating this new subset of funding for
    directed grants toward species conservation projects on private lands?
        Answer. The Service is currently working with States to review
    draft criteria for a competitive program developed as a subset of
    funding under the State and Tribal Wildlife Grants program. The grants
    will be awarded to the highest ranking cooperative conservation
    projects that are in State Wildlife Conservation Plans. Priority will
    be given to cooperative conservation projects with an emphasis on
    performance and outcomes. At this time, one of several proposed ranking
    criteria is directed at species conservation projects on private lands.
        Question. The Fish and Wildlife Service requested $74 million in
    their fiscal year 2009 budget request for State and Tribal Wildlife
    Grants. Of that amount, how much is going to be used for this new
    subset of grant funding for species conservation projects on private
    lands?
        Answer. Presently, there is no subset of State and Tribal Wildlife
    Grant funding being directed exclusively towards species conservation
    projects on private lands. However, such projects could be eligible for
    the State apportioned funding and possibly some of the competitive
    funding if identified as a strategy in the State's Wildlife Action
    Plan.
        Question. When do you anticipate this new grant program being
    implemented?
        Answer. The Service anticipates that the competitive program of the
    State and Tribal Wildlife Grant program, authorized in fiscal year
    2008, will be implemented by no later than September 30, 2008.
                                     ______

                   Questions Submited by Senator Wayne Allard

                       NATIONAL PARK SERVICE/PARK POLICE

        Question. Recently, the Department's Inspector General (IG) did a
    report on the U.S. Park Police and found many disturbing problems. He
    found low morale, many key positions at headquarters are vacant, and
    the number of officers is at a 20 year low when the force is charged
    with many additional anti-terrorism responsibilities in the aftermath
    of September 11th.
        Can you update us on what you are doing in response to the IG's
    report?
        Answer. The Secretary of the Interior established a Management
    Oversight Team (MOT) to address the recommendations contained in the
    IG's report. The members of the MOT include Associate Deputy Secretary
    James Cason; Assistant Secretary for Fish, Wildlife and Parks, Lyle
    Laverty; and National Park Service Director Mary Bomar. These
    individuals are being assisted by Deputy Assistant Secretary for Law
    Enforcement, Security and Emergency Management, Larry Parkinson;
    Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Fish, Wildlife and Parks,
    David Verhey; and National Park Service Deputy Director, Dan Wenk. The
    MOT established a Command Management Team (CMT) to take responsibility
    for the daily operations of the United States Park Police and to
    finalize and implement an Action Plan to address 19 of the 20
    recommendations contained in the report. The MOT is responsible for
    addressing the 20th recommendation.
        Question. The CMT, led by Salvatore R. Lauro in the position of
    Acting Assistant Chief of Police, has been in place since March 3,
    2008. The CMT has been aggressively addressing the OIG recommendations,
    with priority being given to matters affecting officer safety, icon
    protection and staffing. The MOT meets weekly with the CMT to review
    progress and provide guidance. The MOT also provides the Secretary of
    the Interior with regular project updates.
        Can you assure the public that the many icons the Department is
    responsible for like the Statue of Liberty, Ellis Island, and the
    Washington Monument are adequately protected?
        Answer. In the aftermath of 9/11, as a result of increased emphasis
    on homeland security and icon protection, the U.S. Park Police (USPP)
    has reallocated its resources from some of its more routine and patrol
    enforcement activities to icon protection. The USPP have also employed
    a number of efforts to protect the icons while ensuring these national
    treasures remain open and accessible to the public, including utilizing
    USPP officers and security personnel to provide 360 degree coverage on
    a 24-hour basis at the Statue of Liberty and the three National Mall
    icons; constructed physical security barriers to prevent vehicle-borne
    threats; using Closed Circuit Television cameras to monitor activities
    within and around the Statue of Liberty and the three National Mall
    icons on a 24-hour basis; employing magnetometer and x-ray machines to
    screen visitors entering the Washington Monument; partnering with
    public and private research entities to test and evaluate emerging
    security technologies at the Statue of Liberty, where three screening
    facilities are utilized to screen all persons and packages traveling to
    Liberty Island and/or entering the Statue; employing USPP explosives
    detection canines to screen ferry boats transporting visitors, staff,
    and supplies to the Statue; maintaining a 150-yard maritime restricted
    security zone around the Statue (efforts are currently underway with
    the U.S. Coast Guard to expand this security zone in the waters between
    Liberty and Ellis Islands to further divert vessel traffic away from
    the Statue); and, assigning USPP officers or commissioned NPS rangers
    to the Washington Field Office FBI--Joint Terrorism Task Force (JTTF),
    the Washington Field Office FBI--Fairfax County Regional Intelligence
    Center, the Department of Homeland Security Operations Center, the New
    York Office FBI--JTTF, and the NYPD Counterterrorism Unit.
        Question. I see that your budget proposes a $7.6 million increase
    for the Park Police, will part of this be used to recruit new officers?
        Answer. In addition to the fixed costs request of $1,909,000 and
    $1,000,000 for Inaugural related activities the budget proposal for the
    USPP includes funding of $4.8 million to increase the number of sworn
    officers. Anticipating average attrition, this reoccurring funding will
    allow us to recruit, hire, train and equip a total of 630 officers by
    the end of 2009.
        Question. What do you believe is the necessary number of officers?
    When will you reach that level, and what will it cost?
        Answer. In December 2004, the Department completed a comprehensive
    review of the mission, priorities, and responsibilities of the Park
    Police. This effort was coordinated with the National Academy of Public
    Administration (NAPA), which undertook two major reviews of the Park
    Police. Using a methodology developed by NAPA, the Department assessed
    and prioritized each function performed by the Park Police--including
    monument security and all local law enforcement responsibilities--and
    concluded that a targeted staff of 639 sworn law enforcement officers
    was appropriate.
        If the $4.8 million increase requested in the 2009 President's
    Budget is appropriated, we anticipate approaching the 639 officers
    during fiscal year 2010.

                   KERR MC GEE CASE/DEEPWATER OFFSHORE LEASES

        Question. We held a hearing earlier this year with the Assistant
    Secretary for Lands and Minerals, Steve Allred, about several issues
    relating to the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) leasing program. I wonder
    if you might update us on a few things we discussed then. For example,
    last October, in the Kerr-McGee litigation, the district court held
    that price thresholds are not permitted in any leases under the
    Deepwater Royalty Relief Act.
        Can you tell us the status of this litigation?
        Answer. On December 21, 2007, the Department of Justice filed a
    timely notice of appeal with the Federal District Court to protect the
    interests of the United States in the Kerr-McGee litigation.
        Question. Given the Kerr McGee case, is there anything that the
    Department is doing or that it can do to encourage more companies to
    come to the table and pay royalties on the 1998-1999 leases that were
    issued by the Minerals Management Service without price thresholds?
        Answer. We remain open to discussing resolution of this issue with
    the companies that hold Deep Water Royalty Relief Act leases from sales
    held in 1998 and 1999. We do not believe that any additional lessees
    will agree to price thresholds until they see the outcome of the Kerr-
    McGee case.
        Question. What is happening with respect to royalty collection from
    companies holding leases from 1996, 1997, and 2000? Have any of them
    indicated that they will not continue to pay?
        Answer. In a March 10, 2008 ``Dear Reporter'' letter to industry,
    MMS issued guidance regarding companies royalty payments in light of
    the October 30, 2007, decision of the United States District Court for
    the Western District of Louisiana in Kerr-McGee Oil & Gas Corp. v.
    Allred. Because the Kerr-McGee decision may be the subject of
    additional litigation, we advised all affected payors and lessees to
    make no adjustments regarding their prior or ongoing royalty payments
    until there is a final, non-appealable judgment entered in the case.
        Question. As you know, there have been legislative efforts to force
    the oil companies with these leases to renegotiate their contracts. You
    have had several recent sales in the Gulf of Mexico and in Alaska that
    have generated close to $3 billion each in bonus bids--would forcing
    companies to renegotiate jeopardize these revenues because the leasing
    program might be enjoined altogether?
        Answer. The most prominent effort to force companies to negotiate
    royalty payments involves barring companies that refuse to come to
    terms from participating in future lease sales. It certainly seems
    likely that these companies would sue the government to determine if
    this is a legal remedy or not. It is not unreasonable to expect that it
    could take several years to resolve this issue. If such a suit were to
    delay leasing for 3 years we estimate that the government would lose
    approximately $13 billion over a 10-year time period.
        Question. If the Kerr-McGee case is upheld on appeal, what is the
    potential loss to the Treasury?
        Answer. If Kerr-McGee is successful in their lawsuit, we estimate
    that the total royalties at stake could range from about $23 billion to
    $32 billion. Our original estimate, reported by GAO, was $60 billion.
    Since that time we have updated that work and have reported the updated
    estimates to Congress in 2007 in two installments.
        The first installment applied only to those DWRRA leases sold in
    1998 and 1999, and was reported in June 2007. This work indicates that
    the future royalty potential, as of January 1, 2007, from the 1998-1999
    DWRRA leases ranges from $5.3 billion to $7.8 billion.
        The second installment, reported in February 2008, applied only to
    those DWRRA leases sold in 1996, 1997, and 2000. This work indicates
    that the future royalty potential, as of October 1, 2007, from the
    1996, 1997, and 2000 DWRRA leases ranges from $15.7 billion to $21.2
    billion.
        Looking backward, as of the end of fiscal year 2007, we estimate
    that $1.37 billion would have been paid on DWRRA leases issued in 1998
    and 1999 had price thresholds been in place. In addition, over $1.1
    billion in royalties have already been paid on DWRRA leases issued in
    1996, 1997, and 2000.
        Question. Do you have any recommendations for what Congress should
    do if the government loses the case on appeal?
        Answer. The legislation to address this situation that was passed
    by the House had a high potential for causing litigation by modifying
    existing contracts. We believe that efforts to recoup these moneys
    should not jeopardize our nation's energy security or the future
    revenues from upcoming OCS sales.
        Applying fixes that could result in litigation could easily cost
    the United States billions over the next decade and result in reduced
    annual production levels. We still remain committed to the sanctity of
    our contracts; companies need to know that the United States negotiates
    in good faith. We are also still committed to working with Congress to
    try to resolve this issue as long as any effort to recoup royalties is
    fully thought through and protects the integrity of the government and
    energy security for the American people.

                     ADMINISTRATIVE FEES ON ONSHORE LEASES

        Question. The fiscal year 2008 Interior bill authorized the Bureau
    of Land Management to charge a fee this year of $4,000 on Applications
    for Permits to Drill. It is my understanding that the Administration is
    proposing an amendment to the Energy Policy Act of 2005 that would
    authorize the Department to issue a rule making these fees permanent
    and also to raise them. This concerns me if it creates a disincentive
    for increased domestic production and does not take into account
    differences in the costs of production in different States.
        In Colorado, the costs of production are very high. Will this rule
    take into account the differences among the States in terms of the cost
    of production when setting fees?
        Answer. At this time, we do not anticipate the rule taking into
    account the differences among the States in terms of the cost of
    production when setting the fee. The proposal is for a cost recovery
    fee that takes into account the BLM's cost to process an application
    for permit to drill (APD). If it is determined that the costs for
    processing an APD vary from State to State, then the final cost
    recovery fee may, likewise, vary from State to State. The proposed
    interim fee represents a very small fraction of the development and
    production costs for any new well.
        Question. Won't charging higher fees upfront to process these
    applications hurt smaller producers?
        Answer. No. The proposed fee represents a very small fraction of
    the development and production costs for any new well, so the effect of
    the fee on small producers should be negligible. The fee may cause all
    operators to be more prudent when applying for drilling permits, so
    that they only apply for permits for those wells that they actually
    intend to drill.
        Question. How long will it take the BLM to issue this rulemaking?
        Answer. At the latest, we expect to release the final rulemaking by
    the end of calendar year 2009. To avert any shortfall in funding for
    APD processing, in the event that the cost recovery rulemaking has not
    been implemented for all of fiscal year 2009, the legislation submitted
    by the Administration will impose, by statute, an interim fee of
    $4,150, to ensure the estimated $34.0 million in fees are collected.
        Question. How much in fees does the agency plan to collect if it is
    implemented?
        Answer. As noted in the preceding response, we estimate that we
    will collect $34 million in fiscal year 2009, either solely through
    cost recoveries, or through some combination of cost recoveries and a
    statutory interim processing fee.

                   BLM/NATIONAL LANDSCAPE CONSERVATION SYSTEM

        Question. One of your predecessors, Secretary Babbitt, created the
    so called National Landscape Conservation System (NLCS) out of many of
    the most significant BLM lands, including the Grand Staircase-Escalante
    National Monument and the Headwaters Preserve. There are currently
    legislative efforts in the house to codify this NLCS system.
        Can you tell me what your position is on these legislative efforts?
        Answer. The administration supports the House and Senate bills that
    codify the NLCS.
        Question. Could activities that are currently allowed on these
    lands like grazing be curtailed if this system is codified into law?
        Answer. No. Both the House and Senate bills propose to establish in
    statute the current administrative structure of the NLCS--the bill
    would not alter the management of individual units. There is a
    multiple-use component to the NLCS, and the proposed codification will
    not change this. Existing management policies and restrictions would
    remain in effect.

                      WILDLAND FIRE OUTLOOK FOR THIS YEAR

        Question. We recently had the Chief of the Forest Service here and
    I asked this question and I think it's relevant for you as well. I know
    that trying to predict the severity of the upcoming fire season at this
    point in the year is difficult at best. However, we are marking up a
    supplemental appropriations bill later this month.
        With that in mind, can you give us some sense of how severe you
    expect this fire season to be based on what you know now?
        Answer. The Wildland Fire Outlook for the period June 2008 through
    September 2008 reveals that significant fire potential is forecast to
    persist or increase in portions of California, the Southwest, Western
    Great Basin, Rocky Mountain and Northern Rockies. Significant fire
    potential will decrease across Florida, eastern New Mexico, western
    Texas, Alaska, and southeastern portions of the Rocky Mountain Area.
    The primary factors influencing this outlook are:
      --Even with a rather wet period during the latter half of May, most
            of the West has been drier than normal this spring.
      --Drought conditions continue over portions of the West and
            Southeast. However, improvement is expected in the Southeast
            and to a lesser degree over Texas and New Mexico.
      --Abundant fine fuels across portions of the Southwest, southern
            California deserts and Front Range of the Rockies may lead to
            an above normal fire season in these areas.
      --Fire potential should begin to wane over the Southwest and Florida
            in July due to the onset of the Southwest monsoon and
            increasing humidity and showers in the Southeast.
        Would additional funds on the supplemental be helpful to the
    Department?
        Answer. It is still too early in the fire season to tell whether or
    not additional suppression funds will be needed. In addition, DOI and
    FS are actively implementing cost containment measures to help
    constrain suppression spending. Even if fire conditions are extreme,
    funds will be available for ongoing suppression operations, as DOI has
    unobligated funds in its non-fire accounts that are available under
    current law if wildfire activity is unexpectedly high and suppression
    funds become exhausted.

                    FISH AND WILDLIFE/ESA POLAR BEAR LISTING

        Question. The current focal point of the global warming debate is
    the polar bear. The environmental community is using the Endangered
    Species Act to make the bear the face of global warming. I understand
    that the January 9th deadline came and went without any decision on the
    listing of the Polar Bear, and that subsequently a law suit was filed
    in Federal court to force a decision.
        Would you please explain where the Department is in this process of
    listing the polar bear and why this particular listing decision may
    require more time than others that you deal with?
        Answer. On January 9, 2007, (72 FR 1064) the Fish and Wildlife
    Service proposed to list the polar bear as threatened, citing loss of
    habitat resulting from receding sea ice. In September 2007, USGS
    scientists supplied new research to the Service, updating population
    information on the Southern Bering Sea polar bear population. USGS also
    provided additional data on arctic climate, sea ice trends and effects
    to polar bear populations throughout the species' range.
        As a result of the new USGS research findings, the Service reopened
    and later extended a second comment period to allow the public time to
    review and respond to the USGS findings. The Department asked for
    additional time to complete its listing decision on the polar bear in
    order to examine the thousands of comments on the new research findings
    submitted in September 2007 by USGS. As a result of this review, the
    decision to list the bear as threatened was made on May 14, 2008.
        Question. I know you may not be able to comment on this, but it
    seems to me that the Endangered Species Act (ESA) is not designed to
    handle situations like we have with the polar bear. From what I
    understand, any decline in the bear's population is because of the loss
    of ocean ice pack. There is nothing that the ESA can provide in the
    form of a remedy to resolve that, unless we are going to expand ESA to
    be used for regulating all carbon emissions in the economy. This is
    not, in my view, what the law was intended for, nor is it a sound basis
    for doing so. All the factors that would go into such a far reaching
    regulatory scheme have simply not been debated by the Congress.
        Answer. On May 14, 2008 Secretary of the Interior Dirk Kempthorne
    made the decision to list the polar bear as a threatened species under
    the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The listing is based on the best
    available science, which shows that loss of sea ice threatens and will
    likely continue to threaten polar bear habitat. This loss of habitat
    puts polar bears at risk of becoming endangered in the foreseeable
    future, the standard established by the ESA for designating a
    threatened species.
        The listing will be accompanied by administrative guidance and a
    rule that defines the scope of impact the decision will have. While the
    legal standards under the ESA do not provide discretion not to list for
    economic or other social considerations, the listing will not stop
    global climate change or prevent sea ice from melting. A real solution
    to climate change requires action by all the world's major economies.
    The ESA was never intended to regulate global climate change. The ESA
    is not the right tool to set U.S. climate policy.

          NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE SYSTEM/IMPACTS ON COLORADO REFUGES

        Question. The total fiscal year 2009 budget request for the
    National Wildlife Refuge System is $434.1 million, a $5.3 million
    decrease from the fiscal year 2008 enacted level. The budget request
    proposes significant program decreases from the fiscal year 2008
    enacted level in Wildlife and Habitat Management (-$930,000), Visitor
    Services (-$1.7 million), and Refuge Maintenance (-$2.4 million).
        With such a large cut to maintenance, will the agency be able to
    keep up with regular cyclical maintenance on schedule? Will we see an
    increased backlog of deferred maintenance projects?
        Answer. The President's budget request for the National Wildlife
    Refuge System is essentially level funded with the 2008 appropriated
    level when 1.56 percent across-the-board reduction in section 437 of
    the Consolidated Appropriations Act is included. The President's
    request of $136.2 million for refuge maintenance prioritizes funding
    for the most critical health and safety maintenance needs. This
    represents the highest budget request in the history of the Refuge
    System and the Service believes that the request supports its priority
    maintenance needs. The request provides funding for 280 deferred
    maintenance projects identified in the Service Asset Maintenance
    Management System (SAMMS).
        The Refuge System maintains an inventory of deferred maintenance
    and capital improvement projects and maintains a deferred maintenance
    five year plan to guide the allocation of funding. New projects are
    added to the SAMMS each year and others are removed as they are
    addressed. The Service uses the Facility Condition Index (FCI), a
    measure of the ratio of the repair costs to the replacement costs for
    each asset, as one factor in the prioritization of the use of
    maintenance funding. In addition, an Asset Priority Index (API) is
    utilized to indicate the relative importance of an asset to
    accomplishment of the Refuge System's mission. The Refuge System
    continues to prioritize these maintenance needs through improved data
    that underlies development of five-year budget plans. The Service's
    five-year deferred maintenance plan for the National Wildlife Refuge
    System for fiscal years 2009-2013 contains 1,882 projects for an
    estimated total of $211.2 million.
        Question. I am specifically concerned that this proposed funding
    decrease for the National Wildlife Refuge System will not provide
    sufficient funding for the Rocky Flats, Rocky Mountain Arsenal, and
    Baca wildlife refuges in my home State of Colorado to remain fully
    staffed and operational in fiscal year 2009. Would you please provide
    me the specific funding breakdown for these three refuges in the fiscal
    year 2009 request compared to the fiscal year 2008 enacted level?
        Answer. These three refuges are funded as complexes, funding for
    the two complexes is:

                            [In thousands of dollars]
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Fiscal year
                                       -------------------------------------
                                               2008               2009
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Rocky Mt. Arsenal NWR, Rocky Flats              1,657              1,657
     NWR, Two Ponds NWR...............
    Alamosa NWR, Monte Vista NWR, Baca              1,265              1,265
     NWR..............................
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Question. I understand that the Rocky Mountain Arsenal National
    Wildlife Refuge clean-up and remediation is on target for completion by
    2011. As the remediation process comes to an end, the Fish and Wildlife
    Service must begin the process of standing-up the refuge. Is the
    necessary funding in place for this transition and for the Refuge
    Visitor Center that the regional office is in the process of designing?
        Answer. An initial 4,930 acres of lands of the Rocky Mountain
    Arsenal were officially transferred to the FWS in 2004; in 2006 an
    additional 7,266 acres were transferred to the FWS. Upon completion of
    cleanup in 2011, roughly 3,000 additional acres will be transferred to
    the refuge.
        The Refuge Visitor Center is in the planning and design phase. The
    Service has $4,690,100 from the proceeds of the sale of some of the
    Arsenal land, pursuant to the Rocky Mountain Arsenal National Wildlife
    Refuge Act of 1992. These funds are set aside for the visitor center.
    The Service will use $150,000 of these funds this year for a conceptual
    plan for the center. Currently, the majority of refuge operations
    funding is provided through reimbursable agreements with the U.S. Army,
    Shell Oil Company, and Environmental Protection Agency. These
    agreements will expire when cleanup is complete in 2011. The fiscal
    year 2009 President's budget provides sufficient funds for operation.
        Question. The Department of Interior directed that bison be
    reintroduced to the Rocky Mountain Arsenal National Wildlife Refuge in
    March 2007; however, no additional funding or facilities were provided
    to the refuge for the herd (21 to date) at that time. Does the fiscal
    year 2009 budget request include the resources necessary to properly
    maintain the bison on this refuge?
        Answer. Yes, the 2009 budget provides sufficient funding, $56,000,
    for managing the bison herd.

                                SAFE BORDERLANDS

        Question. The Refuge Law Enforcement budget request includes a $1
    million increase to provide six Refuge Law Enforcement Officers along
    the southwest border for increased security in relation to illegal
    border crossings and other illegal activities on refuges. Recently,
    Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Chertoff invoked his
    authority under the REAL ID Act of 2005 to waive Federal law in order
    to build the southwest border fence through the Lower Rio Grand
    National Wildlife Refuge in Texas.
        I know you have visited the southern border many times; how does
    the Department of Interior address border enforcement, illegal
    immigration and wildlife issues on the public lands it manages along
    the southwest border?
        Answer. The Department's land management bureaus manage 793 miles,
    or 41 percent of the Southwest border. These lands include seven
    national wildlife refuges, six national parks, 12 miles managed by the
    Bureau of Reclamation, and 191 miles of public lands managed by the
    Bureau of Land Management. In addition, five Indian Reservations span
    the international boundary with Mexico.
        The impacts of illegal border crossings on Interior and tribal
    lands are startling. As an Administration, we have taken aggressive
    steps to add resources to reduce the flow of illegal drugs and aliens
    across the border into the United States. Our initial focus to control
    traffic through urban ports of entry has resulted in substantially
    improved control in those areas. However, it has also resulted in a
    migration of illegal traffic to more rural, less populated areas along
    the border. As a result, Interior's 793 miles of border are being
    impacted to a greater degree.
        The Safe Borderlands Initiative provides a holistic approach to the
    growing problems caused by the increasing illegal border crossings,
    with resources targeted to multiple bureaus and high-priority areas. We
    propose to coordinate border efforts among the Department's land
    management bureaus, the Bureau of Indian Affairs, and the Office of Law
    Enforcement, Security, and Emergency Management. The initiative was
    developed through a collaborative process that involved representatives
    from each of the bureaus. The additional law enforcement officers will
    protect employee housing areas, recreational areas, and other high-use
    sites in an integrated fashion. The initiative includes $5.2 million
    for the National Park Service; $1.0 million for the Bureau of Land
    Management; $1.0 million for the Fish and Wildlife Service; and $1.0
    million for the Bureau of Indian Affairs.
        A significant component of the initiative is a $2.0 million
    increase allocated between the Bureau of Land Management and the
    National Park Service to mitigate environmental damage on lands near
    the southwest border. Trails and illegal roads made by smugglers are
    destroying cactus and other sensitive vegetation, impacting the
    ecologic health of many of the national parks, wildlife refuges,
    national monuments and conservation areas Interior manages. This causes
    a disruption of wildlife and their habitats and the destruction of
    cultural and historic resources. Projects will protect and restore
    habitat for species, as well as improve safety by closing some
    abandoned mines on BLM lands.
        Question. Does the Department of Interior (DOI) have sufficient law
    enforcement presence for adequate coordination with the Department of
    Homeland Security (DHS)?
        Answer. The Safe Borderlands Initiative includes an additional $5.8
    million to improve safety, which includes providing 52 additional law
    enforcement personnel on public lands along the border. These officers,
    in addition to 11 new officers funded with a $3.2 million investment in
    2008, will patrol campgrounds, recreational areas, and other lands
    where smuggling activities threaten visitors. They will also deter
    illegal activity in employee housing areas and provide security for
    employees conducting field work, such as biologists conducting wildlife
    surveys and monitoring activities. Additionally, they will educate
    visitors and employees on border security risks and safety measures and
    coordinate with partner agencies to enhance Interior's efforts. The
    funding for the Bureau of Indian Affairs will support additional law
    enforcement officers to address illegal smuggling of drugs and
    immigrants on reservations on or near the Mexican border. These efforts
    will assist law enforcement agencies who have jurisdiction at the
    international borders.
        Question. What type of working relationship does DOI have with DHS?
        Answer. Through the Safe Borderlands Initiative, Interior proposes
    to enhance coordination with DHS by placing an Interior employee in DHS
    offices funded by DHS to represent Interior issues as DHS implements
    its Secure Borders initiative. Already, the Interior Department has
    signed an agreement with DHS to secure cooperating agency status in
    environmental reviews. Additionally, the Department will enhance
    coordination with the Department of Justice on drug smuggling and
    cross-border interdiction efforts through a Memorandum of Understanding
    with the Drug Enforcement Agency.

          FWS LAW ENFORCEMENT/IMPORT AND EXPORT OF THREATENED SPECIES

        Question. The total fiscal year 2009 budget request for Law
    Enforcement is $57.4 million, a $3.3 million decrease from the fiscal
    year 2008 enacted level. This request eliminates $3 million in
    unrequested funding, better known as Congressionally directed funding.
        The Fish and Wildlife Service's Law Enforcement office is charged
    with protecting plants and animals native to the United States that
    have been listed as endangered or threatened from illegal trade or any
    harmful activity that threatens the species or its habitat; enforcing
    wildlife trade laws on companies that import and/or export wildlife to
    ensure safety, fairness and efficiency in the legal wildlife trade; and
    to combat illegal trafficking in wildlife that is not only a threat to
    the survival of numerous species, but may also be a catalyst for other
    illegal smuggling activities.
        Question. Can law enforcement officials maintain a level of
    inspections and investigations necessary to accomplish these numerous
    and varied tasks with the limited resources provided in the budget?
        Answer. The President's budget provides sufficient funding for
    Service Law Enforcement investigations and inspections focused, among
    the numerous and varied tasks, on activities to address issues of the
    greatest conservation concern, including protecting Federal trust
    species.
        Question. What percentage of inspections of imports and exports
    does this budget request support on an annual basis?
        Answer. The Service's target physical inspection rate for shipments
    is 25 percent; document inspections (examining declarations, shipping
    invoices, airway bills, bills of lading, permits, licenses, etc) are
    conducted for shipments not subject to physical inspection.
        Our target physical inspection rate reflects both workload
    realities (i.e., the size of our wildlife inspector workforce; our
    shipment-to-inspector ratio, which stood at approximately 1,615
    shipments per inspector in fiscal year 2007; and the time required to
    conduct physical inspections) and the need to balance inspector effort
    between compliance inspections of declared shipments (which help
    facilitate legal wildlife trade) and proactive efforts to intercept
    smuggled wildlife (which target global wildlife trafficking). Higher
    physical inspection rates would not necessarily translate into larger
    numbers of seizures since the majority of declared imports/exports are
    in compliance with Federal wildlife laws and violations can often be
    detected based on document inspections.
        Declared shipments are selected for physical inspection based on
    Service enforcement priorities (which are designed to ensure that we
    make the most effective use possible of our staff resources) and the
    assessment of such risk factors as violation history of the importer or
    exporter; known or suspected trafficking in the past involving the
    particular species or commodity; and past problems with shipments from
    the same country of origin or re-export.
        Question. How many investigations lead to criminal convictions each
    year? Would increased funding lead to additional convictions?
        Answer. Service special agents and wildlife inspectors worked on
    12,755 cases in fiscal year 2007; most investigations undertaken by the
    Service eventually result in some type of legal action, including
    civil, or administrative penalties, or criminal convictions. We believe
    this has a deterrent effect on illegal conduct. Increased funding would
    not necessarily lead to additional convictions as there are many
    factors outside of the Service's control that contribute to
    convictions.
        Question. What initiatives has law enforcement undertaken to
    dissuade people from engaging in illegal activities pertaining to
    wildlife trafficking or other activities harmful to species and
    habitats?
        Do you have the resources necessary to be proactive in preventing
    illegal activities?
        Answer. In addition to investigative and enforcement activity,
    Service Law Enforcement continues to support ``Suitcase for
    Survival''--a recently revamped public education initiative to teach
    the public about the threat of illegal wildlife trade. Service officers
    conduct training programs for importers/exporters, brokers and other
    groups and staff public outreach displays at events across the country
    (including Earth Day celebrations and sportsmen's shows) to promote
    compliance with wildlife laws. Service brochures such as ``Buyer
    Beware'' target international travelers. Current and requested budgets
    provide adequate funding to support such initiatives.
    fws/upper colorado river endangered fish recovery program and san juan

                  RIVER BASIN RECOVERY IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM

        Question. Partners of the Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish
    Recovery Program and the San Juan River Basin Recovery Implementation
    Program, including the States of Colorado, Wyoming, Utah, Arizona, and
    New Mexico, have been working cooperatively to recover endangered
    Colorado River fish species and improve water quality, while striving
    to meet the growing energy and water needs of the Intermountain West.
    The fiscal year 2009 budget request includes $697,000 for the Upper
    Colorado and $200,000 for the San Juan recovery programs, which is
    greatly appreciated.
        Public Law 106-392 requires the Secretary to submit recommendations
    to Congress regarding the continued use of power revenues to support
    the Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery and San Juan River
    Basin Recovery Implementation programs. It is my understanding that
    continued use of power revenues is supported by the programs'
    participants, including the power customers.
        What is your position regarding use of power revenues?
        Answer. The Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program
    and the San Juan River Basin Recovery Implementation Program have made
    progress toward achievement of their objectives since 2000 , in part
    through the use of power revenues pursuant to Public Law 106-392. The
    Department will be able to determine its position on the use of power
    revenues after the completion and release of the report required under
    Public Law 106-392.
        Question. When may we expect to see your recommendations and
    report?
        Answer. The report is currently being reviewed and should be
    available for release in the near future.
        These programs have greatly streamlined and reduced the cost of the
    administration of the Endangered Species Act for the government and the
    regulated community, while full compliance is achieved. Small water
    users achieve compliance without having to hire lawyers, biologists and
    engineers.
        Question. How is the Department using this experience to improve
    administration of the Endangered Species Act nationwide?
        Answer. The Department believes that cooperative solutions are the
    best way to implement the Endangered Species Act. We are continuing to
    foster partnerships between Federal and non-Federal entities to help
    protect endangered species.

              U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY/WATER FOR AMERICA INITIATIVE

        The USGS budget request includes an increase of $9.5 million for
    the Water for America Initiative, for a total of $29.8 million in
    fiscal year 2009. This is in addition to the $31.4 million provided
    within the Bureau of Reclamation's budget request. For the first time
    in over 30 years, the Department proposes to initiate a Water Census in
    order to collect information about our Nation's water resources and
    track changes in our water availability, water quality, and water use
    by 2019.
        The budget request indicates that you intend to track changes
    through 2019. Will the requested funding in fiscal year 2009 support
    these activities over the next 10 years, or will there be annual
    funding requests for each of the subsequent fiscal years through 2019?
    If so, what level of funding is anticipated for each fiscal year?
        Answer. The estimate for completion of the Water Census in 2019
    assumes that base funding will remain constant over the next 10 years.
    This projected timeframe is a preliminary estimate, and will depend on
    funding priorities within the Department.
        Question. In most of the West water is considered property, the
    ownership of which is passionately guarded. In fact, there is an old
    saying that ``whiskey is for drinking and water is for fighting!'' Do
    you anticipate that this Census could have any effect on water rights
    in States where such rights exist? Will the Department work with States
    to ensure that all parties are comfortable with what the Federal
    Government is doing?
        Answer. Authority to manage water resources is largely delegated to
    States, Tribes, and municipalities. The water census will not change
    this. To effectively address water-supply challenges, Federal, State,
    local, and Tribal governments must collaborate to find out how much
    water we have, expand, conserve, and protect supplies to meet
    increasing demands, and plan for the Nation's water future. The
    Department will continue to work through existing partnerships that
    include 1,400 State and local water agencies, State geological surveys,
    State Water Resources Research Institutes, the U.S. Army Corps of
    Engineers, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and the
    National Science Foundation.
        Question. Do you see the Water Census becoming a cyclical event
    like that conducted by the Bureau of the Census at the Department of
    Commerce every 10 years? Would a 10 year cycle be often enough in order
    to maintain an accurate analysis of our Nation's water resources, or
    would it need to occur more frequently?
        Answer. A cyclical water census is a promising idea, but to date
    there has not been a detailed analysis on the appropriate timing for
    such an approach. The Department's current priority is to conduct a
    Census over the next 10 years that will provide crucial baseline
    information on the nation's water resources.
        Question. Who are the intended end-users of the information
    collected? How will the information be used? How will it be useful to
    the average citizen in his or her daily life?
        Answer. The intended users include water managers at the local
    level, water districts and utilities, State and local governments,
    Tribes and water users such as fishers and farmers and other
    irrigators. A census will provide information on the current status of
    water in aquifers and reservoirs, rivers, lakes, groundwater and
    surface water, water quality and water use. The information will be
    used to provide objective methods to quantify environmental flows
    needed for aquatic life; improve the ability to predict the impact of
    regional water development on the flow, temperature, and chemical
    quality of rivers; and improve our understanding of the effects of
    climate variability and potential changes on water resources.

                            BIRDS FOREVER INITIATIVE

        Question. The USGS budget request includes an increase of $1
    million for the Birds Forever Initiative, for a total of $1.25 million
    in fiscal year 2009. This is in addition to the $8.1 million increase
    included in the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's budget request. The
    USGS will use this increased funding to expand its monitoring and
    surveillance of migratory birds through the Breeding Bird Survey. Given
    that some of our most common bird species have declined by as much as
    70 percent in the last 40 years, this seems like a critical activity.
        Is the Birds Forever Initiative a one-time increase, a permanent
    increase to the program base, or an ongoing, multi-year program that
    will require continued funding for a number of years until reaching the
    ``end'' of the initiative?
        Answer. The Birds Forever Initiative in the USGS and Fish and
    Wildlife Service will improve understanding of 36 focal species,
    restore habitat, and monitor species status and trends. Many factors
    will influence funding decisions in the future for this initiative such
    as accomplishment of the initiative goals and future National,
    Department, Service, and program goals and priorities.
        Question. One of the proposed objectives of the initiative is to
    expand the geographic scope of the Breeding Bird Survey into Mexico,
    since birds don't recognize borders and can't be stopped by the wall we
    are building along the Southwest Border. What is required in terms of
    an agreement with Mexico to conduct this work south of the border?
        Answer. The Migratory Bird Treaty Act provides the authority for
    the U.S. Geological Survey and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to work
    cooperatively with the Mexican government on migratory bird surveys.
    Existing agreements are sufficient to allow this work.
        Question. Since funding for the Birds Forever Initiative is
    included in the Fish and Wildlife Service's budget request as well, are
    the activities within each agency so linked that one increase is
    dependent upon the other?
        Answer. The Birds Forever Initiative was developed as cross bureau,
    cross program initiative involving the U.S. Geological Survey and the
    Fish and Wildlife Service. The most effective and efficient means of
    accomplishing the initiatives goal is through linked efforts and is how
    we have designed the initiative.

                            HEALTHY LANDS INITIATIVE

        Question. The USGS budget request includes an increase of $3.5
    million for the Healthy Lands Initiative, for a total of $5 million in
    fiscal year 2009. This is in addition to the $2 million requested
    through the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the $14.9 million
    requested through the Bureau of Land Management, for a total
    Department-wide program funding level of $21.9 million. This is a $14
    million increase over the fiscal year 2008 enacted level.
        The budget request defines the Healthy Lands Initiative as a
    ``long-term science-based effort''. For the purposes of this
    initiative, how have you defined ``long-term''? Is there a projected
    end to this program?
        Answer. There is no projected end to this program, as the
    challenges to maintain and enhance land health will continue into the
    future. The partnership among USGS, BLM, FWS, and others is a long-term
    science-based effort to assess and enhance aquatic and terrestrial
    habitats at a landscape scale to maintain and improve habitat to
    prevent species from being listed so that we can continue to provide
    access to the public lands for multiple uses, including responsible
    energy development. Tools and technologies developed in this effort
    will be transferable to other areas in the Nation for many years where
    there are similar issues of energy development and impacts to wildlife
    habitat. Results of these effort and completion of ecological
    assessment in future years will provide the information and knowledge
    for decision-makers to build and implement adaptive management
    solutions to ensure the long-term viability of wildlife and habitats in
    these areas.
        Question. What type of data and information has been gathered to
    date that will be beneficial to future energy development?
        Answer. Healthy Lands Initiative activities focus on projects that
    focus on land resource rehabilitation, protection, and management for
    multiple land uses. Some project planning actions in the USGS to date
    include highly detailed mapping and assessment of the sagebrush
    habitat; evaluation of the cumulative effects of development;
    identification of key drivers of landscape change, including effects of
    climate change; identification of the most effective and needed
    restoration, reclamation, and mitigation activities; and detailed
    species habitat needs assessments and monitoring studies. The USGS will
    assemble all available data and information into a clearinghouse that
    will be accessible by all the Federal, State, and local partners in
    this activity.
        Question. How will this initiative reduce resource conflicts
    between the environmental community and industry?
        Answer. The Healthy Lands Initiative (HLI) is an approach to land
    management that increases the pace of and more effectively implements
    land health treatments across multiple jurisdictions. It has already
    had great success in bringing together partners with a shared interest
    in protecting, restoring, and enhancing our multi-resource ecosystems.
    HLI funding is leveraged with funding provided by other Federal
    agencies, State, local, and tribal governments, philanthropic
    organizations, advocacy groups, and industry partners. In 2008, BLM has
    initiated on-the-ground work in several emphasis areas (UT, NM,
    Southwest WY, Southeast OR-Southwest ID-Northern NV, South-central ID,
    and Western CO), and has begun working with USGS, FWS, and other
    partners to implement projects based on the highest priority integrated
    science identified through workshops and meetings with stakeholders.
    For example, in the Southwest WY Landscape Conservation Initiative
    Area, in order to strengthen the collaboration, a coalition of Interior
    bureaus along with the U.S. Forest Service, the Wyoming Game and Fish
    Department, and the Wyoming Department of Agriculture has formed a
    partnership called the Wyoming Landscape Conservation Initiative. The
    partners are extending the existing Memorandum of Understanding to
    include additional local stakeholders such as county commissioners and
    conservation district managers. Together, these partners participate in
    strategies and actions to maintain and improve area landscapes.

         U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY/OCEAN AND COASTAL FRONTIERS INITIATIVE

        Question. The USGS budget request includes an increase of $7
    million for the Ocean and Coastal Frontiers Initiative, for a total of
    $16.1 million in fiscal year 2009. This is in addition to the $900,000
    increase included in the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's budget
    request. The USGS will also work in partnership with numerous other
    Federal Government agencies including: the National Oceanic and
    Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
    (EPA), U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Minerals Management
    Service (MMS), National Park Service (NPS), and the Office of Insular
    Affairs (OIA).
        Given that the Ocean and Coastal Frontiers Initiative cross-cuts so
    many agencies, is there one centralized programmatic control mechanism
    in place to ensure that there aren't any duplications of effort or
    funding?
        Answer. As part of the formulation of the fiscal year 2009
    President's Budget, the Department reviewed each bureau's participation
    in the Ocean and Coastal Frontiers Initiative, to ensure there is no
    duplication of effort.
        Question. Are the agency's activities so intricately linked that
    the funding streams are dependent upon one another? Does it make sense
    to provide $7 million to USGS for this initiative if NOAA doesn't
    receive its share of funding through the Department of Commerce budget?
        Answer. USGS will coordinate with the other Federal agencies in
    implementing the Ocean and Coastal Frontiers Initiative to ensure the
    most effective use of Federal funds. NOAA has already received $8.0
    million in 2008 for ocean exploration efforts related to this work. The
    geological data collection by USGS, when combined with the bathymetric
    data collected by NOAA, will form the basis for successful
    establishment of the U.S. continental shelf.
        Question. One of the tasks of the USGS is mapping the geology and
    boundaries of the extended continental shelf to determine the increase
    of public lands for which the Department would have regulatory
    responsibility ($4 million of the $7 million increase is for this
    activity). How long do you anticipate that it will take USGS to
    complete this activity?
        Answer. Full delineation of U.S. ECS boundaries would require both
    bathymetric and seismic/geophysical mapping in several regions. Current
    funds are for focused mapping in the Arctic, which may take several
    years depending on ice conditions, which are highly variable. Estimates
    for mapping the Atlantic will be better defined after an Atlantic
    workshop takes place in July, 2008 bringing together Federal and
    academic expertise to identify outstanding issues and data
    requirements. Furthermore, there may be additional seismic data
    required in the Pacific Islands.
        Question. Will additional funds be required in future fiscal years?
        Answer. Funding for future ECS mapping activities will respond to
    the President's budgetary priorities, which will take into account
    recommendations the Interagency Task Force on the Extended Continental
    Shelf in the context of Departmental needs and activities. Additional
    factors affecting future funding for ECS mapping will include progress
    on current data collection, as well as needs for legal, analytical, and
    other costs associated with the mapping.

                     U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY/LANDSAT PROGRAM

        Question. Within the Land Remote Sensing program, the fiscal year
    2009 budget request includes an increase of $2 million for the National
    Land Imaging Program. USGS will act as the lead agency in this multi-
    agency initiative to begin planning for an operational program to
    collect images of the Earth's surface. The USGS budget justification
    says that implementation of this new program will ``require significant
    additions, upgrades, and changes to the staffing and facilities of the
    Department''.
        Who made the determination that USGS was the most qualified to be
    the lead agency for this next generation of Land Remote Sensing? Why
    wouldn't NASA or the Department of Commerce's NOAA satellite office be
    the more appropriate lead agency?
        Answer. The Office of Science and Technology Policy issued a plan
    for the U.S. National Land Imaging Program (NLIP) in August of 2007,
    which called for NLIP to be established in the Department of the
    Interior. The current budget allocation for NLIP does not create a
    long-term program within Interior, but rather is meant to initiate an
    assessment of needs related to the next Landsat satellite. The
    Administration has not made a final determination on the role of USGS
    in the next Landsat, which will entail significant out year funding
    commitments. Instead, the current funding will lay the groundwork for
    future planning.
        Question. What is USGS's current working relationship with these
    other land imaging users?
        Answer. USGS has a good working relationship with the other land
    imaging users, and has frequent meetings with them on both specific
    topics and broad issues relating to Landsat. We will be consulting them
    in our upcoming efforts.
        Question. What kind of ``additions, upgrades, and changes'' will be
    necessary to support this new program? What costs are associated with
    these changes? Will this require the addition of a construction budget
    for USGS?
        Answer. The Department has not made any final determination on the
    need for future upgrades. If USGS is designated the appropriate entity
    for future Landsat satellites, arrangements could be parallel to NOAA's
    funding stream for operational oceanic and atmospheric satellites. In
    this case, recurring satellite-development funding would be over $100
    million per year. Additional funding determinations will consider
    planning and partnership efforts developed in 2009.
        Question. What exactly will the $2 million requested for fiscal
    year 2009 buy us? That isn't much money when you are talking about
    satellite programs, so I'm very curious about the out-year costs
    associated with the National Land Imaging Program. Does the Department
    have a long-term budgetary plan for this activity?
        Answer. The $2 million is to initiate planning and design efforts
    by assessing needs related to the future of Landsat satellites. This
    activity may support long term budgetary plans at the Department or
    within other agencies.
        Question. Although NASA and NOAA are the preeminent Federal
    Government agencies when it comes to satellites, those programs have
    been plagued with problems and are consistently behind schedule and
    over budget. Why should we create another satellite program within an
    agency that has neither the structure nor the expertise to handle such
    an activity?
        Answer. As previously stated, no final determination on the ideal
    agency to procure and operate Landsat has been made by the
    administration. The recommendation by the Office of Science and
    Technology Policy that NLIP be established within the Department of the
    Interior is reflective of a number of factors, including the success
    USGS has achieved in its Geographic Research, Investigations and Remote
    Sensing program.

            OFFICE OF THE SPECIAL TRUSTEE/INDIAN LAND CONSOLIDATION

        Question. The process of Indian Land Consolidation was begun in
    1999 and to date the Department has spent nearly $170 million and
    purchased over 360,000 fractionated Indian lands in an attempt to
    consolidate them into more manageable land holdings for accounting
    purposes.
        Given that the Department continues to stress how costly it is to
    manage the ever-growing fractionation of the Individual Indian owned
    land, why is the Indian Land Consolidation program proposed for
    elimination in the fiscal year 2009 budget request?
        Answer. Since 1999, the Indian Land Consolidation Program has spent
    nearly $170 million to purchase over 360,000 interests, yet this has
    done little to reduce fractionation or decrease the costs for managing
    the trust. Most of these ownership interests were less than two percent
    of the entire parcel. In addition, provisions in the American Indian
    Probate Reform Act have greatly reduced the rate of fractionation for
    these small interests. It is clear that purchasing interests, one at a
    time, will not result in a satisfactory solution to fractionation.
        Question. The issue of accounting for the land holdings does not
    disappear with the elimination of funding for this activity. What
    alternatives to outright purchase of the land interests have been
    considered?
        Answer. The Special Trustee Advisory Board which includes one
    former and three current tribal leaders have suggested using a model
    similar to the Rosebud Tribe's Tribal Land Enterprise whereby
    individual fractionated interest holders can contribute their interest
    to the Enterprise in exchange for an equity interest equal in value to
    their land interest. We have asked ITMA to begin a consultation project
    with Indian Country to discuss the fractionation problem and advise us
    on solutions developed from tribes and individual interest holders
    prior to the Department advocating any particular solution.

                 INDIAN TRUST LITIGATION/COBELL VS. KEMPTHORNE

        Question. In 1994, Congress passed The American Indian Trust Fund
    Management Reform Act of 1994, requiring the Secretary of the Interior
    to ``account for the daily and annual balance of all funds held in
    trust by the United States for the benefit of an Indian tribe or an
    individual Indian which are deposited or invested pursuant to the Act
    of June 24, 1938 (25 U.S.C. Sec. 4011(a)). '' In July of 2001, the
    Office of Historical Trust Accounting (OHTA) was created by Secretarial
    Order to plan, organize, direct, and execute the historical accounting
    of Tribal Trust Fund accounts and Individual Indian Money (IIM)
    accounts.
        The Department and OHTA are involved in the Cobell vs. Kempthorne
    class action lawsuit, which has been ongoing for 12 years, to determine
    whether or not the Department has unreasonably delayed the completion
    of the Historical Accounting. On January 30, 2008, Judge James
    Robertson of the United States District Court for the District of
    Columbia, in his Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law stated that
    ``it is now clear that completion of the required accounting is an
    impossible task''.
        Given that the Judge has deemed the Historical Accounting an
    ``impossible task'', why is it necessary to continue to fund the Office
    of Historical Accounting at $56.4 million in fiscal year 2009?
        Answer. The Department remains committed to seeking an appropriate
    resolution of the case in concert with Congress and other interested
    parties. The Budget request of $56 million for historical accounting
    includes approximately $36 million for the accounting related to
    Individual Indian Money (IIM) account holders with the remainder
    dedicated to accounting for tribes and Special Deposit Accounts. The
    judge did not relieve us of the requirement to continue the historical
    accounting for IIM accountholders, which we estimate under our current
    plan, will require approximately $108 million over the next 3 years to
    complete, for a total of $271 million since the implementation of the
    original 2003 plan. The judge said while the statute would require an
    accounting of ``all funds held in trust by the United States'' he did
    not believe that Congress would ever appropriate sufficient money to
    pay for such an accounting. The judge did, however, recognize the need
    for a solution. At a hearing on March 5, 2008, the Court scheduled a
    trial to begin on equitable disgorgement of funds allegedly held back
    from IIM account holders by the Government. Interior continues to work
    with the Justice Department to evaluate the Court's findings and
    conclusions.
        Question. What do you see as the next major milestones in this
    litigation?
        Answer. There are several ways in which this case can be resolved:
    a judicial settlement as decided by the Court; congressional action to
    narrow the scope of the historical accounting requirements that could
    realistically be completed; or funding in the billions of dollars
    sufficient to conduct the historical accounting, as interpreted by the
    courts, under the current law.

                 BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS/DETENTION FACILITIES

        Question. I understand that several adult and juvenile detention
    facilities constructed on Indian reservations nationwide over the past
    several years are either sitting empty or are staffed and operated at
    levels far below the intended effective capacities. Tribal communities
    need these detention facilities operating at full capacity to address
    their growing law enforcement needs. Offenders that should be detained
    in these new federally-financed units are now scattered widely, across
    several States. The many juvenile offenders involved are now detained
    in places where no treatment and rehabilitation is possible, creating
    future difficulties both in terms of public safety and long term
    correctional and social costs that will be borne largely with public
    resources.
        Please provide the subcommittee with a detailed accounting of where
    and in what amounts Indian Affairs allocated funding to the staffing
    and operations of tribal adult and juvenile detention facilities in
    fiscal year 2007 and fiscal year 2008, and where anticipated funding
    would go if the fiscal year 2009 requested funding is provided.
        Answer. The fiscal year 2009 budget request for Detention and
    Corrections is $64.6 million, an increase of $5.6 million over the
    fiscal year 2008 level. The increase includes fixed costs. Increased
    funding is essential to address staffing needs for newly constructed
    detention facilities, as well as existing facilities within the
    corrections program. The proposed funding increase will allow the
    Division of Corrections to staff its detention centers to safe and
    secure levels in line with National Institute of Corrections
    guidelines. Funding allocations for 2009 will not be completed until
    the funding has been enacted.
        In 2007 and 2008 funding was distributed across Indian Country to
    increase staffing in order to meet minimum safety requirements and to
    fill positions at recently opened facilities. The attached chart
    details the funding that was provided to each facility in 2007 and
    2008.

                             BIA CORRECTIONS FUNDING
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Fiscal year
                                       -------------------------------------
                                                           2008 funding with
        Corrections Program Funding                           operational
                                               2007            increases/
                                                              decreases &
                                                                paycost
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    District. CO
        K0L400  CORRECTIONS--Contract           6,564,956          7,935,837
         Bed Space....................
    District. CO......................          6,564,956          7,935,837
                                       =====================================
    District.--1:
        A0L400  DISTRICT I CORRECTIONS           $279,304           $306,504
        A0L410  WINNEBAGO DETENTION...             64,763            299,658
        A0L430  STANDING ROCK                     401,850          2,135,021
         DETENTION....................
        A0L460  TURTLE MOUNTAIN                   321,433            922,815
         DETENTION....................
        A0L470  FT TOTTEN DETENTION...            286,549            785,444
        A0L480  LOWER BRULE DETENTION.          2,071,069          2,506,340
        A0L490  YANKTON DETENTION.....          2,000,000          2,000,000
                                       -------------------------------------
          Subtotal....................          5,424,968          8,955,782
                                       -------------------------------------
    District.1--638  Tribal Programs:
        KLA002  CHEYENNE RIVER........          1,238,973          1,238,973
        KLA003  OGLALA SIOUX..........          3,015,890          3,015,890
        KLA004  ROSEBUD...............          1,942,977          2,018,247
        KLA005  OMAHA.................            183,954            205,284
        KLA015  MENOMINEE.............            365,400            374,344
        KLA022  THREE AFFILIATED......          2,620,564          2,620,564
        KLA024  SISSETON-WAHPETON.....             95,429             98,436
                                       -------------------------------------
          Subtotal....................          9,463,187          9,571,738
                                       -------------------------------------
          Total Corrections Funding            14,888,155         18,527,520
           for District 1.............
                                       =====================================
    District.--3  BIA Programs:
        H0L400  DISTRICT 3 CORRECTIONS            275,614            317,712
        H0L410  EASTERN NEVADA                  1,801,336          2,379,952
         DETENTION....................
        H0L430  UINTAH & OURAY                     80,000            233,899
         DETENTION....................
        H0L440  HOPI DETENTION........            672,860          1,235,016
        H0L490  TRUXTON CANON                   2,020,594          2,868,410
         DETENTION....................
                                       -------------------------------------
          Subtotal....................          4,850,404          7,034,989
                                       -------------------------------------
    District.--3  638 Tribal Programs:
        KLH001  COLORADO RIVER INDIAN             273,903            300,677
         TRIBES.......................
        KLH002  FORT MOJAVE INDIAN                 44,880             59,992
         TRIBE........................
        KLH003  WHITE MOUNTAIN APACHE             634,621            643,435
         TRIBE........................
        KLH004  TOHONO O'ODHAM NATION           2,504,307          2,534,931
         OF ARIZONA...................
        KLH008  SAN CARLOS APACHE               2,672,645          2,737,206
         TRIBE........................
                                       -------------------------------------
          Subtotal....................          6,130,356          6,276,241
                                       -------------------------------------
          Total Corrections Funding            10,980,760         13,311,230
           for District 3.............
                                       =====================================
    District.--4:
        M0L400  DISTRICT 4 CORRECTIONS            354,465            385,466
        M0L450  UTE MOUNTAIN UTE                1,592,091          2,064,568
         DETENTION....................
                                       -------------------------------------
          Subtotal....................          1,946,556          2,450,034
                                       -------------------------------------
    District.--4  638 Tribal Programs:
        KLM005  PUEBLO OF LAGUNA......            239,339            246,162
        KLM014  PUEBLO OF ZUNI........            734,559            753,760
        KLM016  NAVAJO NATION.........          2,654,807          2,785,633
                                       -------------------------------------
          Subtotal....................          3,628,705          3,785,555
                                       -------------------------------------
    District.--4  Self-Governance
     Programs:
        D4  Pueblo of Taos............             29,450             29,450
                                       -------------------------------------
          Subtotal....................             29,450             29,450
                                       -------------------------------------
          Total Corrections Funding             5,604,711          6,265,039
           District 4.................
                                       =====================================
    District.--5:
        C0L400  DISTRICT 5 CORRECTIONS            275,905            340,899
        C0L410  CROW DETENTION........            360,648            634,391
        C0L420  NORTHERN CHEYENNE               1,803,484          1,931,064
         DETENTION....................
        C0L430  WIND RIVER DETENTION..            400,034            633,628
        C0L450  SPOKANE DETENTION.....            355,299            562,452
        C0L480  BLACKFEET DETENTION...            345,941            670,765
                                       -------------------------------------
          Subtotal....................          3,541,311          4,773,199
                                       -------------------------------------
    District.--5  638 Tribal Programs:
        KLC001  BLACKFEET TRIBAL                  243,437            250,101
         BUSINESS COUNCIL.............
        KLC002  FT. BELKNAP COMMUNITY              77,724             79,618
         COUNCIL......................
        KLC003  ASSINBOINE AND SIOUX            1,700,579          1,743,130
         TRIBE FORT PECK..............
        KLC004  CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF          2,452,778          2,500,260
         COLVILLE.....................
        KLC006  CHEHALIS BUSINESS                   7,967              7,967
         COUNCIL......................
        KLC010  CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF            201,432            206,858
         WARM SPRINGS.................
        KLC018  YAKAMA TRIBAL COUNCIL.            404,092            404,092
        KLC021  SHOSONE BANNOCK (Fort             360,208            372,407
         Hall)........................
                                       -------------------------------------
          Subtotal....................          5,448,217          5,564,433
                                       -------------------------------------
    District.--5  Self-Governance
     Program:
        D5  Nisqually.................            350,000            350,000
                                       -------------------------------------
          Subtotal....................            350,000            350,000
                                       -------------------------------------
          Total District 5 Corrections          9,339,528         10,687,632
           Funding....................
                                       =====================================
    District.--6  638 Tribal Program
        KLS016  MISSISSIPPI BAND OF             2,316,574          2,316,574
         CHOCTAW INDIANS..............
                                       -------------------------------------
          Total District 6 Corrections          2,316,574          2,316,574
           Funding....................
                                       -------------------------------------
          Total Corrections Funding...         49,694,684         59,043,832
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                     ______

                  Questions Submitted by Senator Thad Cochran

        Question. Three years post-Hurricane Katrina, the Gulf Islands
    National Seashore is still suffering from a lack of facilities. It has
    come to my attention that fewer funds are being directed to this area,
    and that the Mississippi Gulf Coast is subject to downsizing
    facilities, rangers, and equipment. It is troubling that no
    construction has begun to replace shade areas or restrooms for Ship
    Island, which despite maintaining few temporary structures, continues
    to be a popular tourist spot on the Gulf Coast. Why does the Park
    Service feel it necessary to downsize Mississippi's presence within the
    Gulf Islands National Seashore?
        Answer. Recovery work following Hurricane Katrina continues to this
    day in multiple parks throughout the southeast. The project on Ship
    Island has undergone several changes since it was initiated. In the
    aftermath of the hurricanes in 2005, initial estimates were used to
    guide the planning for replacement facilities. As planning and design
    progressed, estimates have been firmed-up.
        In addition, in accordance with the DOI and NPS regulations and
    government-wide policies, a value analysis study was conducted on
    multiple Hurricane Katrina projects, including West Ship Islands
    Buildings. Efficiencies discovered allowed for a reduction of more than
    4,500 square feet from the original complex. We do not believe we are
    downsizing our presence but rather taking this opportunity to address
    needs in the most efficient manner possible.
        The final project including scope modifications was permitted by
    the Regional Office, and was presented to the NPS Director's Advisory
    Board in November 2007. The board recommended approval.
        The scope of the project includes 10 structures totaling 9,580
    square feet at a cost of $2,876,695. The project is currently being
    reviewed for approval by the Development Advisory Board.
        Question. The National Park Service's National Heritage Area
    program is proposed to decrease by $8 million, from last year's enacted
    amount. I have introduced legislation creating two Heritage Areas
    recently, and I understand there are very few administrative staff
    assisting this program. How is the National Park Service working to
    improve this program, with far fewer funds than necessary?
        Answer. The administration requested a reduction of funding to
    support national heritage areas based upon the lack of comprehensive
    heritage program legislation that contains clear criteria for
    designating new areas and establishes clear timelines for phasing out
    Federal support for long-established areas. Without such legislatively
    enacted parameters, there may be as many as 15 newly authorized
    heritage areas by October 1, 2008, and perhaps as many as 100 areas
    within the next few years. The Service will provide technical
    assistance and advice to heritage areas, with priority given to
    assistance with cooperative agreements, site visits to established
    areas, management planning, and liaison between the National Heritage
    Areas and other National Park Service staff, including planners and
    park staff in adjacent National Park System units. The Service will
    also distribute available funding based on a merit-based system, after
    ensuring new areas have sufficient funds to complete their management
    plans.

                             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 11:45 a.m., Tuesday, April 15, 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 2009

                                  ----------

                                           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 Alamo Navajo School Board, Inc.
        Honorable Chairman: Please accept this expression of our concerns
    about the information circulated by the Department of Interior related
    to the fiscal year 2009 budget requests in a brochure entitled Bureau
    Highlights-Indian Affairs (no date) (BH-79 to BH-88). Our specific
    interests are in the budget requests for Indian Education listed by
    Interior as 31 percent of the operation of Indian Programs. Having
    reviewed the document carefully, we are significantly disappointed; we
    will be adversely served, if the plan is implemented as described; and
    we are quite confused by contradictions, illogical statements, and
    poorly framed reasons for some proposed actions. For example, the
    Interior Department proposed ``. . . to dedicate $5.2 million to
    enhance education programs at lower performing schools.'' (p. BH-82)
    These funds would not be distributed through the Indian School
    Equalization Formula (ISEF). However, their source is not evident. Is
    it a budget increase, or a transfer of funds from other accounts? If
    these funds, or any portion of them are taken from ISEF, it would lower
    the per-student amount for distribution, thus adversely affecting
    contract and grant schools' basic funding as well BIE schools. Any loss
    of basic school operational funding is unacceptable. Additionally, if
    BIE dedicates $5.2 million as supplemental aid, for hiring education
    specialist, tutoring, et cetera, because certain BIE operated schools
    have not achieved Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP), it would be
    appropriate if a proportionate ratio of similar funds were requested
    for contract and grant schools because they have the same kinds of
    needs and for the same reasons.
        In the mission statement, Interior asserts that, ``The mission of
    BIE is to provide quality education opportunities from early childhood
    through life.'' (p. BH-79) Yet, in the section discussing ``Improving
    Indian Education (p.BH 81-82), the request for funding tribal
    scholarships is reduced by $5.9 million in order to shift focus to its
    core responsibility of operating the BIA school system. Students that
    graduate from our high school already have to compete for tribal
    scholarships. Any reductions in scholarship funds means that more
    graduates in the Class of 2009-2010 will be denied the opportunity to
    attain higher education goals. It makes the phrase ``from early
    childhood through life'' ring very hollow.
        The BIE estimates that five tribes will apply for grants to operate
    their own schools in fiscal year 2009. Additional funding of $1.5
    million was added to its request as a result. However, their
    presentation goes on to explain that ``. . . the increase will be used
    primarily for the costs associated with the displacement of employees
    who do not continue to work at the school . . . .'' No mention is made
    of how the additional administrative costs, that each new grant will
    incur, will be funded. If no new funding is requested by BIA for these
    new grant schools for administrative purposes, current contract and
    grant schools, such as Alamo Navajo School, will face additional
    shortages for their administrative costs, already insufficient at 72
    per cent of need. Information relayed to us from reliable sources
    suggests that BIE already knows that the funds to supply administrative
    costs grants to all schools fully are insufficient.
        As it has for the past few years, the administration calls for the
    elimination of Johnson O'Malley (JOM) funding of $21.4 million,
    describing these grants as ``. . . duplicative of grants available to
    Tribes from the Department of Education.''(p. BH-83) Their attempt to
    eliminate the JOM program in fiscal year 2008 met Congressional
    resistance and congress continued to fund it. The House Committee
    report reprimanded the Administration by saying, ``The feckless
    justification for the termination of this program--that Department of
    Education programs can take the place of these grants--has never been
    substantiated or explained to any level of adequacy. The Committee
    implores the Administration to include this program in future
    requests.'' (emphases added) (HRpt. 110-187, p. 70). At Alamo Navajo
    School, JOM funds provide salaries for a home/school community liaison
    who plays a key role in improving students' school attendance; in
    keeping parents and the community-at-large informed about school
    policies, activities, and special events; in providing valuable
    cultural/traditional instruction and learning opportunities; and in
    assisting instructional staff in group activities, such as field trips.
    The funds also provide 3- and 4-year-old children with radio programs
    of an educational nature, such as Sesame Street, with booklets for
    parents and follow-up activities, which address the mission statement
    of the program and of the BIE. Without JOM funding, we would be forced
    to discharge a valuable local staff member and would experience a
    severe impact on our radio programming for young children in those most
    formative years and parents who benefit from the help in preparing
    their children for kindergarten and beyond in language acquisition and
    multi-cultural understanding.
        Concomitantly, Early Childhood Development Programs are to be
    reduced by $2,754 million and limited to Family and Child Education
    (FACE) for pre-school children. From ANSB's perspective, this request
    appears to be shortsighted and inadequate because it does not take into
    account the long period of time that this successful program, FACE, has
    been funded. The FACE program goes well back in to the 1990s and,
    through all of these years, its funding level has been relatively flat.
    Year after year, ANSB received practically the same amount each year,
    regardless of the significant changes and influences to be dealt with,
    such as requirements for more highly trained, licensed personnel;
    increased numbers of participants necessitating more materials and
    additional staff. The pre-school target population presents one of the
    best opportunities for reaching developing children's capabilities.
    Funding levels to support such opportunities and potential development
    should be increased in proportion to changes in socio-economic
    conditions, to technological advances, and to increased knowledge of
    health and human development.
        The BIE requests $46,912 million for Student Transportation for
    fiscal year 2009, a reduction of $932,000 from the fiscal year 2008
    enacted budget. The cause for concern here is that the rate-per-mile
    formula and procedure historically has not provided sufficient funding
    to operate and maintain our school's buses, which results in ANSB
    having to use regular ISEF program funds to supplement its
    transportation budget. It seems ironic that the cost of getting
    students to the school results in having fewer or reduced learning
    opportunities when they get there. Our hope, realizing that it is
    unlikely that an increase in the school transportation budget can be
    obtained, is that the fiscal year 2008 level of funding can be
    maintained for fiscal year 2009.
        Thank you for your attention and for your consideration of our
    concerns. We know that, as you have demonstrated to us so many times in
    the past, you will act in the best interests of our children, of our
    State, and of our Nation.
                                     ______

     Prepared Statement of the Aleutian/Pribilof Islands Association, Inc.

        The principal concern of the Aleutian/Pribilof Islands Association,
    Inc. (APIA) with respect to the Indian Health Service (IHS) proposed
    budget for fiscal year 2009 is the continued significant underfunding
    of both program and administrative costs for the operation of the St.
    Paul Health Center, which was completed in the fall of 2005. Our
    request is:
      --IHS funding for the St. Paul Health Center of $555,957 of which at
            least $253,541 must be available to pay indirect costs of
            operating the health center.
      --A significant increase in IHS contract support dollars.
      --Provision that the increase in contract support dollars be
            available to address the contract support requirements of new
            and expanded programs.
        St. Paul Island is located, as this subcommittee knows, in the
    Bering Sea and it is almost 1,000 air miles away from our nearest
    referral center in Anchorage. It is also the only Health Center in the
    most dangerous fisheries area in the country. APIA must serve a huge
    influx of seasonal fisheries workers and our staff must be of a caliber
    to handle major disasters with no ready assistance. Our population
    balloons to over 2,000 during the fishing seasons. Due to the dangerous
    nature of fishing in the Bering Sea, many of our cases are of an
    emergency nature--for instance, we have provided emergency response
    services for shipwrecks, explosions, and fishing-related injuries. In
    addition to the large numbers of persons--Native and non-Native--who
    fish in our waters, we also attend to emergency health needs of the
    many people who visit our area for bird watching. We are, in fact,
    ``the only act in town'' when it comes to health care, and thus we need
    to be as self-sufficient as possible in the provision of health care.
        As noted in our testimony submitted to this subcommittee on March
    18, 2005, the Indian Health Service, in preparing the budget for fiscal
    year 2006, made a mistake as to when the health center would be
    completed and ready to operate. APIA had been notified by our IHS
    project manager in a letter dated February 17, 2005, that the center
    would be completed and ready to operate by September 30, 2005. However,
    when submitting the budget for fiscal year 2006 IHS assumed that the
    center would operate for only one quarter in fiscal year 2006 and asked
    only $260,000 in program funds as against $1.4 million required for a
    full year. We are grateful that the Indian Health Service responded to
    our request by providing some one-time funds in fiscal year 2006 to
    help bridge this gap until funding was provided in fiscal year 2007.
    However, the lack of the additional funding to cover contract support
    costs has had a remarkably devastating impact on our ability to provide
    the services envisioned when planning and construction of this facility
    first occurred. This has had a demoralizing affect on the staff and
    community of St. Paul Island.
        The failure to fund contract support costs for the health center in
    full has a complex history. During fiscal year 2006 IHS was able to
    locate $1,097,584 to allocate for additional program funds to permit
    the operation of the new center. APIA has expressed its gratitude
    already to IHS for the effort it took to locate these funds and permit
    the opening of the center. However, before releasing the program funds
    to APIA, IHS insisted that we amend our fiscal year 2006 funding
    agreement (Funding Agreement 58G950030, Amendment 5) under the Alaska
    Tribal Health Compact to agree that we would not be entitled in 2006 to
    any contract support funding to support administrative costs of the new
    facility.
        We feel that this seemingly draconian demand by IHS violates both
    the letter and the spirit of Title V of the Indian Self-Determination
    Act (ISDA) under which our IHS-funded health program operates. We
    understand that the IHS lead negotiator's position on this issue was
    one that he felt he could not compromise without compromising the
    agency; likewise we felt that we needed to agree to this language in
    order to receive the limited funding appropriated for our staffing
    package. As a result of IHS's refusal to provide for the administrative
    overhead at St. Paul, as well as the failure to fund the full program
    funding planned ($1.4 million), we have been able to open the center
    but not to provide the level of service for which it is designed. Our
    23.1 percent overhead rate negotiated with the Department of Health and
    Human Services must be paid from the amount of funding provided to
    programs in the clinic which results in a real reduction of $253,541
    below the reduced program funding. Thus we have for operation of the
    clinic $555,957 less than we should have. As a result, in the new
    center we provide to the people of St. Paul about the same level of
    service which was provided in the old, outdated facility, it just looks
    better.
        Specifically, we have not been able to: fill two FTE midlevel
    provider staff positions, fill one FTE Contract Medical Services
    Director, expand Dental Health access by two visits/year, provide case
    management for our chronic care patients, provide travel access funds
    for patients requiring specialty services and emergency medevac
    transport, pay for biomedical support for new equipment, expand our IT
    capacity for the new health center, and provide administrative support
    necessary to ensure quality care is provided.
        Most of the funds received have first gone to support increased
    facilities expenses including heat and other utilities, routine
    maintenance, benchstock, specialty subcontract facilities operations
    and engineering expenses. Very little is left over for actual provision
    of medical services to optimize the use of this beautiful new facility.
    In fact, we have had to seek and rely on non-recurring non-IHS grant
    funds to meet some of our short-term needs for this new facility.
        Continuing litigation on the question of whether the ISDA requires
    the payment of contract support funds by the Bureau of Indian Affairs
    and IHS and the present IHS position that it will pay no contract
    support funding appropriated by Congress (even where the fiscal year
    2008 appropriation statute states that up to $5,000,000 of the amount
    appropriated to IHS may be expended for new or expanded contracts)
    leaves it very uncertain as to whether APIA is barred or not from
    receiving full contract support funding. IHS has told APIA that its
    contract support deficiency will be alleviated by allocating all
    shortfall funding to ongoing contracts and nothing to a program
    expansion either for fiscal year 2007 or fiscal year 2008. It has not
    worked out that way so far. The effect of fiscal year 2007 funding
    distribution of contract support funds based on IHS' own figures was to
    reduce APIA's level of contract support need funded from 75.12 percent
    in fiscal year 2006 to 70.96 percent in fiscal year 2007. The total
    amount of our funding agreement was reduced by $105,694 from 2006 to
    2007. Now in fiscal year 2008, APIA is renegotiating its indirect rate
    to be at 39.1 percent based on increased costs, most of which relates
    to facilities costs and higher energy expenses. This creates an even
    greater shortfall that will need to come out of program dollars.
        We therefore turn to the Congress to address this injustice at
    least in fiscal year 2009 by (1) appropriating a significant increase
    in contract support dollars and (2) providing that the increase will be
    available to address the contract support requirements of new and
    expanded programs, including programs like APIA's new St. Paul Health
    Center which came into operation in fiscal year 2006. This action will
    require the IHS to correct the gross injustice which it inflicted on
    the Native Village of St. Paul by requiring the health services budget
    for the new center to absorb all administrative costs based on APIA's
    negotiated indirect cost rate. Congress made very clear its intent that
    such costs should be paid for over and above the sums which would be
    used by APIA to provide the same services. See 25 U.S.C.  450 j-1. IHS
    claims that it is unable to treat APIA fairly in accordance with this
    statute because Congress has failed to provide appropriations
    consistent with the wording of the statute. We are left with no
    alternative therefore but to appeal to you to make it possible for the
    new health center to provide the level of services which the IHS and
    Congress intended it to provide when its construction was approved.
        We have brought this particular matter to your attention as it is a
    high priority of our organization and of the Native Village of St.
    Paul. In addition, we support the testimony of the Alaska Native Health
    Board on the need to increase funding for health services in Alaska,
    especially to fully fund contract support.
        Thank you.
                                     ______

    Prepared Statement of the Alliance for Community Trees; American Forest
    Foundation; American Forests; American Nursery & Landscape Association;
     The Hardwood Federation; Michigan United Conservation Clubs; National
     Association of State Foresters; National Plant Board; The Ohio State
    University, Department of Entomology; Purdue University, Department of
      Entomology; Society of American Foresters; The Nature Conservancy;
     Union of Concerned Scientists; and the University of Georgia, Center
                    for Invasive Species & Ecosystem Health

        We urge the Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related
    Agencies to appropriate adequate funding for the USDA Forest Service to
    manage non-native insects and plant diseases that threaten America's
    forests. We recommend an fiscal year 2009 appropriation of $123 million
    for the USDA Forest Service Forest Health Management Program. This
    level is about $44 million above the administration's request and
    approximately equivalent to the current level of funding. We appreciate
    your leadership in past years in securing funding for this vital
    program at levels significantly above the administration's request.
        Our proposed funding level would maintain the program's current
    level. Under the administration's request, funding for programs vital
    to protecting America's forests from such highly damaging introduced
    insects and diseases as the emerald ash borer, sudden oak death,
    hemlock woolly adelgid would be reduced by two-thirds or more; funding
    for the Asian long-horned beetle would be eliminated altogether.
    Funding targeting the Sirex woodwasp and gypsy moth would be reduced by
    almost two-thirds. The Forest Health Management program also counters
    other introduced insects that have attracted less attention, but that
    still cause significant damage to America's forests. These include
    Laurel wilt, which is killing redbay and sassafras trees in coastal
    Georgia and South Carolina; and several insects and pathogens on the
    islands of Hawaii and Guam.
        Maintaining current funding levels would also enable the USDA
    Forest Service to continue vital support for the pest eradication and
    containment programs carried out by the USDA Animal and Plant Health
    Inspection Service. Forest Service expertise in the pests' biology and
    detection and management methodology is crucial to the success of these
    programs. Failure to complete eradication of the Asian longhorned
    beetle will expose to destruction hardwood forests reaching from New
    England into Minnesota and smaller areas of the West. Particularly
    threatened are the hardwood timber, maple syrup, and autumn foliage
    tourism industries of the Northeast, and street trees across the Nation
    valued at $600 billion.
        The threat posed by the emerald ash borer is particularly critical.
    If its spread from the upper Midwest to the rest of the country is not
    prevented, it is will cause losses of urban trees worth as much as $60
    billion. Losses to the timber industry would be $25 billion in Eastern
    states. It is vitally important that the Forest Service effort
    targeting this insect not be reduced.
        The USDA Forest Service has the lead responsibility for detecting
    and responding to any outbreaks of sudden oak death in the hardwood
    forests of the East. These detection programs must not be halted as the
    risk of this pathogen being spread by infected nursery plants has not
    been eliminated. Furthermore, greater vigilance is needed to prevent
    introductions from Europe or elsewhere of other pathogens threatening
    to cause similar levels of damage.
        Finally, the Forest Health Management Program needs adequate
    funding to expand its Early Detection project. This program has been
    responsible for detecting more than a dozen introduced insects,
    including two which threaten the economically important pine forests of
    the Southeast: the Sirex woodwasp and Mediterranean pine beetle. Steady
    or increasing funding is necessary to expand this program to cover all
    states and to develop and deploy methodologies to detect the highly
    damaging wood-boring beetles.
        We recommend an increase of $3 million above the President's
    request for the ``Invasives R&D'' line item within the Forest Service
    Research program. This would permit maintaining at approximately
    current levels research aimed at improving detection and control
    methods for the Emerald Ash Borer, Hemlock Woolly Adelgid, sudden oak
    death (also called the phytophthora leaf and stem blight pathogen),
    gypsy moth, and other non-native forest pests and diseases. Funding at
    our recommended level would also allow expanded research on the Sirex
    woodwasp, which poses a serious threat to pine resources across the
    continent.
        The agency bearing the principal responsibility for eradicating
    newly introduced forest pests is not the USDA Forest Service, but
    rather the USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), an
    agency under the jurisdiction of the Agriculture Appropriations
    subcommittee. The USDA Forest Service plays a critical support role by
    providing both management expertise and critical research.
    Nevertheless, the subcommittee cannot achieve its goal of protecting
    the Nation's forests' health as long as funding shortfalls undermine
    USDA APHIS eradication programs. We encourage the subcommittee to work
    with the Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee to find ways to
    increase funding for forest pest line items in the USDA APHIS Emerging
    Plant Pest account.
                                     ______

               Prepared Statement of the Alliance to Save Energy

        The Alliance to Save Energy (``the Alliance'') is a bipartisan,
    nonprofit coalition of business, government, environmental, and
    consumer leaders committed to promoting 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 Honorary Chairman; Duke Energy President and CEO James E. Rogers is
    the Co-Chairman; Representatives Ralph Hall, Zach Wamp, Steve Israel,
    and Ed Markey, and Senators Jeff Bingaman, Susan Collins, Larry Craig
    and Byron Dorgan serve as Honorary Vice-Chairs. More than 145 companies
    and organizations support the Alliance as Associates.
        The Alliance 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 United States Environmental
    Protection Agency. We are requesting that the subcommittee approve
    funding in the amount of $100 million for the EPA Energy Star Program
    in fiscal year 2009, for the benefits set forth below.
        I am pleased to submit testimony in support of one of the most
    successful voluntary Federal programs which has achieved a market
    transformation by enabling consumers to find and purchase energy-
    efficient products, buildings and services by awarding the well
    recognized ``Energy Star'' label. Energy Star is a completely voluntary
    partnership program which has successfully removed marketplace barriers
    to existing and emerging technologies, provided information on
    technology opportunities, generated awareness of energy-efficient
    products and services, and educated consumers about life-cycle energy
    and cost-savings. The Energy Star program is working with companies,
    States, utilities, and others to deliver energy efficiency into our
    homes, commercial buildings, and industry The program helps consumers
    understand the benefits through lower energy bills of paying a modest
    additional cost for purchasing more efficient, smarter technologies.
        Energy Star's voluntary partnership program--which includes Energy
    Star Buildings, Energy Star Homes, Energy Star Small Businesses, and
    Energy Star Labeled Products--has made a significant contribution to
    reducing consumer energy use, however a wide array of important,
    additional opportunities to use the program to promote energy
    efficiency remain unfulfilled. Considering the rapidly escalating
    energy prices and concerns about electricity reliability, natural gas
    supplies, and air pollution and global warming, it makes little sense
    to decrease funding for a successful program that makes a significant
    down payment every year in reducing the carbon footprint.
        Increased investment by the Federal Government in the Energy Star
    Program will translate to increased energy savings. The EPA has
    estimated 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. That's an impressive return on investment for
    $1 in Federal spending.
        The Alliance to Save Energy has consistently advocated doubling the
    funding for Energy Star over the next 5 years, to enable the program to
    label additional products, update its criteria, increase consumer
    education campaigns, and address energy efficient home improvements
    nationwide. This year, at a very minimum, we strongly urge you to
    reject the recommended cut in funding for EPA Energy Star and fund the
    program at last year's appropriated level. But we strongly urge you to
    go beyond merely keeping the program level funded.
        The Alliance urges the Subcommittee to consider the following
    program areas where we recommend increased funding:
      --Expanded program on energy-inefficient existing homes.
      --Expanded energy performance ratings systems to all building types
      --Expanded program for medium and small manufacturing and small
            business;
      --Expanded program at the K through 12 level;
      --New program for emerging utilities and other energy efficiency
            program sponsors in energy efficiency program development and
            implementation
      --Expanded outreach to State and local governments
      --Exploring new technologies and practices
        Specifically, the Alliance to Save Energy recommends that our
    requested $55 million in increased funding (over the administration-
    requested funding level of $44.2 million in fiscal year 2009) be
    directed at the following programs:
      --Expanded program on Nation's energy-inefficient existing homes
            (beyond products).--Homeowners can save 10 to 20 percent on
            their home energy bills--which now average $1,900 a year--with
            a set of new ENERGY STAR programs that go beyond the labeling
            of efficient products. [$12.5 million] These include:
        --Home Performance with ENERGY STAR.--A whole home retrofit
                program--that can be offered by a State, utility or other
                local program sponsor in partnership with EPA--that
                provides homeowners with trained building professionals,
                information on the best home improvement projects for their
                home, and QA/QC on the work performed in their home. This
                program is being offered in a dozen locations around the
                country and is providing homeowners with 20 percent savings
                on average on their home energy bills. Additional funding
                would bring this program to many more cities and homeowners
                around the country and help improve the building envelopes
                (going beyond the products in the home) of millions of
                post-1950 homes, among others, that were built prior to
                building codes and other energy efficiency policies.
        --Quality Installation of Heating and Cooling Equipment.--EPA and
                its partners would expand its program to improve the
                installation and maintenance of heating and cooling
                equipment, in concert with utilities and other program
                partners. Many air conditioners are oversized and
                improperly installed so that consumers receive low
                efficiency and pay high bills even with a high efficiency
                unit. Energy demand for air conditioners is a high cost for
                consumers and drives the need for new power plants.
                Programs to effectively address installation and
                maintenance have just been developed and piloted.
                Additional funding would spread these program models
                broadly across the country.
      --Expanded Energy Performance Rating Systems for the Nation's
            Buildings.--Information on energy use per square foot is
            powerful in motivating energy efficiency improvements for
            buildings. EPA has established an energy performance rating
            system that offers standardized, consistent measurement that
            applies to more than 60 percent of U.S. commercial building
            space, and this system has already been used to assess the
            energy use of about 10 percent of U.S. building space.
            Additional funding could expand this system to apply to the
            vast majority of the Nation's buildings and help EPA partner
            with States, local governments, builders and other
            organizations in its use. [$7.5 million]
      --Expanded Focus on Medium and Small Manufacturing and Small
            Business.--EPA has developed a sector approach for working with
            medium-sized manufacturers and an approach for providing
            assistance to diverse small businesses. These efforts could be
            greatly expanded. ENERGY STAR could enlist many small
            businesses as partners in the proper delivery/installation of
            high efficiency services and products since small businesses
            constitute about half the economy and consume about half the
            energy. [$10 million]
      --Outreach to Utilities, States, Local Governments, Elementary and
            Secondary Education and Other Energy Efficiency Program
            Sponsors in Program Development and Implementation.--EPA
            already partners with hundreds of utilities, States, local
            governments and other organizations as they run efficiency
            programs. There is growing interest at the State level in
            funding organized energy efficiency programs when energy
            efficiency costs less than new generation. The ENERGY STAR
            energy efficiency platform can assist these emerging program
            sponsors in developing programs quickly and based on existing
            best practices for overall greater effectiveness and cost-
            effectiveness. There should also be expanded outreach for
            programs at the K through 12 level of elementary and secondary
            education. [$10 million]
      --Expanded Outreach to State and Local Governments.--State and local
            governments can save significantly through energy efficiency.
            State and local governments could dramatically enhance
            attractive investments in energy efficiency through expanded
            outreach and sharing of best practice policies and programs,
            including improving the efficiency of water and wastewater
            treatment facilities, alternative financing approaches,
            effective school energy efficiency programs, etc. Matching
            funds for innovative State programs could be established. [$10
            million]
      --Exploring new Technologies and Practices.--Technologies are
            advancing quickly in many areas and offer new opportunities to
            improve the efficiency of new homes, buildings, and products.
            There are large benefits to achieve by increasing EPA's ability
            to look at emerging technologies and focus earlier in the
            technology development process on how best to bring them into
            the ENERGY STAR program and deploy them in the marketplace. [$5
            million]
        Energy efficiency is the quickest, cheapest, and cleanest way to
    address the linked issues of energy prices, energy security, air
    pollution, and global warming. With strong public policies and adequate
    Federal funding, this resource can be more widely and quickly deployed
    to help address the critical energy and environmental imperatives the
    United States faces today. The EPA Energy Star program is a shining
    example of a voluntary Federal partnership program that works and
    produces quantifiable benefits for consumers in terms of lower energy
    bills, and to our beleaguered planet in terms of the promotion of clean
    technology and products.
        The administration's fiscal year 2009 budget fails to provide the
    funding necessary to match the national imperative to create a
    sustainable energy future. Once again, we must rely upon the Congress
    to provide adequate funding for proven initiatives like the EPA Energy
    Star Program. On behalf of the Alliance to Save Energy, I strongly urge
    the subcommittee to approve $100 million in funding for the EPA Energy
    Star Program in fiscal year 2009.
                                     ______

     Prepared Statement of the American Association of Petroleum Geologists

        To the Chair and members of the subcommittee: Thank you for this
    opportunity to provide testimony on behalf of the American Association
    of Petroleum Geologists (AAPG) about the importance of the geological
    programs conducted by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS).
        AAPG, an international geoscience organization, is the world's
    largest professional geological society representing over 33,000
    members. The purpose of AAPG is to advance the science of geology,
    foster scientific research, promote technology and advance the well-
    being of its members. With members in 116 countries, more than two-
    thirds of whom work and reside in the United States, AAPG serves as a
    voice for the shared interests of energy geologists and geophysicists
    in our profession worldwide. Included among its members are numerous
    CEOs, managers, directors, independent/consulting geoscientists,
    Federal and State regulators, educators, researchers and students.
        AAPG strives to increase public awareness of the crucial role that
    the geosciences, and particularly petroleum geology, play in our
    society. The USGS is crucial to meeting these societal needs, and
    several of its programs deserve special attention by the Subcommittee.

                         GEOLOGIC RESOURCE ASSESSMENTS

    Energy Resources Program
        The USGS Energy Resources Program (ERP) conducts both basic and
    applied geoscience research focused on geologic energy resources (both
    domestic and international), including oil, natural gas, coal, coalbed
    methane, gas hydrates, geothermal, oil shale, and bitumen and heavy
    oil. ERP also conducts research on the environmental, economic, and
    human health impacts of the production and use of these resources. This
    research provides both the public and private sectors with vital
    information.
        An urgent problem that the ERP is currently working on is the
    preservation of geological and geophysical data. The Energy Policy Act
    of 2005 (EPACT 2005, Public Law 109-58) includes section 351
    Preservation of Geological and Geophysical Data. This program is
    designed to preserve geological, geophysical data, and engineering
    data, maps, well logs, and samples. It further envisages creating a
    national catalog of this archival material, and providing technical and
    financial assistance related to the archival material. As the act
    stipulated, the USGS has developed a plan to conduct this program, and
    is ready to go. It awaits sufficient appropriated funds to achieve the
    goals and objectives set forth in EPACT 2005.
        Why is preservation important? Responsible management and efficient
    development of natural resources requires access to the best available
    scientific information. Over many years industry, such as petroleum and
    mining companies, has invested billions of dollars to acquire
    geological and geophysical data. Because of changing company focus and
    economic conditions this data may no longer have value to the company
    that acquired it, and is in jeopardy of being discarded.
        But this data still has value to society. The data is valuable for
    further natural resources exploration and development, and can be
    applied to basic and applied earth systems research, environmental
    remediation, and natural-hazard mitigation. It is the type of data that
    will enable future generations of scientists and policy makers to
    address the Nation's energy, environmental, and natural-hazard
    challenges of the 21st century.
        The EPACT 2005 section 351 program was authorized at $30 million
    from fiscal year 2006 through fiscal year 2010. The fiscal year 2008
    allocation for this program is $1 million, just over 3 percent of
    authorized levels. Funding for previous fiscal years was even lower.
    These funding levels are insufficient to achieve this program's
    objectives.
        AAPG urges the subcommittee to fund existing Energy Resources
    Program activities at a minimum level of $26.6 million as the
    Administration requested, and to additionally appropriate $30 million
    authorized by EPACT 2005 for the preservation of geological and
    geophysical data, bringing the total Energy Resource Program budget to
    at least $56.6 million.

    Mineral Resources Program
        The USGS Mineral Resources Program (MRP) is the only Federal source
    for comprehensive information and analysis of mineral commodities and
    mineral materials. The United States is the world's largest consumer of
    mineral commodities, and processed materials of mineral origin
    accounted for over $575 billion of the U.S. economy in 2007.
        It is therefore essential to this Nation's economic and national
    security that the Federal Government understands both the domestic and
    international supply and demand for minerals and mineral materials.
    This data is used throughout government (Departments of Commerce,
    Interior, Defense, and State; the Central Intelligence Agency; the
    Federal Reserve) and the private sector. There is no other source for
    this data and information.
        Yet, the President's fiscal year 2009 budget request calls for a
    $24.5 million cut in the MRP budget, reducing it by nearly 50 percent.
    The impact of such a dramatic reduction would be the elimination of 210
    of the 334 currently occupied scientific and technical positions in the
    program. At a time when we are seeing dramatic growth in demand for
    mineral commodities, such action is unwise.
        AAPG urges the Subcommittee to reject the Administration's proposed
    funding cut and appropriate funds for the Mineral Resources Program at
    fiscal year 2005 appropriated levels of $54 million.

                    GEOLOGIC LANDSCAPE & COASTAL ASSESSMENTS

    National Cooperative Geologic Mapping Program
        AAPG supports the National Cooperative Geologic Mapping Program
    (NCGMP). This unique partnership between the Federal and State
    governments and the university community further demonstrates of the
    importance of geoscience to society. The geologic maps produced by this
    program are used for natural resource management, natural hazard
    mitigation, water resource management, environmental conservation and
    remediation, and land-use planning.
        NCGMP deserves special commendation for its EDMAP initiative. This
    university partnership enables students, working in a close mentoring
    relationship with faculty, to produce maps while learning essential
    mapping skills. As such, the program delivers an immediate return on
    the Federal investment in terms of beneficial maps, as well as a future
    return in the form of a trained and competent next generation
    workforce.
        AAPG supports the President's fiscal year 2009 request for $27.4
    million for the National Cooperative Geologic Mapping Program, and
    urges the Subcommittee to consider further increases to this program.
        Thank you for the opportunity to present this testimony to the
    Subcommittee. And thank you for your leadership and support for the
    geosciences. As you deliberate appropriate funding levels for these
    USGS programs, please consider the important public policy implications
    these choices entail.
        If you would like additional information for the record, please
    contact me at AAPG's Geoscience and Energy Office--Washington, D.C. at
    202-684-8225, fax 703-379-7563, or 4220 King Street, Alexandria, VA
    22302.
                                     ______

         Prepared Statement of the American Forest & Paper Association

        On behalf of the American Forest & Paper Association (AF&PA), I am
    pleased to submit the following testimony regarding the fiscal year
    2009 Forest Service budget. AF&PA is the national trade association of
    the forest products industry, representing forest landowners, pulp,
    paper, paperboard, and wood products manufacturers. Our companies are
    in the business of producing products essential for everyday life from
    renewable & recyclable resources that sustain the environment.
        The forest products industry accounts for approximately 6 percent
    of the total U.S. manufacturing output and employs more than a million
    people with an estimated annual payroll exceeding $50 billion. The
    management of the National Forests, key research programs, and programs
    which promote the management of the Nation's private forests are vital
    to the sustainability of our Nation's forests. The forest products
    industry is vitally interested in ensuring that these programs are
    funded at levels that reflect the high priority that forests should
    have as this nation grapples with challenges like climate change,
    mounting wildfire suppression costs, and major economic concerns facing
    the wood products sector. We recommend the following priorities as you
    build a budget for fiscal year 2009:

                          FIX THE FIRE FUNDING PROBLEM

        We believe firmly that a sound forest management program for the
    National Forests should be the foundation of the Forest Service budget.
    In order to achieve this, Congress must find a better way to fund fire
    suppression costs. We are encouraged by efforts in the House to
    establish an ``emergency'' account that can be managed separately from
    the rest of the Forest Service budget, and urge the Senate to take
    similar action. Without that separation, it is extremely unlikely that
    the agency will be able to meaningfully implement a forest management
    program that restores forest health, prevents emissions of significant
    amounts of greenhouse gases, and maintains a strong forest products
    infrastructure.
        The USDA Forest Service is in serious danger of becoming the
    National Fire Service. While firefighting is an important part of the
    agency's history and core mission, the way it is currently funded
    causes severe disruption in the delivery of every resource management
    program. Fire transfers have resulted in the diversion of over $2.2
    billion between 1999 and 2003, with over $450 million of that amount
    never repaid. The Knutson-Vandenberg (K-V) fund lost over $2.3 billion
    since the mid-1980s, with over $150 million transferred from K-V in
    fiscal year 2006 and not repaid.
        Fire suppression costs now make up almost half of the discretionary
    budget for the Forest Service, and many other important programs are
    suffering as a result. We look forward to working with you to enact
    changes in funding large fire costs in a manner which does not raid
    important land management programs. Cost containment measures taken by
    the agency, while critical and needed, are clearly not enough to
    achieve this goal.

     INCREASE FUNDING FOR THE FOREST PRODUCTS PROGRAM AND BEGIN RESTORING
                              DEPLETED TRUST FUNDS

        AF&PA views active forest management as vital to reducing hazardous
    fuel loads and preventing long-term forest health and wildfire
    disasters. Fuels reduction programs are much more effective and cost-
    efficient over the long term when there is a strong forest products
    industry presence. An integrated program that at once addresses fuels
    reduction and stand resilience to disturbance while providing a
    reliable and sustainable supply of wood and fiber is critical to
    sustaining current industry infrastructure. We therefore suggest that
    at least a 5 percent ($16 million) increase over the fiscal year 2008
    enacted level in the forest products line item is needed to implement
    an integrated and sustainable program as called for in forest plans in
    all regions of the country.
        The volume of fiber sold through timber sales is well below
    sustainable harvest levels, and is insufficient both ecologically and
    economically. With Forest Service data indicating that growth exceeds
    harvest five-fold, the lack of active management is exacerbating the
    already dire situation regarding wildfire threats and insect and
    disease epidemics. Economically, diminished industry infrastructure
    hampers the ability of the agency to conduct needed work. While several
    budget line items contribute to the agency's ability to conduct active
    management, the forest products line item is the most significant.
    Sufficient funding for this program would help return the Forest
    Service to a ``forest management'' agency, not a ``fire service''
    agency.
        We appreciate the language that was included in the current fiscal
    year's appropriations omnibus that placed a high priority on regional
    capability in the distribution of forest products funding, and would
    encourage similar language in this year's spending bill. We also value
    this committee's past attention to accountability within the Forest
    Service, and encourage similar language this year directing the agency
    towards greater efficiencies and adherence to performance standards.
        The Forest Service is currently facing significant depletion of its
    trust funds, such as K-V and the Salvage Sale fund. This depletion, as
    well as the agency's growing reforestation backlog, is the direct
    result of wildfires. Reforestation following timber harvest is paid for
    out of receipts from the timber sold. Wildfires, however, create
    immediate reforestation needs and no source of funds to pay for them.
    Over 1 million acres are in need of reforestation because of this.
    Congress can take some initial steps to implement important
    reforestation, rehabilitation, and habitat work by repaying the $159
    million in K-V funds that were transferred for fire borrowing.
        The administration proposes continued reductions in Washington
    Office and Regional Office administrative expenses. We urge the
    committee to hold the agency accountable for these cuts, which have
    been promised in prior years but have, to our knowledge, not
    materialized. Currently, fully 30 percent of forest products funds are
    not reaching the field. If the agency is directed to reduce 25 percent
    of the fiscal year 2009 forest products Washington Office and Regional
    Office funds, this frees up $30 million for program implementation at
    the field level.
        We are also extremely concerned about the language included in the
    Forest Service's budget justification regarding timber markets. The
    Forest Service must not base projected accomplishments on the volatile
    market for lumber, but instead must focus on forest health and sound
    management of its forest lands, and be aware that failure to deliver a
    forest health timber sale program will lead to further mill closures.
    Ultimately, the agency will find itself faced with fewer customers and
    higher costs for land management when the industry infrastructure
    contracts even further. The Congress should direct the agency to
    maximize program outputs given the available budget, while integrating
    hazardous fuels reduction more fully into the program.

      INTEGRATE HAZARDOUS FUELS REDUCTION WITH OTHER LAND MANAGEMENT GOALS

        The hazardous fuels reduction program is a critical component to
    restoring forest health on federal lands. We therefore support a 15
    percent increase ($45 million) over the fiscal year 2008 enacted level
    to the hazardous fuels reduction budget. Where hazardous fuels
    reduction is the primary goal of land management efforts, the Forest
    Service must have the flexibility to use hazardous fuels funds to
    complete projects, including those requiring timber sales to meet
    management objectives. The forest products industry can play a key role
    in reducing hazardous fuels from federal lands. The costs of mechanical
    hazardous fuels reduction are frequently significantly lower in regions
    with a substantial forest products industry presence. The agency must
    take advantage of these synergies.
        It is also critically important that the agency move away from
    using ``acres treated'' as the sole metric of accomplishment in the
    hazardous fuels reduction program. Continued focus on this measure
    incentivizes the agency to treat low priority acres repeatedly, and
    discourages them from treating higher priority forested acres in
    condition class 3. More aggressive pursuit of mechanical treatments,
    including greater use of Healthy Forest Restoration Act authorities,
    will result in treatments that produce usable wood fiber and longer-
    lasting and more meaningful positive impacts on the long-term fire
    problem.

                 MAINTAIN PROGRAMS TO PROTECT PRIVATE FORESTS:

        We are concerned about the proposed reductions for key programs
    such as Cooperative Forest Health, Cooperative Fire Assistance, Forest
    Legacy Roads, Forest Stewardship, and Forest Legacy. We understand the
    budgetary pressures that produced the President's budget proposal, but
    we cannot support these reductions. With ongoing droughts, invasive
    species infestations, and significant forest health problems in many
    corners of the country, these cuts leave valuable private forest
    resources vulnerable to damage from pests or fires that do not respect
    boundary lines between public and private lands. Similarly,
    deteriorating roads in upper watersheds on national forest land will
    ultimately deposit the problem on downstream private lands and streams
    unless corrective actions are funded and applied to all affected areas.
        We urge you to provide funding for these important programs at the
    current level of spending, which represents a minimum need to ensure
    the health of these productive timberlands. Private timberlands provide
    the bulk of the Nation's wood fiber supply, while also sequestering
    huge amounts of carbon from the atmosphere, providing millions of acres
    of wildlife habitat, and supplying clean drinking water for millions of
    Americans. These programs protect these resources from threats that are
    beyond the capability of small landowners to effectively combat.

               FUND CRITICAL RESEARCH ON FORESTS, FOREST PRODUCTS

        Targeted research and data collection is needed to support forest
    productivity, forest health, and economic utilization of fiber.
    Increased funding for the Research and Development budget area is
    needed in order to allow the agency to focus on several critical
    priorities. The Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA) program is the
    backbone of our knowledge about the nation's forests, and is a critical
    tool that allows us to assess their sustainability and health. We are
    concerned about the reduced budget proposed in the President's request
    and urge you to provide funding at the fiscal year 2008 enacted level.
    This level is needed to allow the Forest Service to cover 100 percent
    of U.S. forest lands and expedite data availability and analysis.
        We also recommend increased funding within the Forest Service R&D
    program in support of the Agenda 2020 Technology Alliance. Working in
    partnership with universities and the private sector, Forest Service
    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. Finally,
    we encourage greater support for research on forest products and
    utilization at the Forest Products Lab and Research Stations.
    Innovative wood and fiber utilization research, including
    nanotechnology 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.

                                   CONCLUSION

        Congress must use this year's Forest Service budget as an
    opportunity to create a clear division between fire suppression funding
    and critical natural resource management programs. Congress has
    recognized that catastrophic wildfires are a land management problem,
    but now the next step must be taken. Programs such as hazardous fuels
    reduction and timber management must be protected from raids to pay for
    catastrophic fires. Forest management that reduces fuel loads and
    improves condition class must be a top priority. Forest products
    programs must focus on managing for forest health, not just in fire
    prone forests but in other forest types that benefit from periodic
    harvest. Thank you for the opportunity to provide input on the fiscal
    year 2009 Forest Service budget.
                                     ______

            Prepared Statement of the American Geological Institute

        Thank you for this opportunity to provide the American Geological
    Institute's perspective on fiscal year 2009 appropriations for
    geoscience programs within the subcommittee's jurisdiction. We ask the
    subcommittee to support conservative and fiscally responsible increases
    relative to proposed cuts by the administration for the United States
    Geological Survey (USGS), and the National Park Service within the
    Department of the Interior (DOI). The President's request for fiscal
    year 2009 for DOI is $10.7 billion, which is almost the same as the
    enacted budget of $10.675 billion in fiscal year 2003. Unfortunately,
    DOI continues to suffer from flat to decreasing funding over too many
    years and cannot sustain vital work to understand and manage natural
    resources without wise investments now.
        If the President's request were enacted, the USGS would receive a
    total budget of about $969 million, a nearly 4 percent decrease
    compared to last year's funding. Regrettably, the request proposes
    significant cuts to mineral resources, water programs and hazards
    investigations. The Mineral Resources Program would be cut by more than
    $24 million, Earthquake Hazards would be cut by $5 million and water
    programs would be cut by more than $17 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.
    Specifically, we ask the subcommittee to restore funds to the Mineral
    Resources Program as well as several hazards and water programs and to
    support a $1.3 billion overall budget for USGS. Such a moderate budget
    increase of almost $300 million would allow essential, but consistently
    under funded, programs throughout the agency to fulfill their basic
    mission. Such a request is robustly supported by the 70 organizations
    of the USGS Coalition as well as other stakeholders. AGI is a charter
    member of the USGS Coalition.
        We also seek support for fiscally responsible increases relative to
    proposed cuts for water programs at the Environmental Protection Agency
    (EPA) and research at the Smithsonian Institution as well as support
    for the Geologic Resources Division of the National Park Service. For
    the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the proposed fiscal year
    2009 is $7.1 billion, continuing a steady decline from a budget of $8.4
    billion in fiscal year 2004. The budget would cut more than $318
    million for the clean water programs, brownfields programs, healthy
    ecosystems and watershed grants. The proposed budget would also cut
    more than $11 million from the Smithsonian Institution's budget for
    public programs, exhibitions and research.
        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 sixth 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
    America COMPETES Act 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
    competitiveness initiatives to advance innovation in energy, climate
    change, water resources and hazards mitigation, assess natural resource
    needs, which are the foundation of a strong economy, and ensure
    American competitiveness in science and technology through basic
    geologic and geographic research.
        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. At the same time, the Survey has 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. 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.--The value of domestically processed
    nonfuel mineral resources is estimated to be about $542 billion in 2006
    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. 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 2009
    would decimate the program. It would cost about 200 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 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. 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 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, water resource management, environmental
    remediation, land-use planning, and raw material resource development.
    The program was authorized (Public Law 106-148) to grow from a starting
    level of $28 million in fiscal year 1999 to $64 million in fiscal year
    2005, but did not receive even 10 percent of the annual funding level
    in any given year. AGI strongly supports re-authorization of the
    National Cooperative Geologic Mapping Program at $64 million per year
    over the next 5 years.
        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, Improved
    Seismic Monitoring, estimates that increased seismic monitoring leads
    to increased future savings from the damaging effects of potential
    earthquakes. With great forethought, the Earthquake Hazards Reduction
    Authorization Act of 2000 (Public Law 106-503) 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 and mitigate damage. 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.
        We would like to commend the subcommittee for your leadership in
    securing previous increases for ANSS and ask for full funding in fiscal
    year 2009. The National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP)
    was reauthorized in 2004 (Public Law 108-360) and AGI supports the
    appropriation of full funding of $88.9 million for the USGS component
    of NEHRP in fiscal year 2009 with not less than $36 million of these
    funds for the continued development of ANSS.
        Water Programs.--AGI applauds the proposed increases for a National
    Water Census to be conducted by the USGS as part of the Water for
    America Initiative. Increases for the National Streamflow Information
    and Ground-Water Resources programs as part of the census and to meet
    core mission objectives is excellent. We do request that the proposed
    termination of the State Water Resources Research projects and cuts to
    the National Water Quality Assessment (NAWQA) and the Hydrologic
    Research and Development programs be opposed by the Subcommittee. In
    particular, the NAWQA program has for more than a decade provided the
    Nation with critical information on status and trends in surface and
    ground water quality. Such information has been extremely valuable to
    policymakers at local, state and national levels in areas such as
    identifying emerging contaminants, the effectiveness of policies and
    regulations, and the impact of land-use changes on water quality. We
    also support the restoration of funding to water research programs
    conducted by State Water Resource Research Institutes and within the
    USGS. Research is critical to expanding the knowledge base to improve
    the design and implementation of assessment programs like NAWQA, to
    build the next generation of world-class water scientists, and to
    ensure that the Nation is conducting insightful and effective water
    monitoring.

                        ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

        The President's budget proposal would cut more than $274 million
    from the Clean and Safe Water Goal and more than $36 million from the
    Healthy Communities and Ecosystems Goal at the Environmental Protection
    Agency. AGI opposes these proposed cuts and instead asks for modest
    increases for these programs to deal with rising costs and help the EPA
    carry out its mission of monitoring water quality, assuring safe
    drinking water, cleaning up contaminated waters, protecting and
    maintaining water infrastructure, monitoring and protecting watersheds
    and cleaning up superfund and brownfield sites.

                            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
    2009 and request that proposed cuts of more than $11 million (with a
    loss of more than 100 full time employees) for research, public
    programs and exhibitions be removed from consideration.

                             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 research and
    education of our fellow citizens. The National Park Services' 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, especially as the National Parks approach their 100th
    anniversary. AGI supports funding for the National Parks Centennial
    Initiative, but is disappointed by the overall decrease of about 2
    percent for the National Park Service in the President's request. The
    Service needs steady increases in order to keep pace with rising costs,
    to hire new staff and to carry out their core missions.
        Thank you for the opportunity to present this testimony to the
    subcommittee.
                                     ______

               Prepared Statement of the American Hiking Society

        American Hiking Society fiscal year 2009 trail and recreation
    funding recommendations include:
        USDA Forest Service (FS):
      --Recreation Management, Heritage and Wilderness: minimum of $285
            million
      --Capital Improvement and Maintenance--Trails: minimum of $85
            million, including $10.345 million for National Scenic and
            Historic Trails
      --Legacy Roads and Trails Remediation Program: $75 million
        National Park Service (NPS):
      --Rivers, Trails and Conservation Assistance program: $12 million
      --National Trails System (NTS), Operations: $14.546 million; NTS
            Construction: $2.095 million; NTS Feasibility Studies and
            Planning: $1.061 million; NTS GIS: $1.253 million; NTS
            Challenge Cost Share: $1.5 million
        Bureau of Land Management (BLM):
      --National Landscape Conservation System: $70 million
      --National Trails System: $6.0 Million to a new subactivity, or,
            failing that, distributed amongst Recreation Management 1220,
            Cultural Resources 1050, Annual Maintenance 1652, and Challenge
            Cost Share 1770 Subactivities
      --Recreation Management: $70 million, including Travel and
            Transportation Management: $15 million; Field Staff for Trail
            Maintenance: $5 million; Public Outreach, Information
            Management, and Education: $1 million
        U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service:
      --National Wildlife Refuge System: $514 million
        Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF):
      --Stateside LWCF (NPS): $125 million
      --Federal LWCF: $220 million, including National Scenic and Historic
            Trails as follows: Appalachian NST: $10.645 million (FS), 4.275
            million (NPS); Ice Age NST: $4.75 million (NPS); Florida NST:
            $7 million (FS); Nez Perce NHT (BLM): $2 million; North Country
            NST: $2 million (NPS), $8.25 million (FS); Oregon NHT (BLM): $5
            million; Overmountain Victory NHT: $1 million (FS); Pacific
            Crest NST: $16.25 million (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. We represent thousands
    of individual members, more than 285 member organizations, and speak
    for the 75 million Americans who hike. Our nation's trails provide
    unparalleled opportunities for hiking, enjoyment and appreciation of
    natural and cultural resources, healthy physical activities, and
    economic development for local communities. Hiking can also motivate
    people to protect the places they love and preserve them for posterity.
    We greatly appreciate the Subcommittee's past support for trails and
    recreation and urge you to support strong funding in fiscal year 2009
    that will keep our trails open, safe, and enjoyable today and for
    future generations. Despite the growing importance of recreation and
    our treasured lands and waters to the American people, 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 well-maintained trails and protected open spaces.
    We recommend the following appropriations to protect resources and
    ensure high-quality recreational experiences for future generations:

    USDA Forest Service, Recreation Management, Heritage and Wilderness:
            minimum of $285 million
        Although recreation makes up the greatest use of National Forest
    System lands, recreation remains severely underfunded and understaffed.
    Facilities deteriorate faster than upgrades and maintenance can be
    accomplished, and the dire shortage of recreation staff on-the-ground
    means obligatory agency functions--resource protection, provision of
    information and assistance to visitors, enforcement of laws and
    regulations, and performance of routine maintenance--often go
    unfulfilled or unsatisfactorily accomplished. Funding is also required
    for travel management planning for completion of motorized road and
    trail designations by 2010 in accordance with the 2005 travel
    management rule.
        The President's fiscal year 2009 proposed funding level, excluding
    any cost of living increases or inflationary pressures, would result in
    a RMHW program reduction of $25.6 million and 296 FTEs from fiscal year
    2008. 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 and wilderness staff; improve
    recreation resource analyses and planning; and more effectively utilize
    partnerships and volunteers. We urge the subcommittee to prioritize
    Forest Service funding and ask for your continued strong support of the
    world-class recreation heritage of our National Forest System.

    Forest Service, Capital Improvement and Maintenance--Trails: minimum of
            $85 million
        The Forest Service manages 140,000 miles of trails. Visitor safety,
    protection of natural resources, provision of public access, and
    supporting economic growth all depend on a greater commitment of funds
    to trails. The Forest Service requires increased funding to restore,
    maintain, and improve its thousands of trail miles; reduce the $224
    million deferred maintenance backlog; prevent and mitigate resource
    impacts; and provide safe, high-quality recreational experiences for
    millions of hikers and other trail enthusiasts. The President's fiscal
    year 2009 proposed funding level, excluding any cost of living
    increases or inflationary pressures, would result in a program
    reduction of $26.3 million (34 percent decrease) and 249 FTEs from
    fiscal year 2008. American Hiking is a member of the Partnership for
    the National Trails System (PNTS) and endorses the specific funding
    requests for the individual national scenic and historic trails
    submitted by the PNTS totaling $5.49 million for operations and $4.855
    for construction. 2008 marks the 40th Anniversary of the National
    Trails System Act, and we urge your continued strong support for these
    national treasures as we embark on the Decade for National Trails
    leading up to the 50th Anniversary in 2018.

    National Park Service
        American Hiking supports increased funding for national park
    operations, as included in the administration's fiscal year 2009
    request of $2.132 billion and also strongly urges increased funding for
    key NPS recreation and conservation programs including the Rivers,
    Trails and Conservation Assistance program and national scenic and
    historic trails.

    NPS, Rivers, Trails, and Conservation Assistance program (RTCA).--$12
            million
        The RTCA program implements the natural resource conservation and
    outdoor recreation mission of the NPS. Through technical assistance and
    partnerships, RTCA helps communities and agencies across America
    restore rivers and habitat, develop trail networks, preserve open
    space, and revitalize communities--all contributing to improved quality
    of life and close-to-home recreation. RTCA is a highly successful
    program, but its funding has remained relatively flat during the last
    decade and lagged well behind the rate of inflation, resulting in
    significant cuts to staff and reduced participation in on-the-ground
    projects. Current demand greatly exceeds the program's capacity. The
    administration fiscal year 2009 request calls for a $492,000 decrease,
    which would be a devastating hit to this small, yet extremely worthy,
    results-oriented NPS program. RTCA requires at least a $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 and with national parks
    throughout the country.

    NPS, National Trails System (NTS): Operations: $14.546 million;
            Construction $2.095 million
        For most of the twenty national scenic and historic trails
    administered by the NPS, barely one-half of their congressionally
    authorized length and resources are protected and available for public
    use. At least $14.546 million for operations is needed in fiscal year
    2009 for resource protection, trail maintenance, interpretation, and
    volunteer coordination and support. We endorse the individual requests
    for national scenic and historic trails submitted by the PNTS for
    administration and construction for the NPS-administered trails.

    Bureau of Land Management (BLM), National Landscape Conservation
            System: $70 million
        We request at least $70 million for the National Landscape
    Conservation System in fiscal year 2009--a modest increase over
    historic funding levels, accounting for the growth of the System,
    increased visitation, inflation and uncontrollable costs. We urge
    Congress to allocate at least $6 million of this total NLCS increase, a
    permanent base increase of $3.456 million over the permanent base shown
    in the President's request, to accomplish the objectives of BLM's
    National Trails Plan and provide for the continuing maintenance and
    operation of the BLM's National Trails.
        This funding should be permanently established in a new National
    Scenic and Historic Trails Subactivity account, without which BLM
    cannot plan for, achieve, or report upon objectives related to national
    trails. If this new subactivity is not created, the equivalent increase
    could be applied to the Recreation Management 1220, Cultural Resources
    1050, Annual Maintenance 1652, and Challenge Cost Share 1770
    Subactivities for use specifically related to BLM's national trails.
    Generally, we urge the NLCS office to prioritize Recreation Management
    Subactivity funding to fund planning, establishment, and maintenance of
    hiking trails on-the- ground throughout the Conservation System.

    BLM, Recreation Management.--$70 million
        The BLM manages 261 million acres of lands in the fastest growing
    states in America, with use in some areas increasing by 300 percent.
    Unfortunately, BLM receives barely sustainable funding to provide the
    rapidly increasing number of visitors safe and convenient access to the
    public land recreation resources they demand. Our request focuses on
    several areas of greatest need:
        Travel and Transportation Management: $15 million.--BLM is
    committed to travel management planning for its hundreds of thousands
    of miles of primitive roads and trails, a process crucial to ensuring
    that recreational trails are sustainable and safe. Additionally,
    adequate signage and maps are frequently unavailable on BLM trails,
    precluding safe access for many user groups.
        Field Staff for Trail Operations: $5 million.--Ninety percent of
    BLM recreation staff is primarily office-based, with little opportunity
    to directly maintain and protect trails. As a result, many BLM areas
    have few publicly available trails, and users face increasing threats
    from migrant traffic, methamphetamine manufacture, and poorly
    maintained and unmarked trails. Increased funding in this area would
    enable BLM to hire and train law enforcement and recreation technician
    staff to complete needed inventory, repair, and maintenance functions.
        Public Outreach, Information Management, and Education: $1
    million.--BLM is far behind the other land management agencies in
    informing the public about the recreational resources available on its
    lands. Many BLM field offices are unable to provide accurate
    information about trail resources, and many of the BLM recreation
    websites are nonfunctional. Increased funding is crucial to give BLM
    basic abilities to communicate recreational opportunities to the
    public.''

    U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, National Wildlife Refuge System: $514
            million
        The National Wildlife Refuge System protects myriad species and
    critical habitat and provides recreational opportunities on
    approximately 2,500 miles of land and water trails for nearly 40
    million visitors annually. The operations and maintenance backlog for
    the system totals more than $3 billion, and approximately 200 refuges
    do not have any staff. Without adequate staff, important management
    activities such as trail maintenance, habitat restoration, and
    educational programs will be diminished or eliminated. A minimum
    increase of $15 million is necessary to prevent ``no net loss'' for the
    system, meet cost of living increases and inflationary pressures, and
    keep refuges from cutting public use programs.

    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. More than
    40,000 LWCF projects have been completed in virtually every county
    across America. Authorized at $900 million annually, the fiscal year
    2009 administration request represents one of the lowest proposed
    funding levels in the program's history. LWCF is critical to the future
    protection of our public lands, national trails, and provision of
    close-to-home recreation opportunities. We strongly oppose the
    administration's recommendation to zero out the stateside LWCF program.

                                   CONCLUSION

        American Hiking is dedicated to building, maintaining and
    protecting 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. Through our Volunteer
    Vacations and National Trails Day programs, we engage thousands of
    volunteers in trail projects every year. Volunteerism is essential to
    trails and recreation; however, volunteerism on public lands must not
    be perceived as a panacea to declining agency budgets. We greatly
    appreciate the Subcommittee's past support for trails 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 Indian Higher Education Consortium

                                REQUEST SUMMARY

        On behalf of the Nation's Tribal Colleges and Universities (TCUs),
    which comprise the American Indian Higher Education Consortium (AIHEC),
    thank you for this opportunity to present our fiscal year 2009
    Appropriations recommendations for the 26 colleges funded under the
    Tribally Controlled College or University Assistance Act (Tribal
    College Act), our two tribally controlled postsecondary career and
    technical institutions, the two Bureau of Indian Education
    postsecondary institutions, and the Institute of American Indian Arts.
    The U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Education,
    administers these programs, save for the Institute of American Indian
    Arts, which is funded directly by the Interior Department. In fiscal
    year 2009, TCUs seek $70.7 million to fund all of the programs under
    the Tribal College Act; and a total of $7.0 million for our two
    tribally controlled postsecondary career and technical institutions.
        Under the Tribal College Act, we seek $68.1 million for
    institutional operations grants; of which, $50.4 million would be for
    Title I grants (funding 25 TCUs) and $17.7 to fund Title II (Dine
    College). This request is an increase of $6.2 million for Title I
    grants and a $5.8 million increase for Dine College over fiscal year
    2008 levels and a total of $12.1 million over the President's fiscal
    year 2009 budget request for institutional operations funding.
    Additionally, we seek funding for the technical assistance contract
    authorized under the Act [25 USC 1805] at the same amount as available
    in both fiscal year 2008 and the President's fiscal year 2009 budget
    and $2.0 million to help establish and fund endowments under Title III
    of the act.
        Tribal Colleges ask that Congress reject the administration's
    latest recommendation to eliminate Department of the Interior funding
    for United Tribes Technical College and Navajo Technical College and to
    appropriate funds at $4.5 million and $2.5 million, respectively.
    AIHEC's membership also includes three other TCUs funded under separate
    authorities within Interior Appropriations, namely: Haskell Indian
    Nations University; Southwestern Indian Polytechnic Institute; and the
    Institute of American Indian Arts. AIHEC supports the independently
    submitted requests for funding the institutional operations budgets of
    these institutions.
        Forward Funding of Institutional Operations Grants: For the past
    several years, basic institutional operations funding has not been
    available to the TCUs until well after October 1 of the relevant fiscal
    year.
      --In fiscal year 2006, despite the early August enactment of the
            Interior spending bill, almost 2 months prior to the start of
            the fiscal year, funds were not distributed to the TCUs until
            late November, 2 months into the new fiscal year--3 months into
            the school year.
      --In fiscal year 2007, due to the protracted appropriations process,
            TCUs did not receive operating funds until mid-March; 5 months
            into the fiscal year and 6 months after the academic year
            began.
      --This year (fiscal year 2008), TCUs did not gain access to their
            initial partial payment, made in order under the first
            continuing resolution, until December 13--a month into the
            second continuing resolution. TCUs were 2 months into the new
            fiscal year, and 3 months into the academic year, and unable to
            access even a partial payment toward their basic day-to-day
            operating budgets.
        Securing a one-time payment of $60 million to transition to a
    forward funded program for TCU institutional operations would correct
    this unfortunate cycle of delayed payments, expensive short-term loans,
    and lay-offs that perennially plague TCUs and--for the first time--
    would give these institutions the resources they need at the start of
    each academic year. Forward funding is authorized under the Tribal
    College Act and is consistent with the existing funding practices of
    other Indian education operating accounts within the Department of the
    Interior. Recognizing the fiscal constraints that this Congress is
    laboring under, TCUs recommend an incremental approach aimed at
    securing the funds necessary to transition the TCU grants program to
    forward funding over the next 3 years. We request an additional $20
    million be appropriated each year for the next 3 fiscal years (2009-
    2011), resulting in the $60 million necessary to finally establish the
    TCU institutional operating grants program as a forward funded program.

                       BACKGROUND AND FUNDING DISPARITIES

        Today there are 36 TCUs located in 14 States, which were begun
    specifically to serve the higher education needs of American Indians.
    Annually, these institutions serve students from more than 250
    federally recognized tribes, more than 80 percent of whom are eligible
    to receive Federal financial aid.
        TCUs are accredited by independent, regional accreditation agencies
    and like all institutions of higher education, must undergo stringent
    performance reviews on a periodic basis to retain their accreditation
    status. In addition to college level programming, TCUs provide much
    needed high school completion (GED), basic remediation, job training,
    college preparatory courses, and adult education.
        Title I of the Tribal College Act authorizes funding for the basic
    institutional operating budget of one qualifying institution per
    federally recognized tribe based on a full-time American Indian student
    enrollment formula. Despite the much appreciated increases that
    Congress has appropriated over the last several years, TCUs remain
    chronically underfunded. Today, 27 years after the act was first
    funded, the TCUs are receiving $5,304 per Indian student, still below
    the authorized level. If you factor in inflation, the buying power of
    this appropriation is $1,270 LESS per Indian student than it was in the
    initial fiscal year 1981 appropriation, which was $2,831 per Indian
    student. While the other TCUs' operations funding is not enrollment
    driven and therefore the disparity is not as easily illustrated, they
    too suffer from a lack of adequate basic operating funds. This is not
    simply a matter of appropriations falling short of an authorization; it
    effectively impedes our institutions from having the necessary
    resources to grow their programs in response to the changing needs of
    their students and the communities they serve.

                                 JUSTIFICATIONS

        (a) TCUs provide critical access to vital postsecondary education
    opportunities. Tribal Colleges and Universities provide access to
    higher education for American Indians and others living in some of the
    Nation's most rural and economically depressed areas. The average
    family income for a student first entering a TCU is approximately
    $14,000, which is 33 percent below the Federal poverty threshold for a
    family of four ($21,200). In addition to serving their students, TCUs
    serve their communities through a variety of community outreach
    programs.
        (b) TCUs are producing a new generation of highly trained American
    Indians as teachers, tribal government leaders, engineers, nurses,
    computer programmers, and other much-needed professionals. By teaching
    the job skills most in demand on their reservations, TCUs are laying a
    solid foundation for tribal economic growth, with benefits for
    surrounding communities. In contrast to the high rates of unemployment
    on reservations, graduates of TCUs are employed in ``high need''
    occupational areas such as Head Start teachers, elementary and
    secondary school teachers, and nurses/health care providers. Just as
    important, the overwhelming majority of tribal college graduates remain
    in their tribal communities, applying their newly acquired skills and
    knowledge where they are most needed.
        (c) TCUs meet the strict standards of mainstream accreditation
    boards offering top quality academic programs and serve as effective
    bridges to 4 year institutions of higher learning. A growing number of
    TCUs have attained a 10 year accreditation term, the longest term
    granted to any higher education institution. While most TCUs are 2 year
    institutions offering certificates and associate degrees, their
    transfer function is significant. A survey of TCU graduates conducted
    by Harder + Company Community Research, San Francisco, CA for the
    American Indian College Fund, indicated that more than 80 percent of
    respondents who attended a mainstream college prior to enrolling at a
    tribal college did not finish the degree they were pursuing at the
    mainstream college. The rate of completion markedly improved for those
    who attended a tribal college prior to pursuing a degree at a
    mainstream institution. After completing tribal college coursework,
    less than half of respondents dropped out of mainstream colleges, and
    nearly 40 percent went on to obtain a bachelor's degree. This suggests
    TCUs have a profound impact on the persistence of American Indian
    students in pursuit of baccalaureate degrees. The overwhelming majority
    of respondents felt that their tribal college experience had prepared
    them well for further education and noted that it had a very positive
    impact on their personal and professional achievements.

                             SOME ADDITIONAL FACTS

        (a) Enrollment Gains and New TCUs.--Compounding existing funding
    disparities is the fact that although the numbers of TCUs and students
    enrolled in them have dramatically increased since 1981, appropriations
    have increased at a disproportionately low rate. Since they were first
    funded, the number of tribal colleges has quadrupled and continues to
    grow; Indian student enrollments have risen by over 300 percent. In
    fiscal year 2005, Saginaw Chippewa Tribal College (Michigan) and Tohono
    O'odham Community College (Arizona) became eligible to receive funds
    under the Tribal College Act. In fiscal year 2007, Ilisagvik College
    (Alaska) became eligible for funding, and White Earth Tribal and
    Community College (Minnesota) will be eligible in fiscal year 2009.
    TCUs are in many ways victims of their own successes. The growing
    number of tribally chartered colleges and added students has forced
    TCUs to slice an already inadequate annual funding pie into even
    smaller pieces.
        (b) Local Tax and Revenue Bases.--TCUs cannot rely on local tax
    base revenue. Although tribes have the sovereign authority to tax, high
    reservation poverty rates, the trust status of reservation lands, and
    the lack of strong reservation economies hinder the creation of a
    reservation tax base. On reservations where TCUs are located, the
    unemployment rate can well exceed 60 percent. In comparison, the
    current national unemployment rate is 4.8 percent.
        (c) Trust Responsibility.--The emergence of TCUs is a direct result
    of the special relationship between American Indian tribes and the
    Federal Government. TCUs are founded and chartered by their respective
    American Indian tribes, which hold a special legal relationship with
    the Federal Government, actualized by more than 400 treaties, several
    Supreme Court decisions, prior Congressional action, and the ceding of
    more than one billion acres of land to the Federal Government. Beyond
    the trust responsibility, the fact remains that TCUs are providing a
    public service that no other institutions of higher education are
    willing, or able, to provide by helping the Federal Government fulfill
    its responsibility to the American people, particularly in rural
    America. Despite the fact that only students that are enrolled members
    of a federally recognized Indian tribe are counted when determining an
    institution's share of the operating funds, TCUs have open enrollment
    policies. Approximately 20 percent of TCU enrollments are non-Indians.
    They are simply and effectively removing barriers that have long
    prevented equal access to higher education for reservation community
    residents.

                THE PRESIDENT'S FISCAL YEAR 2009 BUDGET REQUEST

        The President's fiscal year 2009 budget includes level funding at
    $56.0 million for institutional operating grants for 26 TCUs. Over the
    past few years several new TCUs have become eligible for funding under
    Title I of the Tribal College Act. In fiscal year 2009, White Earth
    Tribal and Community College in Mahnomen, MN will join the list of
    eligible institutions. We are hopeful that Congress will build on the
    President's fiscal year 2009 budget. Additionally, the fiscal year 2009
    budget once again recommends eliminating Department of the Interior
    funding for the two tribally controlled postsecondary career and
    technical institutions, we trust that Congress will again reject the
    President's recommendation and adequately fund these two vital
    institutions.

                  APPROPRIATIONS REQUEST FOR FISCAL YEAR 2009

        TCUs respectfully request a total appropriation of $70.7 million
    for all of the programs authorized under the Tribal College Act [25
    U.S.C. 1801 et seq.]. Specifically, TCUs seek $68.1 million for
    operating grants under, of which, $50.4 million would be for Title I
    grants (funding 25 TCUs) and $17.7 to fund Title II (Dine College).
    This request is an increase of $6.2 million for Title I grants and a
    $5.8 million increase for Dine College over fiscal year 2008 levels and
    a total of $12.1 million over the President's fiscal year 2009 budget
    request. Additionally, we seek funding for the technical assistance
    contract [25 USC 1805] at the same amount as available in fiscal year
    2008 and in the President's request. These funds help address technical
    assistance needs of TCUs in securing and maintaining their
    accreditation and to fund data collection and analysis necessary to
    comply with Congressional and Department data requests. Additionally,
    we request $2 million for Title III of the Act, which helps our
    institutions to build endowments. The President's budget reduces this
    program to just $109,000. Lastly, we request an additional $20 million
    be appropriated each year for the next 3 fiscal years (2009-2011),
    resulting in the $60 million necessary to finally establish the TCU
    institutional operating grants program as a forward funded program
        For our two tribally controlled career and technical institutions,
    we support $4.5 million for United Tribes Technical College; and $2.5
    million for Navajo Technical College to restore and expand the funding
    for these programs that the fiscal year 2009 President's budget once
    again recommends eliminating.

                                   CONCLUSION

        Tribal Colleges and Universities provide quality higher education
    to many thousands of American Indians who might otherwise not have
    access to such opportunities. The modest Federal investment that has
    been made in TCUs has paid great dividends in terms of employment,
    education, and economic development. Continuation of this investment
    makes sound moral and fiscal sense.
        We greatly appreciate your past and continued support of the
    Nation's Tribal Colleges and Universities and your serious
    consideration of our fiscal year 2009 appropriations requests.
                                     ______

      Prepared Statement of the American Institute of Biological Sciences

        The American Institute of Biological Sciences (AIBS) encourages the
    committee to provide the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) with at
    least $646.5 million for the Office of Research and Development (ORD)
    for fiscal year 2009. Within this amount, we encourage you to provide
    at least $181 million for human health and ecosystem research. We also
    support additional funding for important programs within ORD, such as
    research in endocrine disruptors and global change.
        AIBS is a nonprofit scientific association dedicated to advancing
    biological research and education for the welfare of society. Founded
    in 1947 as a part of the National Academy of Sciences, AIBS became an
    independent, member-governed organization in the 1950s. AIBS is
    sustained by a robust membership of some 5,000 biologists and nearly
    200 professional societies and scientific organizations; the combined
    individual membership of the latter exceeds 250,000. AIBS advances its
    mission through coalition activities in research, education, and public
    policy; publishing the peer-reviewed journal BioScience and the
    education website ActionBioscience.org; providing scientific peer
    review and advisory services to government agencies and other clients;
    convening meetings; and managing scientific programs.
        As EPA's scientific division, ORD performs valuable research needed
    to solve the environmental challenges facing the United States today
    and potential challenges in the future. EPA's environmental research
    plays an integral role in pollution prevention and protecting human
    health.
        Scientists in EPA's human health research program uniquely
    incorporate many environmental science disciplines to build a strong
    foundation for risk assessment and improve understanding of toxic
    chemical exposure and health effects. For instance, EPA scientists have
    conducted research on the chemical atrazine, an agricultural herbicide
    in use since the late 1950s, to understand its effects on human health.
        The EPA's Ecological Research Program is responsible for improving
    and protecting ecosystem services, such as clean air and water, rich
    soil for food and crop production, pollination, and flood control,
    which are often taken for granted. Research conducted by the Ecological
    Research Program provides scientific data, methods, models, and tools
    needed by states, communities, and tribes to understand the cost and
    benefits of using ecosystem services.
        The Endocrine Disruptor Research Initiative enhances our
    understanding of the effects of endocrine disruptors; the initiative
    determines how exposure to endocrine disruptors affects human and
    wildlife populations, and is developing tools to screen and test for
    disruptors. Funding for the initiative is imperative as it was
    identified as one of the ORD's top six research priorities in 1996 and
    continues to be a vital research program at the EPA.
        Funding for research programs at the EPA has steadily declined
    since fiscal year 2004, when ORD was funded at $646.5 million. The
    President's budget request for fiscal year 2009 would allocate $540.7
    million for the ORD, which is approximately $7 million less than the
    fiscal year 2008 enacted amount and is over $100 million less than what
    was appropriated in fiscal year 2004. Consequently, research in human
    health and ecosystems within the ORD would be allocated $144.7 million,
    $8.3 million less than fiscal year 2008 enacted funding and $36.5
    million less than funding enacted in fiscal year 2004.
        Over the past several years, the EPA Science Advisory Board has
    made multiple requests to EPA Administrator Stephen L. Johnson for a
    revitalization of ecosystem research and increased funding for
    ecological research. Dr. M. Granger Morgan, Chair of the Science
    Advisory Board, wrote to Administrator Johnson in March 2006 expressing
    concerns about funding declines and ``systematic bias against ecosystem
    research'' stating that ecosystem research at the EPA has ``sustained a
    decrease of nearly 26 percent since 2004.'' Dr. Morgan stated that the
    Board was distressed that instead funding has been cut and work has
    declined.
        We urge Congress to consider the Board's concerns and advice and
    provide the EPA with at least $646.5 million for the ORD for fiscal
    year 2009 and at least $181 million for human health and ecosystem
    research. Providing these amounts to the ORD, human health and
    ecosystem research, and other important biological science research
    will restore them to fiscal year 2004 levels, thus allowing vital
    research in ecosystem services and healthy communities to continue
    productively.
        Thank you for your thoughtful consideration of this request.
                                     ______

     Prepared Statement of the American Society of Agronomy, Crop Science
            Society of America, and Soil Science Society of America

        Chairwoman Feinstein, ranking member Allard and members of the
    subcommittee: On behalf of the American Society of Agronomy, Crop
    Science Society of America, Soil Science Society of America (ASA-CSSA-
    SSSA), we are pleased to submit comments in strong support of enhanced
    public investment in the U.S. Forest Service and U.S. Geological Survey
    as critical components of Federal appropriations for fiscal year 2009
    and beyond. With more than 25,000 members and practicing professionals,
    ASA-CSSA-SSSA are the largest life science professional societies in
    the United States dedicated to the agronomic, crop and soil sciences.
    ASA-CSSA-SSSA play a major role in promoting progress in these sciences
    through the publication of quality journals and books, convening
    meetings and workshops, developing educational, training, and public
    information programs, providing scientific advice to inform public
    policy, and promoting ethical conduct among practitioners of agronomy
    and crop and soil sciences.

                                    SUMMARY

        ASA-CSSA-SSSA understand the challenges the Senate Interior and
    Environment Appropriations Subcommittee faces with the tight budget for
    fiscal year 2009. We also recognize that the Interior and Environment
    Appropriations bill has many valuable and necessary components, and we
    applaud the efforts of the Subcommittee to fund the U.S. Forest Service
    and U.S. Geological Survey.
        The U.S. Forest Service sustains the health, diversity, and
    productivity of the Nation's forests and grasslands to meet the needs
    of present and future generations. Soils are a vital component of
    forest management, and their understanding is essential to achieve the
    agencies strategic goals. The Societies are concerned with the overall
    8 percent decrease in the fiscal year 2009 President's budget for USFS.
    Vital programs that are essential for improved soil quality have been
    consistently under-funded. We urge the subcommittee to increase
    discretionary funding for the U.S. Forest Service budget to
    $4,800,000,000, about a 7 percent increase over the fiscal year 2008
    enacted levels ($4,448,428,000), thus putting the agency back on track
    towards properly managing the 749 million acres of forests in the
    United States for the services they provide: clean water and air;
    recreational opportunities; hunting; fishing; forest products; and,
    scenic values.
        The U.S. Geological Survey is an essential agency for the United
    States, providing reliable scientific information to describe and
    understand the Earth; minimize loss of life and property from natural
    disasters; manage water, biological energy, and mineral resources; and
    enhance and protect our quality of life. For fiscal year 2009, we urge
    the subcommittee to fund the U.S. Geological Survey at $1.3 billion,
    about an 8 percent increase over the recommended funding level in
    fiscal year 2008 ($1.2 billion). This growth rate is similar to the
    annual growth rate the President originally proposed for science
    agencies in the American Competitiveness Initiative order to double
    their budgets in 10 years.

                               U.S FOREST SERVICE

    Forest and Rangeland Research
        The Forest Service Research (FSR) soils program examines key
    environmental issues: nutrient cycling, impact of acid rain on soil
    function, management impacts on soil productivity, plant nutrition,
    soil moisture, plant growth relationships, soil microbial functions and
    soil quality concepts. Past investments in soils research have yielded
    great benefits to the Nation, e.g. Research soil scientists described
    the environment-plant-soil carbon relations in the very carbon-rich
    black spruce forests needed to assist forest managers in understanding
    how to manage the soil carbon pool after fire disturbance, which is
    predicted to increase in a warming climate. ASA-CSSA-SSSA recommend
    increasing funding for Forest and Rangeland Research by 7 percent to
    $306,000,000 in fiscal year 2009. Within Forest and Rangeland Research,
    we urge the subcommittee to fund Resource Management and Use at
    $91,759,990 for fiscal year 2009, a 7 percent increase above fiscal
    year 2008 enacted budget. If these funding increases do not occur, the
    Forest Service will be unable to replace recently retired research soil
    scientists, and there will also be a loss of capability to maintain
    measurements on the national Long Term Site Productivity study that
    guides Forest Service sustainability requirements.

    National Forest System
        Fresh water is a critical resource that is becoming scarce in many
    regions. It is essential that we continue to manage our forests to
    promote healthy watersheds, through effective monitoring. ASA-CSSA-SSSA
    are concerned with the President's proposed steep cuts to Inventory and
    Monitoring (-11 percent), Vegetation and Watershed Management (-5
    percent), Establish Forest Vegetation (-6 percent), Maintain and
    Improve Watershed Conditions (-7 percent) and Minerals and Geology
    Management (-15 percent) programs within NFS for fiscal year 2009. ASA-
    CSSA-SSSA recommend 7 percent increases for each of these programs for
    fiscal year 2009 as follows: Inventory and Monitoring ($178,240,600),
    Vegetation and Watershed Management ($189,857,590), Establish Forest
    Vegetation ($41,942,930), Maintain and Improve Watershed Conditions
    ($55,676,380) and Minerals and Geology Management ($90,033,000). Within
    Minerals and Geology Management, we urge a funding level of $10,374,720
    for the Manage Environmental Risk program. Soil is the natural filter,
    often overlooked, vital for healthy watersheds. Past investments in NFS
    have yielded enormous benefits to society including: Soil scientists
    annually provide critical soil resource information to Burned Area
    Emergency Response teams evaluating the environmental effects and
    developing rapid management responses for of hundreds of wildfires.
    Unless funding is restored to NFS, USFS will be unable to start a
    resource inventory of the remaining 59.7 million acres of National
    Forest land currently scheduled; adequately continue monitoring the
    effects of land management activities on forest and range
    sustainability as required by the National Forest Management Act of
    1976; and maintain a viable scientific knowledge base when retiring
    soil scientists are not replaced.

                             U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

    Water Resources Investigations
        Water is a limiting resource for many regions of the United States;
    certain regions have been in a sustained drought for several years. The
    additional $9,500,000 proposed by the Bush administration will help the
    Water for America Program map future water availability. The
    President's fiscal year 2009 proposed a $10,645,000 cut for the
    National Water-Quality Water Assessment (NAWQA) program will seriously
    affect ground water monitoring capacity in USGS. Aquifers are the
    leading source of fresh water across the country and it is essential we
    monitor and maintain this ecosystem service. Nutrient loading of the
    Mississippi River has been linked to the hypoxia zone in the Gulf of
    Mexico. January 2008, NSF released a press release (08-010) that
    concluded agriculture is changing the chemistry of the Mississippi
    River due to increased carbon and water loading. As more farm acreage
    is converted to biofuels, there is increasing potential for these
    systems to load major river systems. The Societies recommend an
    increase of $6,080,000 (9.5 percent) over fiscal year 2008 enacted
    ($63,912,000) for National Water-Quality Water Assessment program which
    will allow for annual monitoring at the 113 active sites, demonstrating
    the government's commitment to providing clean available water under
    increasing demands. ASA-CSSA-SSSA request a funding level of $8.8
    million for the Water resources research institutes which assist
    Federal and State agencies in promoting and facilitating the research
    and technology transfer they need to carry out their missions to
    protect human health, environmental resources, and economic
    sustainability.

    Climate Change
        Climate change is a major focus for many agencies in fiscal year
    2009, as well as an important focus for the Societies. With increasing
    attention focused on climate change, ASA-CSSA-SSSA are interested in
    the role agriculture can play to mitigate climate change. The Societies
    applaud the reorganization of the separate areas focused on climate
    change into a single program; however we are concerned that some
    programs may not be transferred over. The new budget activity for USGS
    Global Climate change activities shifts focus from research to data
    collection and assessments. While data collection and assessments are
    essential for land management decisions, potential improvements in
    management will remain undiscovered without adequate funding for
    research. The continual proposed decline in research regarding climate
    change will severely inhibit the United State's ability to create new
    innovative management systems. Funding for Biological Research in
    fiscal year 2009 should be increased ($6,000,000) from 2008 enacted
    ($5,007,000), not cut by $5,007,000 (100 percent reduction) as the
    President proposes. The $1,071,000 proposed reduction in funding for
    the Geographic research program will adversely affect the United
    States' ability to affectively reduce domestic greenhouse gas emissions
    in agriculture. The Geographic research program contributes to the
    Carbon Research Program, carried out by USGS, USDA, and other
    international partnerships. We recommend increasing funding levels for
    terrestrial carbon to $2,000,000 rather than reducing them. There are
    many factors that affect terrestrial carbon sequestration and continual
    United States support of these programs will enhance our knowledge of
    these factors, as well as develop potential new management practices.

    Geographic Research, Investigations, and Remote Sensing
        Land use and change are major issues of concern for the Nation.
    Satellite imagery is used by a variety of stakeholders: government
    agencies such as USGS, EPA, NSF, and USDA; Universities-land grants and
    private; as well as the private sector environmental managers and
    planners. These images have become essential tools for land managers to
    assess land change, as well as, more effectively develop management
    plans. Precision agriculture utilizes remote sensing, in combination
    with GIS and GPS, to develop farm-specific management maps reducing
    over-application of nutrients and loss in sensitive areas. ASA-CSSA-
    SSSA feel that a 35 percent cut in funding for Geographic Analysis and
    Monitoring (GAM) would cause huge setbacks to many important programs.
    Within GAM, the Societies do commend the president's budget proposal
    that increases funding for the Remote Sensing Missions and Data
    Acquisition program, which funds Landsat. The $2.1 million increase
    will continue to fund this vital program, encouraging further
    utilization of these data by land managers to help increase their
    ability to manage lands more effectively. However, ASA-CSSA-SSSA do not
    support the proposed $984,400 cut to the educational support for remote
    sensing which would eliminate affordable access to remotely sensed data
    at the State level to educational institutions. Of great concern to
    ASA-CSSA-SSSA is the proposed $1,013,000 cut to the Geographic Research
    program under Geographic Analysis and Monitoring which would
    effectively eliminate funds for continuing partnerships with other
    Department bureaus and the USDA for identifying the amount of carbon
    currently stored in ecosystems of the United States and select
    ecosystems around the world.
        Thank you for your thoughtful consideration of our requests. For
    additional information or to learn more about the American Society of
    Agronomy, Crop Science Society of America and Soil Science Society of
    America (ASA-CSSA-SSSA), please visit www.agronomy.org, www.crops.org
    or www.soils.org or contact:
                                     ______

          Prepared Statement of the American Society for Microbiology

        The American Society for Microbiology (ASM) is pleased to submit
    the following statement on the fiscal year 2009 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
    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 innovative 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 risks from a variety of hazardous chemicals
    and microbes. The work at ORD laboratories, research centers, and
    offices across the country helps improve the quality of air, water,
    soil, and the way we utilize resources. ORD's mission is to: (1)
    Perform research and development to identify, understand, and solve
    current and future environmental problems; (2) Provide responsive
    technical support to EPA's mission; (3) Integrate the work of ORD's
    scientific partners (other agencies, nations, private sector
    organizations, and academia); and (4) Provide leadership in addressing
    emerging environmental issues and in advancing the science and
    technology of risk assessment and risk management.
        The ASM is very concerned with the diminishing budget for EPA's
    research and development programs. Optimal EPA oversight clearly
    depends upon the agency's access to scientific expertise and its
    ability to respond quickly to our changing environment. Investments in
    research and development programs support both access to expertise and
    development of the best responses to environmental demands. The fiscal
    year 2009 budget request for the ORD is $541 million, a 1.3 percent, or
    a $7 million, decrease from fiscal year 2008, and a 3 percent decrease
    from fiscal year 2007. These decreases are part of a longer term
    pattern of erosion that is deteriorating the scientific foundation that
    is essential for EPA to make decisions on and formulate 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 $61 million for STAR, a 2 percent reduction from
    fiscal year 2008, which is substantially less than the fiscal year 2002
    level of $102 million, even without correcting for inflation. The
    proposed decreases would continue seven consecutive years of cutting
    this important program. The funding request for STAR includes $55
    million for the STAR Grants, and $6 million for the STAR Fellowships.
    The ASM urges Congress to increase funding for the STAR grants program
    to at least the fiscal year 2002 level of $102 million.
        The STAR Grants fund research in numerous environmental science and
    engineering disciplines through a competitive solicitation process and
    independent peer review. The program engages the Nation's best
    scientists and engineers in targeted research that complements EPA's
    laboratory research and research conducted by our partners in other
    Federal agencies.
        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. Reductions will also limit U.S.
    competitiveness in the areas of 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, which are substances or processes that
    can be measured in biological samples, such as blood, 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. STAR recently supported a grant that will
    potentially provide managers with both an enhanced forecast of harmful
    algal blooms and information needed to formulate bloom management and
    prevention strategies. Such forecasts are important because the
    frequency and intensity of toxic cyanobacteria blooms has increased in
    recent decades, causing a plethora of acute, chronic, and fatal
    illnesses in animals and humans.

                              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 is concerned with the proposed 2.8 percent cut to the Drinking
    Water and Water Quality programs at ORD. The Drinking Water Program
    suffers the greatest, with an 8 percent proposed decrease from fiscal
    year 2008. Cutting the research program for safe drinking water is
    unacceptable at a time when more than 10 percent of the U.S. population
    served by community drinking water systems does not receive drinking
    water that meets all applicable health-based standards.
        The potential for health problems from microbial contaminated
    drinking water is demonstrated by localized outbreaks of waterborne
    disease. Many of these outbreaks have been linked to contamination by
    bacteria or viruses, probably from human or animal wastes. For example,
    in 1999 and 2000, there were 39 reported disease outbreaks associated
    with drinking water, some of which were linked to public drinking water
    supplies.
        The ASM supports the following priority research areas included in
    the fiscal year 2009 budget request for drinking water and water
    quality: (1) Studies on aquifer storage and recovery on the safety of
    drinking water and the impacts of subsurface carbon dioxide
    (CO2) storage on drinking water quality; (2) Revising
    aquatic life guidelines, recreational water criteria, the effects of
    emerging contaminants, nutrients, biocriteria, and multiple stressor
    effects on stream biota; (3) Watershed management work that supports
    diagnoses of impairment, mitigations, and pollutant load reduction from
    headwater streams and isolated wetlands; and (4) Improving the control
    of microbial releases from publicly owned treatment works (POTWs)
    during periods of significant wet weather events. It is also 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; and conduct research that strengthens the
    scientific basis for standards that limit public exposure to
    contaminants. 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.
        The ASM supports the proposed $1 million increase for the Water
    Quality program. Continued investment in this area can build upon the
    successful outcomes already obtained. Increased research is needed to
    protect the Nation from waterborne illnesses. According to the Centers
    for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Cryptosporidium, a protozoan
    parasite causing gastroenteritis in humans, has become the leading
    cause of recreational water associated outbreaks of gastrointestinal
    illness. In 2003-2004, this parasite accounted for 61.1 percent of
    gastrointestinal outbreaks associated with disinfected swimming venues
    such as swimming pools and water parks. This is likely due to its high
    resistance to free chlorine, the main barrier to infectious disease
    transmission in pools. Since 2005, cryptosporidiosis reporting has
    increased substantially.
        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 test to
    quantify Enterococci and Bacterioides bacteria in water. This new test
    reduces the time for detecting these sewage contaminants from 24 hours
    to just two hours and makes possible same day decisions on beach
    warnings or closings. 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.

                 RENEWABLE ENERGY AND WASTEWATER INFRASTRUCTURE

        The EPA is a stakeholder in ensuring a sustainable environment,
    meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of
    future generations to meet their own needs. Renewable energy research
    is essential to ensuring sustainability. The ASM encourages EPA to
    pursue collaborative efforts with the National Science Foundation
    (NSF), Department of Energy (DOE), and the U.S. Department of
    Agriculture (USDA).
        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 end users.
    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 to work water distribution systems
    cannot 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 NSF and the 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
    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, DOE, NSF, and USDA to explore energy production from
    waste treatment, and to develop mechanisms for improving energy
    efficiency in water distribution.

                                 CLIMATE CHANGE

        Climate change affects all of earth's life, including microbes that
    often dominate the living mass of many ecosystems. Extreme temperatures
    can lead directly to loss of life, while climate-related disturbances
    in ecological systems, such as changes in the range of infective
    parasites, can indirectly affect the incidence of serious infectious
    diseases. In addition, warm temperatures can increase air and water
    pollution, which in turn harm human health. The impact of these changes
    on microbial activities is often unpredictable, but 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 15 percent cut to the Global
    Change research program at ORD because it is clear that certain
    diseases and pathogens are sensitive to climate changes. The
    Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change released a report in 2007
    that noted that the global population at risk from vector-borne malaria
    would increase by between 220 million and 400 million in the next
    century. Other ``vector-borne'' diseases, such as dengue fever, yellow
    fever, and encephalitis, carried by mosquitoes and other insects
    serving as biological reservoirs and vectors are also projected to
    spread into new areas due to global warming. While most of the increase
    is predicted to occur in Africa, some increased risk is projected in
    Britain, Australia, India, and Portugal. Climate change may increase
    the risk of other infectious diseases, particularly those diseases that
    appear in warm areas and are spread by pathogens having a water
    habitat. Warming of U.S. costal waters in recent years has caused
    shellfish-borne outbreaks of gastroenteritis caused by the aquatic
    bacterium Vibrio parahaemolyticus to become an increased risk to humans
    by consuming these infected shellfish. In addition, algal blooms could
    occur more frequently as temperatures warm, particularly in areas with
    polluted waters, potentially causing diseases such as cholera that tend
    to accompany algal blooms to become more frequent.

                                   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, renewable energy, 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 2009 appropriation for the EPA.
                                     ______

               Prepared Statement of the Animal Welfare Institute

        The Animal Welfare Institute (AWI) respectfully requests that the
    Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Interior and Related Agencies
    appropriate a total of $37.1 million to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
    Service (FWS) including an additional $33.1 million to increase and
    expand activities of the Office of Law Enforcement ($26 million for
    special agents, $3.1 million for ports of entry, $4 million for the
    Clark R. Bavin National Fish and Wildlife Forensics Laboratory) as well
    as $4 million for the Multinational Species Conservation Fund. The
    President's fiscal year 2009 proposed budget falls far short of
    providing the funds needed by agencies within the Department of the
    Interior to protect, 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. AWI also asks
    Congress to reign in the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) by including
    language preventing funds to be used for the implementation of the
    BLM's wild horse program's sales authority language.

                           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. AWI requests that an additional $33.1 million be
    allocated to the FWS to increase and expand the activities of its
    Office of Law Enforcement (OLE) 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.
        The FWS has cut its covert wildlife crimes investigation unit in
    half. Yet, 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.--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 our wildlife heritage. In
    fiscal year 2007, FWS agents pursued over 12,000 investigations
    resulting in over $14 million in fines, 32 years of jail time for the
    perpetrators, and 557 years of probation. FWS cases documented illegal
    trafficking in U.S. leopard sharks, coral reef organisms, live
    reptiles, and paddlefish. On the global front, agents broke up
    smuggling rings dealing in sea turtle skins and products from Mexico
    and sea turtle shell from China. They snared smugglers dealing in over
    $540,000 worth of sperm whale teeth and sent individuals trafficking in
    endangered live eagle owls eggs to 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 2009 budget.
        Currently, there are only 191 FWS agents responsible for the
    enforcement of federal wildlife laws throughout the entire United
    States. This number is 11 fewer than in fiscal year 2007, which was 16
    fewer than existed in 2006. There are 70 agent vacancies. Filling these
    vacancies is essential to protecting wildlife and stemming the
    increasing threat of illegal trade. AWI respectfully requests an
    additional $14 million ($200,000 each) to fill these 70 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
    poisonous snake or other 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
    U.S. border with Mexico. Such contraband includes highly endangered
    neotropical parrots, cacti, reptiles, and exotic wildlife leather
    products. The U.S. 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.
        In fiscal year 2007, Service wildlife inspectors processed over
    179,000 wildlife shipments entering or leaving the United States. An
    example of how understaffed the FWS port inspection staff may be can be
    found at the U.S./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. 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.
        The Clark R. Bavin National Fish and Wildlife Forensics
    Laboratory.--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, the lab
    is running several months behind in its casework, causing FWS
    investigators, inspectors, and federal prosecutors to wait longer to
    continue their investigations or initiate prosecutions. Analysis of
    newly-submitted computer cases is backlogged 7 to 8 months and the
    analysis itself takes another 4 to 5 months to complete. 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 our ability to help solve wildlife crimes. To reduce
    both these staffing shortages and existing analytical workload and
    backlog, $4 million is requested for the lab. Such funds would allow
    for the construction of a new 8,000 square feet building to house the
    lab's critical comparison standards collection ($1.1 million), the
    hiring of six forensic scientists (forensics branch chief, senior plant
    morphologist, and four forensic examiners in the areas of birds,
    reptiles, plants, and analytical chemistry), four new technicians, and
    much needed spending on training, travel, equipment and supplies.

                            WILD HORSE AND BURRO ACT

        With more wild horses and burros now in captivity than on the
    range, the BLM continues to use virtually its entire budget simply to
    remove and warehouse wild horses and burros without the scientific data
    to justify its actions. This, 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 the devastating
    ``Burns'' amendment, which altered the Wild Free-Roaming Horse and
    Burro Act of 1971 to require the sale of certain wild horses and burros
    without restriction. With no legal authority to protect these horses
    once sold under the changed law, they can be re-sold for slaughter--the
    very thing that prompted Congress to act to protect wild horses over 30
    years ago.
        AWI therefore 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 significant numbers of
    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,
    particularly in the absence of sound census data to support such
    actions.
        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 Horse and Burro Act of 1971.
        Finally, we urge Congress to insert into the fiscal year 2009
    Senate Interior Appropriations bill the following language:
        ``None of these funds shall be used to implement or carry out Sec.
    1333(e)--Sale of excess animals--of the Wild Free-Roaming Horse and
    Burro Act of 1971''.

                               YELLOWSTONE BISON

        The National Park Service/Yellowstone National Park (NPS/YNP) is
    the lead agency in a failed cooperative state/federal bison management
    plan that, since 2000, has resulted in the unnecessary killing of
    nearly 3,000 park bison. Yellowstone bison represent the last
    continuously free-roaming herd of bison in the United States. They are
    of immense scientific, aesthetic, and spiritual value to millions of
    people from around the world. The current bison management plan has
    cost the American taxpayer up to $3 million per year since it was
    implemented in 2000 yet the three-step plan has failed to progress
    beyond step 1. In addition, though based on the concept of adaptive
    management, the plan has not been substantively adapted despite
    compelling new evidence documenting the existence of at least two
    genetically distinct bison subpopulations in the park. By ignoring this
    new evidence, the agencies, led by the NPS, may be permanently and
    adversely impacting the genetic health and viability of park bison as a
    result of their relentless lethal management efforts. During the
    current winter, nearly 1,300 bison have been killed or are awaiting
    slaughter. Of this total, nearly 940 have been captured inside YNP by
    the NPS. To prevent the ongoing misuse of federal taxpayers' dollars
    and to protect park bison from the very agency that is mandated to
    conserve and protect park wildlife, AWI respectfully requests that
    Congress include language in the fiscal year 2009 Interior
    Appropriations bill to specify that no federal funds are to be used by
    the NPS for the purpose of killing or participating in the killing of
    YNP bison.

                    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, AWI respectfully requests that Congress
    appropriate an additional $4 million above the President's request for
    each of these funds.
                                     ______

           Prepared Statement of the Association to Preserve Cape Cod

        Madam Chairman and honorable members of the committee: I appreciate
    the opportunity to present testimony in support of an appropriation of
    $2 million from the Land and Water Conservation Fund for the Cape Cod
    National Seashore in Massachusetts.
        As you know, Madam Chairman, this project is one of many worthy
    acquisition projects nationwide seeking LWCF funding. Unfortunately
    since fiscal year 2002, funding for LWCF has diminished by about 75
    percent, and the fiscal year 2009 Budget proposes further cuts. These
    reductions have left our national parks, refuges, and forests unable to
    acquire from willing sellers critical inholdings and adjacent lands
    that have been identified to protect and enhance recreational access,
    historic sites, wildlife habitats, scenic areas, water resources, and
    other important features. I urge the subcommittee to increase overall
    funding for this program in fiscal year 2009.
        The Association to Preserve Cape Cod (APCC) is the largest and most
    prestigious environmental advocacy organization on Cape Cod, with more
    than 5,200 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 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 Kennedy and Kerry 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 2009, an appropriation of $2 million from the Land
    and Water Conservation Fund will provide the final funding needed to
    protect 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. Thanks to your efforts, Congress has already
    provided nearly $4 million for this public acquisition in fiscal year
    2007 and fiscal year 2008.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to present this
    testimony in support of the appropriation of $2 million for Cape Cod
    National Seashore.
                                     ______

            Prepared Statement of the Appalachian Trail Conservancy

        In behalf of the Appalachian Trail Conservancy, for reasons
    described below, I am requesting a fiscal year 2009 appropriation from
    the Land and Water Conservation Fund in the amount of $4.525 million
    for the National Park Service and $10.645 million for the USDA Forest
    Service for the acquisition of lands and interests in lands surrounding
    or bordering the Appalachian National Scenic Trail (ANST) in the States
    of Virginia, New Hampshire, 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. Amendments to that act in 1978 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, with the strong support of
    the subcommittee and the Congress as a whole, 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 2,176-mile Appalachian Trail remain
    to be protected through public ownership.

                            RESOURCE CHARACTERISTICS

        The Appalachian Trail is a 2,176-mile footpath extending along the
    crests and valleys of the Appalachian Mountains through 14 States from
    Maine to Georgia. Often characterized as a ``string of pearls,'' the
    trail, a unit of the National Park System, connects eight National
    Forests, six other units of the National Park System, and approximately
    60 State parks, forests, and game-management units. With an estimated
    three to 4 million visitors per year, it ranks among the most heavily
    visited units of the National Park System and also ranks among the top
    10 natural resource park units. Based on inventories conducted in the
    1990s, more than 2,000 occurrences of rare, threatened, and endangered
    flora and fauna have been identified at more than 500 discrete sites
    within the trail corridor.
        The Appalachian Trail is equally well known as a remarkable public/
    private partnership. Since the initial construction of the trail in the
    1920s and 1930s, 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. In 2007, for example, more than 6,000 volunteers
    contributed approximately 200,000 hours of labor along the trail. As an
    outgrowth of a 1984 agreement between the National Park Service and
    ATC, 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, 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. Overall, working with other public
    agencies, ATC provides ongoing, volunteer-based stewardship for trail-
    related lands totaling more than 250,000 acres.

                            NEED FOR APPROPRIATIONS

        As noted previously, while the Appalachian National Scenic Trail
    protection program represents one of the most successful land-
    acquisition programs 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, in the
    National Forests of Virginia, Tennessee, and North Carolina.
    Nevertheless, a number of critical parcels are now ``ripe'' for land
    acquisition and we are seeking fiscal year 2009 LWCF appropriations to
    secure those properties. A brief description of each of those critical
    parcels follows. More detailed descriptions, along with maps and
    photographs of each of the referenced properties, were provided earlier
    this year 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
    property owned by Celanese LLC immediately adjacent to a busy highway
    (US 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. Due to limited
    land-acquisition capability on the Forest, ATC has requested the
    National Park Service to assist with the acquisition of this property
    and pre-acquisition work, such as title research and appraisal work,
    has been initiated. While total project costs are estimated to be $1.6
    million, ATC is requesting an fiscal year 2009 LWCF appropriation of
    $1.25 million for the National Park Service.

                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 many 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
    selling the tract at a favorable or bargain-sale price. Due to limited
    land-acquisition management capability on the Forest, ATC has asked the
    National Park Service to acquire the property. An appraisal has been
    ordered. Total project costs are estimated at $400,000. ATC is
    requesting an fiscal year 2009 LWCF appropriation of $300,000 for the
    National Park Service.

               MAHOOSUCS GATEWAY/SUCCESS TOWNSHIP, NEW HAMPSHIRE

        This project, involving 4,772 acres, is part of a larger
    conservation and economic-development focus area involving a consortium
    of conservation organizations as well as several local communities. The
    Mahoosuc Mountain Range is one of the most remote and rugged areas
    along the Appalachian Trail. Straddling the border between New
    Hampshire and Maine, it provides a scenic gateway to both States. In
    partnership with a timberland owner an opportunity exists to conserve a
    6-mile corridor along the northern edge of the narrow Appalachian Trail
    corridor there, including two of the most prominent mountain peaks in
    the area: Bald Cap and North Bald Cap. Conservation of the property
    would provide protection for a number of existing side trails in the
    area as well as the watersheds of numerous streams flowing into the
    Androscoggin River. The property also includes a number of ecologically
    significant features and natural communities. While total project costs
    are estimated to be $4.8 million, ATC and The Conservation Fund are
    requesting an fiscal year 2009 LWCF appropriation of $2.75 million for
    the National Park Service.

                 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 and is the number one land
    acquisition priority of the USDA Forest Service nationwide. Named for
    the cool waters of one of several prominent streams that pass through
    the property, it is adjacent to 22,000 acres of designated wilderness
    or inventoried road-less areas. 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. The property includes 1.2
    miles of the Appalachian National Scenic Trail with no protected right-
    of-way.
        The Rocky Fork property is readily accessible from Interstate 26
    and has been marketed for primary- and second-home development.
    However, in 2007, Timbervest, in behalf of the property owners, entered
    into a purchase and sales agreement with The Conservation Fund (TCF).
    ATC is working closely with TCF, the Southern Appalachian Highlands
    Conservancy, and a number of other 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. ATC and The Conservation Fund are
    requesting an fiscal year 2009 LWCF appropriation of $8 million for the
    USDA Forest Service.

                SHOOK BRANCH, TENNESSEE/CHEROKEE NATIONAL FOREST

        This 20-acre property is situated in eastern Tennessee in the
    Cherokee National Forest. The Appalachian Trail currently follows a
    dangerous road-walk and crosses US 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. ATC is
    requesting an fiscal year 2009 LWCF appropriation of $500,000 for the
    USDA Forest Service.

             WESSER BALD, NORTH CAROLINA/NANTAHALA NATIONAL FOREST

        This 82-acre property is situated in western North Carolina in the
    Nantahala National Forest. The A.T. passes within 100 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 with 360-degree views
    encompassing the Great Smoky Mountains skyline, the Nantahala
    Mountains, and northern Georgia. The upper 35 acres was acquired in fee
    in 2007 by the Southern Appalachian Highlands Conservancy with the aid
    of a bridge loan from The Conservation Fund and the requested LWCF
    appropriation will be used to repurchase that portion of the property
    at a bargain-sale price with ownership transferred to the Forest
    Service. SAHC also has secured a conservation easement affecting an
    additional 41 acres of the property. The total value of the fee and
    easement interests is $950,000. ATC is requesting an fiscal year 2009
    LWCF appropriation in the amount of $270,000 for the USDA Forest
    Service.

             ROAN HIGHLANDS, NORTH CAROLINA/PISGAH NATIONAL FOREST

        The 442-acre Roan Highlands tract rises to an elevation of 5,200
    feet above the Roaring Creek Valley along the North Carolina/Tennessee
    border within the proclamation boundary of the Pisgah National Forest.
    Its spectacular open summit is visible for miles along the Appalachian
    Trail and the property borders The Nature Conservancy's Big Yellow
    Mountain Preserve. The Trust for Public Lands in partnership with the
    Southern Appalachian Highlands Conservancy and ATC has obtained a
    letter of intent from the owner to protect the property through a
    combination of 290 acres in fee-simple ownership and 150 acres under a
    conservation easement to be held by SAHC. ATC is requesting an fiscal
    year 2009 LWCF appropriation in the amount of $1.875 million for the
    USDA Forest Service.
        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. Again, we
    respectfully request an fiscal year 2009 Land and Water Conservation
    Fund appropriation of $4.525 million for the National Park Service and
    $10.645 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 Appalachian Mountain Club

        Madame Chair and honorable members of the committee: On behalf of
    our almost 90,000 members, the Appalachian Mountain Club (AMC) is
    honored to present this testimony in support of much needed funding for
    conservation programs in the fiscal year 2009 Interior, Environment,
    and Related Agencies Appropriations bill, including:
      --$120 million for the USDA Forest Service Forest Legacy Program,
      --$403 million for the Department of the Interior Land and Water
            Conservation Fund (including $278 million for federal-side and
            $125 million for state-side programs),
      --$11 million for the Department of the Interior Highlands
            Conservation Act, and
      --$12 million for the National Parks Service Rivers, Trails, and
            Conservation Assistance program (RTCA).
        These programs provide tremendous economic, ecological and
    recreational benefits across the country. Land conservation and
    recreational program support are vital to maintaining the health and
    well being of the Nation's lands and our citizens. As you know the
    demands on these programs are great and funding in recent years has
    diminished alarmingly. There are a number of extremely important
    projects in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic alone.
        The AMC is the Nation's oldest recreation and conservation
    organization. Founded in 1876, our mission is to promote the
    protection, enjoyment, and wise use of the mountains, rivers and trails
    of the Appalachian region. With 12 chapters from Maine to Washington,
    DC, AMC is proud of our long tradition of stewardship and engagement in
    the outdoors.
        Open space conservation in the East is a vital investment that
    ensures clean air and water, a sustainable supply of timber products
    produced from private and public forests, local food and farm products
    for millions of people, and diverse recreational opportunities
    including hiking, cross-country skiing, wildlife viewing, and paddling.
    Conservation of these resources is needed now more than ever. According
    to the recent Forests on the Edge report published by the U.S.D.A.
    Forest Service, over 44 million acres of private forests will be
    developed in the next 30 years.

     PRIORITY FISCAL YEAR 2009 FOREST LEGACY PROGRAM NEEDS IN THE NORTHEAST

        For fiscal year 2009, we have assembled a list of exemplary Forest
    Legacy projects in the Northeast. Some of these projects, like the
    Katahdin Forest Expansion in Maine, Southern Monadnock Plateau II in
    Massachusetts, and Crotched Mountain in New Hampshire, need this
    funding to be completed. Others, such as the Metacoment-Monadnock
    Forest and Westfield Heritage Woodlands projects in Massachusetts, Lake
    Waubeeka in Connecticut, and Tree Farm #1--Mount Hope Tract in
    Pennsylvania, are new priorities that would protect unique and critical
    forests in the eastern United States.
        Congress should fund the Forest Legacy program at no less than $120
    million in fiscal year 2009. The Forest Legacy Program has protected
    over 1.5 million acres of forestland since 1990. However, despite this
    subcommittee's best efforts, funding for this program has decreased in
    recent years. While we are grateful for the inclusion of the Katahdin
    Forest Expansion project in the administration's fiscal year 2009
    budget, we are disappointed that the budget recommends only $12.5
    million for 3 projects nationwide. These projects total only 300 acres.
    For fiscal year 2009, 82 conservation projects were submitted (by 41
    States and three territories) for Forest Service considerations,
    representing a total of $202 million in Forest Legacy Program need to
    protect 400,000 acres of forestlands valued at almost $400 million.
        For fiscal year 2009, the AMC supports funding requests for the
    following Forest Legacy projects:

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                       State                               Project
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    ME........................................  Katahdin Forest Expansion
    ME........................................  Machias River Phase III
    NH........................................  Crotched Mountain
    MA........................................  Metacoment-Monadnock
    MA........................................  Westfield Heritage Woodlands
    MA........................................  Southern Monadnock Plateau
                                                 II
    CT........................................  Lake Waubeeka
    NY........................................  Fishkill Ridge-Hudson
                                                 Highlands State Park
    NY........................................  Route 28 Corridor
    NJ........................................  Passaic Ramapo Watershed II
    PA........................................  Tree Farm #1--Mount Hope
                                                 Tract
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

      PRIORITY FISCAL YEAR 2009 LAND AND WATER CONSERVATION FUND PROGRAM
                             NEEDS IN THE NORTHEAST

        While the AMC believes strongly that the Land & Water Conservation
    Fund (LWCF) program should be funded fully as authorized by Congress,
    we recognize the budget pressures you face this year, and so we request
    that the Federal program be funded at $278 million with an additional
    $125 million for the LWCF state-side grants. These figures obviously
    fall far below LWCF's $900 million annual authorization, but they
    represent the minimum required to secure crucial in-holdings that might
    otherwise be lost to private sale and development this year.
        The LWCF will provide critical protection to the Appalachian Trail
    Corridor--Mahoosucs Range in New Hampshire and Maine; the Lake Umbagog
    Wildlife Refuge in New Hampshire and Maine; the Silvio O. Conte
    National Wildlife Refuge for projects in its four-state region of New
    Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, and Connecticut; two projects in the
    Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area in Pennsylvania and New
    Jersey, and the Wallkill National Wildlife Refuge in New Jersey.
        In fiscal year 2009, the AMC supports the following LWCF projects
    in our region:

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                       State                          Federal Land Unit
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    NH/VT/MA/CT...............................  Silvio O. Conte NWR
    NH/ME.....................................  Lake Umbagog NWR
    NH/ME.....................................  Appalachian Trail Corridor--
                                                 Mahoosucs Range
    PA/NJ.....................................  Delaware Water Gap National
                                                 Recreation Area
    NJ........................................  Wallkill NWR
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

               FISCAL YEAR 2009 HIGHLANDS CONSERVATION ACT NEEDS

        The Highlands Conservation Act (HCA), passed in 2004, is landmark
    legislation authorizing land conservation partnership projects and open
    space purchases from willing sellers in the four-state Highlands region
    of Pennsylvania, New Jersey, New York, and Connecticut. The Act
    includes authorization of $10 million in annual grants to the Highlands
    states and nonprofit conservancies from the Department of the Interior
    for land acquisition and easements. It also includes $1 million
    annually in technical assistance from the USDA Forest Service to work
    with Highlands states and local municipalities to implement the
    conservation strategies outlined in the three comprehensive Forest
    Service studies of the region completed in 1992, 2002, and 2008.
        Unfortunately, this program has received only $3.75 million since
    it was initiated 4 years ago. While we greatly appreciate the
    subcommittee's efforts to support this program, we are in dire need of
    additional funds so that the purposes of the HCA can be fulfilled.
    According to a study by the USDA Forest Service, open space in New York
    and New Jersey alone is disappearing at a rate of 5,000 to 6,000 acres
    a year. The 4-State Highlands Region is the backyard for the more than
    25 million people living in or around the large cities of the Mid-
    Atlantic States, and provides critical drinking water, wildlife
    habitat, and abundant and accessible recreation opportunities. We
    strongly urge the subcommittee to fund this program at its authorized
    level of $10 million in fiscal year 2009 for land protection projects,
    and an additional $1 million per year to support research and technical
    assistance in the Highlands by the USDA Forest Service. Current
    projects in Pennsylvania, New Jersey, New York, and Connecticut share
    strong local support, commitments from State and private sources to
    provide matching funding, and will protect important water supplies,
    forests, farmland, recreational opportunities and wildlife habitat.
        In fiscal year 2009, the AMC supports funding for the following HCA
    projects:

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                       State                               Project
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    CT........................................  Ethel Walker II
    NY........................................  Great Swamp
    NY........................................  Greater Sterling Forest
    NJ........................................  Wyanokie and Farny Highlands
    NJ........................................  Ramapo Mountains
    PA........................................  Cooks Creek Watershed
    PA........................................  South Mountain
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

             PRIORITY FISCAL YEAR 2009 RECREATIONAL PROGRAMS NEEDS

        In addition to the important land conservation projects from the
    Machias River in Maine to the Cooks Creek Watershed in Pennsylvania,
    the AMC respectfully urges the subcommittee to ensure the viability of
    programs that support outdoor recreation in America. The AMC echoes the
    testimony of the American Hiking Society in support of diverse and
    strong funding levels for important recreational priorities.
        One of the most effective programs supporting human-powered
    recreation and community-based conservation planning is the National
    Park Service (NPS) Rivers, Trails, and Conservation Assistance (RTCA)
    program. AMC is currently receiving technical assistance from this
    program as we work to create a network of trails throughout the
    thirteen-county Pennsylvania Highlands. This trail project will create
    recreational opportunities for the millions of rural, suburban and
    urban families living throughout the Pennsylvania Highlands. The AMC
    endorses the testimony of the Rivers and Trails Coalition, of which we
    are a member, and supports funding of $12 million for the NPS RTCA
    program in fiscal year 2009.
        Thank you for the opportunity to submit this testimony for your
    consideration.
                                     ______

        Prepared Statement of APS a Subsidiary of Pinnacle West Capital
     Corporation, Colorado River District, Central Utah Water Conservancy
    District, Denver Water, the Jicarilla Apache Nation, Northern Colorado
    Water Conservancy District, Pueblo Board of Water Works, San Juan Water
    Commission, Southern Ute Indian Tribe, Southwestern Water Conservation
    District, PNM/San Juan Generating Station, Tri-County Water Conservancy
        Distict, the Navajo Nation, and the Utah Water Users Association

        I am requesting your support for appropriations in fiscal year 2009
    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 2009 funding to ensure FWS' continuing
    financial participation in these vitally important programs.
                                     ______

         Prepared Statement of the Association of State Drinking Water
                                 Administrators

        Who We Are.--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 2009 Appropriations for the U.S. Environmental
    Protection Agency. ASDWA represents the State drinking water programs
    in each of the 50 States and territories and the Navajo Nation 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 2009, 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
    $124 million for the Public Water System Supervision (PWSS) program; $1
    billion for the Drinking Water State Revolving Loan Fund (DWSRF)
    program; and $7 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 Overall 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 both
    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 both natural and manmade disasters.
        The PWSS Program.--To meet the requirements of the SDWA, States
    have accepted primary enforcement responsibility 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
    over 25 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.'' These include source water assessments and controls;
    technical assistance with water treatment and distribution; and
    enhancement of overall water system performance capabilities. State
    activities go well beyond simply ensuring compliance at the tap.
        The DWSRF Program.--In a little over 10 years, States have
    leveraged Federal and State 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 these water systems obtain the technical, managerial, and
    financial proficiency needed to meet the requirements of the SDWA.
        State Drinking Water Security Responsibilities.--Since the events
    of September 2001, as well as the more recent experience of Hurricane
    Katrina, 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 a significant number of
    requests for assistance, training, information, and financial support
    from the water systems under their purview as well as supported
    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 as well as
    the steps needed to recover. 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 URGENTLY NEEDED

        State Drinking Water Programs are Hard Pressed.--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.
        State Funding Gap Continues to Grow; States Cannot Keep Up.--
    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. ($97.55 million [after
    rescissions] was appropriated for the PWSS program in fiscal year
    2008.) Since August 1996 (the date of reauthorization of the SDWA),
    States have been denied over $250 million in funds for the PWSS grant
    program that were called for by the authorized levels. However, even
    the fully authorized level of $100 million annually is now, 11 years
    after enactment, 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 only continues to grow and has
    consequences. Many States are simply unable conduct complete the timely
    implementation of major provisions of the newer regulations, leaving
    the work undone or ceding the responsibility back to EPA where it is
    likely to languish because of their own resource constraints and lack
    of ``on the ground'' expertise. 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 $12 billion authorized for the DWSRF
    program since 1996. The underfunding of these programs, 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 2009 REQUEST LEVELS AND SDWA PROGRAM OBLIGATIONS

        The PWSS Program.--The State PWSS program request level in the
    administration's fiscal year 2009 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 5 years ago--in fiscal year 2004. The eroding effects
    of inflation have further eaten away at these inadequate funding
    levels. 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
    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 2009
    funding for the PWSS program be appropriated at $124 million. This
    figure represents a baseline of $101.9 million, as appropriated in
    fiscal year 2004, plus an additional 3.5 percent increase over the past
    5 fiscal years and into fiscal year 2009 to adjust for inflation.
        The DWSRF Program.--The fiscal year 2009 DWSRF program request in
    the President's budget is ``flat-lined'' at $842 million, reflecting no
    change from the fiscal year 2008 request and continues the downward
    funding trend of the three 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. Water infrastructure is needed for public health
    protection as well as a sustainable economy. For instance, industries
    have opted not to move to locations with inadequate electricity, water,
    and/or wastewater capacity to meet their needs. States have very
    effectively and efficiently leveraged Federal dollars with State
    contributions by turning over $11 billion from the DWSRF into well over
    $13 billion in water infrastructure loans since 1997. In so doing,
    States have provided assistance to almost 5,000 projects improving
    health protection for over 100 million Americans. Nearly 72 percent of
    projects and 39 percent of assistance has been provided to small
    communities (serving less than 10,000 people). However, 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 indicators of success
    and documented needs, the maximum amount requested by the
    administration for the DWSRF has been $850 million and Congress has
    always 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 2009
    funding for the DWSRF program be appropriated at authorized level of $1
    billion.
        Security Responsibilities: The administration's fiscal year 2009
    budget request includes $4.9 million for State drinking water programs
    to continue to expand their security activities, particularly for small
    and medium water 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 2009
    funding for the State security initiatives program be appropriated at
    $7 million. This figure represents a very modest increase over the
    security grant received over the past few years (i.e., on average, this
    would represent an increase of less than $40,000 per State). This
    increase is more commensurate with the security tasks State drinking
    water programs must take on and would help address 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 2009 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 2009 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 State-recommended fiscal year 2009
    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. However, additional Federal financial assistance is needed 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. For fiscal year 2009, ASDWA asks that the promise of that
    support be realized.
                                     ______

      Prepared Statement of the Association of State and Interstate Water
                        Pollution Control Administrators

        The States are responsible for implementing the Clean Water Act.
    They set standards, monitor and assess water quality, develop total
    maximum daily loads (TMDLs), issue permits, assure compliance and
    implement other watershed protection. The Nation depends on these State
    clean water programs to protect public water supplies, recreational
    waters, aquatic life, wildlife and other water uses.
        The mandates and workload USEPA expects of States continues to
    grow. The permitted universe has increased over 500 percent; standards
    must be set for complex and challenging pollutants; TMDLs must be
    developed and implemented, etc. According to the State Water Quality
    Management Resource Analysis Report ``At the highest level of
    aggregation. . . . State agencies are receiving less than one-half of
    the resources they need to fully implement the requirements of the
    Federal Clean Water Act.'' With a funding gap of over $900 Million,
    based on conservative projections, States do the best they can to
    address priority water quality problems with the resources available.

                            STATE MANAGEMENT FUNDING

        State efforts are undermined by OMB and USEPA setting aside 106
    funds. The underlying message this sends is that USEPA is on the path
    to significantly de-fund the State/Federal partnership. First it was a
    setaside for monitoring, then national probabilistic monitoring, then a
    permit fee incentive rule (fiscal year 2007 Budget) and then State
    scale probabilistic networks (fiscal year 2008 Budget). Cumulatively,
    the setasides total about $27 Million (over 25 percent of the funds
    States would have otherwise received). USEPA has no statutory authority
    to do this.\1\ Of equal importance, these funds are urgently needed in
    States to identify and solve important water quality problems.
    Diverting 106 funds from core efforts to fulfill water quality
    management obligations is not sustainable. States need flexibility to
    leverage the limited 106 funds appropriated to achieve environmental
    results.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ Section 106 states the funds are ``for grants to State and to
    Interstate Agencies to assist them in administering programs for the
    prevention and elimination of pollution.'' The funds are to be allotted
    based on ``the extent of pollution.'' Accordingly, States worked with
    USEPA to establish an equitable formula.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The setasides for the permit fee incentive rule and State
    probabilistic monitoring networks add insult to injury, creating
    incentives for some States by decreasing 106 funding to others.
        Clean Water State Revolving Loan Fund (CWSRF): ASIWPCA is deeply
    concerned about the Federal dis-investment in the CWSRF, because the
    CWSRF is under capitalized. Documented needs total over $300 billion.
    This figure does not fully consider: (1) the Nation's growing
    population which increases demands on infrastructure; (2) the higher
    levels of treatment that will be required at traditional permitted
    facilities for pollution; (3) treatment of sources such as stormwater,
    combined sewer overflows and separate sanitary overflows; and (4)
    repair and replacement of aging infrastructure. As a key partner in
    meeting these challenges, the CWSRF needs to be better funded and is
    well worth the investment:
      --Each dollar in Federal capitalization leverages an even greater
            amount at the State and local level;
      --Each Billion loaned saves communities $350 million in interest, and
            generates over 40,000 jobs and $1.9 billion in long term
            economic benefits;
      --77 percent of funds loaned are to improve water quality, 67 percent
            to protect and restore fisheries and recreational waters, and
            19 percent to protect and restore drinking water; and
      --55 percent of funds loaned are to achieve compliance with the Clean
            Water Act
        The Association makes the following recommendations for fiscal year
    2009:

                            [In millions of dollars]
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Amount
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Section 106...........................................             270.3
    319...................................................             241.5
    Clean Water State Revolving Loan Fund.................       \1\ 1,500.0
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Fiscal year 2004 level.

        We ask the Committee to:
      --Preclude USEPA from promulgating or implementing a NPDES permit fee
            incentive rule.
      --Require that appropriated section 106 funds be allotted to States
            and Interstate Agencies in accord with the allotment formula as
            defined in 40 CFR Part 35.162 (a)-(c).
        Maintaining and protecting the Nation's water resources is crucial
    to public health, the environment, and the Nation's economy. The
    Association appreciates the support the Appropriations Committee has
    given State and Interstate Agency Clean Water Programs and looks
    forward to working with you on these important issues.
                                     ______

     Prepared Statement of the ASME Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
           Task Force of the ASME Environmental Engineering Division

                                  INTRODUCTION

        The EPA Task Force of the Environmental Engineering Division (EED)
    of ASME is pleased to have this opportunity to submit its position
    statement on the fiscal year 2009 budget request for Science and
    Technology (S&T) programs in the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
    ASME is a worldwide engineering society focused on technical,
    educational, and research issues. It sets many industrial and
    manufacturing standards, holds numerous technical conferences and
    professional development courses each year, and is one of the largest
    publishers of technical and engineering information worldwide.

                                   BACKGROUND

        Scientists and engineers have a long-standing professional interest
    in applying science and technology to improve the environment and human
    health. Mechanical engineers increasingly collaborate with other
    professionals in the environmental field to develop innovative and
    cost-effective environmental technologies and systems.
        The EPA plays an essential role in the nation's efforts to protect
    human health and safeguard the environment and EPA's S&T research and
    development (R&D) activities should be important to improve
    environmental protection in a sound, sustainable, and cost-effective
    manner. R&D efforts are needed to improve environmental health and
    ecology, environmental monitoring, environmental technology development
    and implementation, pollution prevention, and address the emerging
    concerns of climate change, and the environmental issues of homeland
    security and infrastructure protection.
        The President's fiscal year 2009 budget request for EPA S&T
    programs would increase funding by $3.4 million over fiscal year 2008
    to $763.5 million. Despite this increase, the EPA R&D budget has
    decreased, when adjusted for inflation, to the lowest levels in over
    two decades. Lower R&D funds could undermine major programs and also
    impair responses to climate change, terrestrial carbon sequestration
    and management, biofuels and oil shale waste issues, and nanotechnology
    development.
    Overview of the ASME Task Force Review
        We will focus our analysis on the R&D activities within the S&T
    portfolio within the EPA's Office of Research and Development (ORD) and
    the Superfund program that support eight strategic programmatic
    research areas:
        I. Clean Air and Global Climate Change
        II. Clean and Safe Water
        III. Land Preservation and Restoration
        IV. Human Health and Ecosystems
        V. Compliance and Environmental Stewardship
        VI. Toxic Research and Prevention
        VII. Sustainability
        VIII. Homeland Security
        The change in funding levels supporting these core objectives
    between fiscal year 2008 and fiscal year 2009 is as follows:

                            [In millions of dollars]
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Fiscal year
                                           ----------------------   Change
                                               2008       2009
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Clean Air.............................       99.6       96.9       -2.7
    Clean Water...........................      104.3      101.4       -2.9
    Land Protection and Restoration.......       10.5       13.3       +2.8
    Human Health and Ecosystems...........      223.6      217.3       -6.3
    Toxic Research and Prevention.........       24.4       26.5       +2.09
    Sustainability........................       22.1       19.9       -2.1
    Homeland Security.....................       54.1       73.9      +19.8
                                           ---------------------------------
          Total...........................      538.6      549.2      +10.6
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

                     EPA OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

        Through research and technical assistance, ORD provides the
    scientific foundation for EPA by performing research and development to
    identify and solve present and future environmental issues and
    providing responsive technical support to its scientific partners. The
    ORD administers programs addressing both foundational research to
    improve the scientific tools used to understand and evaluate
    environmental health as well as problem-driven research designed to
    provide scientific solutions to high-priority environmental problems.
    It is an invaluable national resource.
        We remain concerned that EPA's science and technology investments
    continue to fall below the level of inflation. An evaluation of EPA's
    resources is needed to ensure that it can balance between existing
    priorities and new challenges. Program specifics issues are outlined
    below:

                               CLEAN AIR RESEARCH
                            [In millions of dollars]
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Fiscal year
                                           ----------------------   Change
                                               2008       2009
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Global Change.........................       19.6       16.3       -3.3
    Clean Air.............................       79.9       80.5        +.59
                                           ---------------------------------
          Total...........................       99.6       96.9       -2.7
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Funding for Global Change research has dropped at a time when the
    nation views this as a critical issue. We urge Congress to appropriate
    additional funds for Global Change to at least the fiscal year 2008
    level. The Task Force supports increased research funding to at least
    the fiscal year 2008 level.

                              CLEAN WATER RESEARCH
                            [In millions of dollars]
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Fiscal year
                                            ----------------------   Change
                                                2008       2009
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Drinking water.........................       48.7       45.2       -3.5
    Water quality..........................       55.5       56.1        +.6
                                            --------------------------------
          Total............................      104.3      101.4       -2.8
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Overall, the fiscal year 2009 budget request calls for a decrease
    of about $2.8 million over the fiscal year 2008 appropriated amount.
    This reduction could hurt the long-term development of infrastructure
    related to water quality issues. The Task Force is concerned about the
    reductions for Clean Water Research and urges Congress to increase
    funding for the Drinking Water and Water Quality programs to at least
    the fiscal year 2008 Appropriated amount.

                         LAND PROTECTION AND RESTORATION
                            [In millions of dollars]
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Fiscal year
                                            ----------------------   Change
                                                2008       2009
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Land protection research...............       10.5       13.3       +2.7
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The $2.7 million, or 27 percent, increase in land protection and
    restoration research comes as ecosystem research and sustainability and
    environmental management are being reduced in funding. The Task Force
    recommends that funding for land protection and restoration be
    appropriated at requested levels for fiscal year 2009.

                           SUSTAINABILITY RESEARCH \1\
                            [In millions of dollars]
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Fiscal year
                                            ----------------------   Change
                                                2008       2009
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Sustainability \2\.....................       22.1       20.0       -2.1
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ The Economics and Decision Sciences (EDS) and Environmental
      Technology Verification (ETV) programs have been zeroed out.
    \2\ No longer part of Land Protection and Restoration.

        Funding for Sustainability research is slated for a reduction of
    $4.6 million for this year, and nearly $10 million below the fiscal
    year 2007 level. Additionally, programs such as the Environmental
    Technology Verification (ETV) and the Economics and Decision Sciences
    (EDS) were eliminated in the fiscal year 2008 Budget request.
        The Task Force recommends restoring funding to the ETV and EDS
    programs. Funds for Sustainability research should be increased to at
    least fiscal year 2008 levels.

                          TOXIC RESEARCH AND PREVENTION
                            [In millions of dollars]
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Fiscal year
                                           ----------------------   Change
                                               2008       2009
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Pesticides and Toxics Research........       24.4       26.5       +2.09
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

                           HUMAN HEALTH AND ECOSYSTEMS
                            [In millions of dollars]
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Fiscal year
                                           ----------------------   Change
                                               2008       2009
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Human Health \1\......................       77.2       74.7       -2.5
    Ecosystems \1\........................       75.7       69.9       -5.7
    Human health risk assessment..........       38.3       39.3        +.98
    Endocrine disruptors..................       10.3        9.5        -.82
    Fellowships...........................        9.8        8.8        -.96
    Computational toxicology..............       12.1       14.8       +1.9
    Human Research........................      153.0      144.7       -8.2
                                           ---------------------------------
          Total...........................      223.6      217.3       -6.3
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ No longer a part of the Human Health and Ecosystems program.
      Separated in the fiscal year 2008 Budget.

        Funding for Healthy Communities and Ecosystems research is slated
    for a reduction of $6.3 million for this year, over $20 million from
    fiscal year 2007. Despite that other agencies are receiving increased
    funding for research to support long-term energy reliability and
    sustainability, such as oil shale, biofuels, and carbon capture and
    sequestration, EPA has not received funding to assess the ecosystem
    impacts of these major initiatives. The Task Force believes that the
    substantial budget cuts in ecosystems research will impede new
    technologies that minimize future environmental damage. The Task Force
    recommends increasing funds to at least fiscal year 2008 levels to
    support these areas.

                                HOMELAND SECURITY
                            [In millions of dollars]
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Fiscal year
                                           ----------------------   Change
                                               2008       2009
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Critical Infrastructure Protection....       15.3       27.1      +11.7
    Decontamination.......................       20.4       28.8       +8.36
    Preparedness, Response, and Recovery..       38.1       46.2       +8.0
                                           ---------------------------------
          Total...........................       54.1       73.9      +19.8
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Homeland security activities are a significant element of EPA's S&T
    activities, focusing on critical infrastructure protection and disaster
    preparedness and response. The Task Force believes that the new
    emphasis on homeland security at EPA is justified and that the increase
    is more then adequate to meet the program's objectives. Continued
    support should be provided to improve water security and enhance
    preparedness for biological and chemical threats.
    Environmental Education
        The fiscal year 2009 EPA budget requests $8.8 million to support
    research fellowships, a decrease of $1 million from the previous fiscal
    year. The STAR (Science to Achieve Results) fellowship program is the
    only federal fellowship program designed exclusively for students
    pursuing advanced degrees in environmental sciences and engineering.
    This is an important investment and the Task Force fully supports this
    program. The Task Force urges Congress to increase funding for STAR
    fellowships. It is essential to encourage students to pursue careers in
    environmental science and engineering. Such investments are critical to
    addressing environmental concerns, bolstering our nation's workforce,
    and maintaining its competitiveness.

                                   CONCLUSION

        While the proposed fiscal year 2009 EPA Science and Technology
    budget includes increases in a few program areas, the overall research
    budget is historically low. We recommend that the ORD budget be
    increased by a minimum of $7 million to a level of $548 million. This
    is necessary to preserve EPA's important contribution in meeting the
    challenges of our natural resource and policy issues in compliance with
    its regulatory mission.
        ASME is a non-profit technical and educational organization with
    120,000 members worldwide. The Society's members work in all sectors of
    the economy, including industry, academia, and government. This
    statement represents the views of the EPA Task Force of the ASME
    Environmental Engineering Division and is not necessarily a position of
    ASME as a whole.
                                     ______

                   Prepared Statement of Audubon Connecticut

        Madame Chairman and honorable members of the committee: Audubon
    Connecticut appreciates the opportunity to testify on behalf of funding
    through the Land and Water Conservation Fund to support the addition of
    three significant habitat areas to the National Wildlife Refuge (NWR)
    system in Connecticut. A total $6 million is being requested for
    additions to the Stewart B. McKinney National Wildlife Refuge and
    $5.065 million for additions to the Silvio O. Conte National Fish and
    Wildlife Refuge.
        Audubon Connecticut, the State organization of the National Audubon
    Society with more than 12,000 members statewide, works to protect
    birds, other wildlife and their habitats using science and
    conservation, education, and legislative advocacy for the benefit of
    people and the earth's biological diversity. The NWR system in our
    state protects key habitat areas for birds, wildlife and plants, and
    provides opportunities for scientific research, environmental
    education, and fish and wildlife-oriented recreation. These refuges,
    the Stewart B. McKinney National Wildlife Refuge along the coast of
    Long Island Sound and the Silvio O. Conte National Fish and Wildlife
    Refuge covering the watershed of the Connecticut River, represent two
    of our Nation's most unusual and important Refuges located in a densely
    populated and highly developed four-state region including Connecticut,
    Massachusetts, New Hampshire and Vermont.
        The Stewart B. McKinney National Wildlife Refuge is dedicated to
    protecting migratory bird habitat along 60 miles of Long Island Sound
    shoreline in Connecticut. The Refuge is used by more than 300 species
    of birds including raptors, waterfowl, shorebirds and Neotropical
    migratory landbirds. Several individual units are recognized as Audubon
    Important Bird Areas, part of a global network of sites that are
    essential to birds at some point in their life cycle. The Stewart B.
    McKinney NWR provides critical habitat for federally endangered Roseate
    Terns, federally threatened Piping Plovers, and a globally significant
    nesting population of Salt Marsh Sharp-tailed Sparrows, listed by the
    State of Connecticut as a Species of Special Concern and as Globally
    ``Vulnerable'' by BirdLife International.
        The Silvio O. Conte National Fish and Wildlife Refuge.--The
    Nation's only Fish and Wildlife Refuge--consists of approximately
    180,000 acres in 48 identified ``special focus areas'' within the 7.2
    million acre watershed of the Connecticut River in Connecticut,
    Massachusetts, New Hampshire and Vermont. These areas contribute
    substantially and in unique ways to supporting natural diversity in the
    watershed and provide habitat for numerous species of birds including
    our nation's symbol, the Bald Eagle. Two individual units in
    Connecticut are recognized as Audubon Important Bird Areas. The areas
    currently proposed for acquisition would constitute only the second
    acquisition of property in the State of Connecticut by the Conte
    Refuge.
        Audubon Connecticut strongly supports the following 2008 Land and
    Water Conservation Fund requests:
      --$6 million for phase I of a multi-year effort to acquire the Long
            Beach/Pleasure Beach project in Stratford and Bridgeport,
            Connecticut that would conserve a 70-acre barrier beach
            adjacent to the State's largest city, a distressed and targeted
            community. This will be first of several phases for this
            project. The beach shelters the 700-acre estuarine system of
            the Stratford-Great Meadows Unit of the Stewart B. McKinney
            National Wildlife Refuge, and represents the most important
            remaining block of nesting habitat for the federally threatened
            Piping Plover and State threatened Least Tern in Connecticut.
            Long Beach and Pleasure Beach represent 20 percent of
            Connecticut's remaining undeveloped coastline. More than 270
            bird species utilize this area, and the addition of the Long
            Beach/Pleasure Beach property to the Refuge would create one of
            the premier birding areas in all of New England. Acquisition of
            this area by the USFWS will simultaneously improve public
            access, improve resource management for federally listed
            species and provide a new amenity to Connecticut's largest
            city, Bridgeport. With both municipalities willing to sell
            their sites to USFWS, this is a unique opportunity to conserve
            critical bird habitat while also providing high quality
            wildlife-oriented recreation opportunities in an urban
            environment.
      --$2 million for acquisition of the Elm Camp/Johnson property, three
            (3) parcels that would add a total of 389 acres along the
            pristine Salmon River, a tributary to the Connecticut River, to
            the Salmon River Division of the Silvio O. Conte National Fish
            and Wildlife Refuge, as well as $3.065 million (a total request
            of $5.065 million) for additional properties in Massachusetts,
            New Hampshire, and Vermont as part of a four-State coalition
            effort to permanently protect key areas in this unique Refuge
            that runs through the four-State region and spans the watershed
            of New England's longest river. The Salmon River Division in
            Connecticut represents critical wintering habitat for Bald
            Eagles and nesting habitat for American Black Ducks, Wood
            Ducks, and Mallards, along with critical wetland, forest and
            shrubland habitat for many other species of conservation
            concern. The Elm Camp/Johnson property would represent only the
            second unit of the Refuge in Connecticut and the first addition
            to the Salmon River Division. The property contains 3,360 feet
            of frontage on Pine Brook, a high-quality stream that provides
            outstanding cold-water fish habitat, as well as 1,440 feet on
            the west bank of the Salmon River where there have been
            extensive State and Federal efforts to restore anadromous fish
            runs, including the Atlantic salmon. Pine Brook is the only
            major Salmon tributary free of artificial barriers to migratory
            fish.
        The acquisition of these parcels by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
    Service will continue efforts to protect bird habitat along the highly
    developed coastline of Long Island Sound and watershed of the
    Connecticut River. If funding is not made available in fiscal year
    2009, there is a strong possibility that these parcels could be
    developed and Connecticut would lose more of the already-rare salt
    marsh and riverine habitats found on the subject properties. On behalf
    of Audubon Connecticut, I respectfully request your support in the
    fiscal year 2009 Interior Appropriations bill to ensure the success of
    these important conservation projects that will benefit the people of
    our State and our Nation for generations to come.
        Thank you for your consideration of these requests.
        Audubon Connecticut, the State organization of the National Audubon
    Society with more than 12,000 members statewide, works to protect
    birds, other wildlife and their habitats using science and
    conservation, education, and legislative advocacy for the benefit of
    people and the earth's biological diversity. Through our network of
    nature centers, protected wildlife sanctuaries, and local volunteer
    Chapters, we seek to connect people with nature and inspire the next
    generation of conservationists.
                                     ______

           Prepared Statement of the Audubon Society of New Hampshire

        Madam Chairman and honorable members of the subcommittee: Thank you
    for the opportunity to provide testimony on behalf of the Audubon
    Society of New Hampshire in support of an appropriation of $1 million
    from the Federal Land and Water Conservation Fund to acquire a 2,450-
    acre tract known as the Mollidgewock Brook Project (Phase II) for the
    Lake Umbagog National Wildlife Refuge (Lake Umbagog NWR) in Errol, New
    Hampshire. The Audubon Society of New Hampshire is a nonprofit
    statewide membership organization whose mission is to protect New
    Hampshire's natural environment for wildlife and for people. Our
    organization has offered programs in wildlife conservation, land
    protection, environmental policy, and environmental education since
    1914.
        My name is Carol R. Foss, Director of Conservation for the Audubon
    Society of New Hampshire, where I have worked in various professional
    capacities for more than 30 years. I hold a Bachelor's degree in
    Biology from Colby College in Waterville, Maine, a Master's Degree in
    Zoology from the University of Connecticut in Storrs, and a Ph.D. in
    Wildlife Ecology from the University of Maine in Orono. I have more
    than 25 years of field experience in northern New Hampshire and western
    Maine, including considerable time in the vicinity of the Lake Umbagog
    NWR. I have participated in a number of collaborative efforts to ensure
    the long-term conservation of our state's northern forest landscape,
    serving on numerous advisory committees and expert panels focused on
    land conservation and management around Umbagog Lake and elsewhere in
    the region. In my current position I administer a staff of six
    additional scientists, several of whom have also conducted field
    research in the forests and wetlands of northern New Hampshire.
        Set in the foothills of the rugged Mahoosuc Mountains and
    straddling the state border between northern New Hampshire and western
    Maine, Umbagog Lake is the westernmost link in the chain of Rangeley
    Lakes, famed for their excellent recreational opportunities as well as
    for possessing some of the finest wildlife habitat to be found in the
    two states. The 20,513-acre Lake Umbagog NWR, which encircles Umbagog
    Lake, includes 8,700 acres of open water, dozens of miles of shoreline,
    numerous sheltered coves and hidden backwaters, and extensive and
    diverse wetlands. These wetland features are surrounded by a variety of
    upland and lowland forest types in a broad array of successional age
    classes.
        Umbagog Lake offers scenic wilderness opportunities for
    recreationists throughout the year. In the warmer months, kayakers,
    canoeists, and boaters explore the lake's coves and the rapids and
    backwaters of the Magalloway, Rapid, and Dead Cambridge rivers, the
    lake's major tributaries, as well as the Androscoggin River which flows
    out of the lake. Primitive shoreline campsites offer rustic canoe
    camping in a magnificent northwoods setting. Hunters, hikers, nature
    photographers, and wildlife watchers find nearly unlimited
    opportunities for exploration. The watershed is a well-known and
    sought-after fishing destination that offers anglers the opportunity to
    fish for both cold water and warm water species. Winter recreational
    activities include snowmobiling, ice fishing, snowshoeing, cross-
    country skiing, and dog-sledding.
        Lake Umbagog NWR protects exemplary habitats for many types of
    northern forest wildlife, especially for wetland-dependent, migratory,
    and state-listed threatened or endangered bird species. Wetland areas
    on the Refuge are particularly notable for the diversity and abundance
    of migrating and nesting waterbirds. The Refuge supports the highest
    concentrations of nesting American black ducks, ring-necked ducks, and
    common loons in New Hampshire. Significant numbers of several birds of
    prey of state conservation concern in New Hampshire or Maine are found
    in and around the Refuge, including breeding populations of bald
    eagles, ospreys, peregrine falcons, and northern harriers. Many
    neotropical migrant songbirds associated with northern forest habitat
    types are plentiful on the Refuge, including several declining species
    such as Canada warbler, bay-breasted warbler, and rusty blackbird.
        Critical ecological values protected by the Lake Umbagog NWR have
    been recognized by a long list of interagency, academic, and non-
    governmental organizations, working groups, and committees. In the New
    Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan, sections of the Refuge are rated as
    ``Tier 1'' habitat, a classification used by conservation planners to
    designate habitat areas with the highest condition ranking in the
    state. The North American Waterfowl Management Plan's Atlantic Coast
    Joint Venture recognizes portions of the Refuge in both Maine and New
    Hampshire as high priority sites. The Refuge is located at the center
    of the Nulhegan-Rangeley Complex, one of only five waterbird focus
    areas designated in New England. Within the North American Bird
    Conservation Initiative, the Lake Umbagog NWR falls within the Atlantic
    Northern Forest Bird Conservation Region (BCR-14); many of the Priority
    Species identified by BCR-14 occur on the Refuge. The National Park
    Service has specifically designated one unique 850-acre tract of boreal
    bog habitat within the Refuge as the Floating Island National Natural
    Landmark.
        Available for acquisition in fiscal year 2009 is the 2,450-acre
    Mollidgewock Brook Project (Phase II) located in the town of Errol, New
    Hampshire. Conservation of this parcel is a top priority for the Lake
    Umbagog NWR and the support of a variety of local and statewide
    conservation groups and natural resource agencies, including the
    Appalachian Mountain Club, the New Hampshire Fish and Game Department,
    and other conservation groups and natural resource agencies. The entire
    5,016-acre Mollidgewock Brook Project (Phases I, II, and III)
    encompasses the majority of the Mollidgewock Brook wetlands--an
    extensive complex of low-gradient stream, boreal forest swamp, alder
    swamp and emergent marsh. A large block of lowland spruce-fir forest
    surrounds the wetlands, and early successional northern hardwood and
    mixed forest covers the property's gently rolling uplands.
        Specifically, Phase II of the Mollidgewock Brook Project
    encompasses 276 acres of wetlands as mapped by the National Wetlands
    Inventory, including at least 10 different wetland types. These
    extensive and varied wetlands provide ideal habitat for waterfowl, such
    as hooded merganser, common goldeneye, and the regionally declining
    American black duck. Field data obtained by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
    Service document that this property also supports a variety of forest
    types, including lowland mixed hardwood-spruce forest, tamarack and
    spruce bogs, and regenerating stands of spruce-fir and northern
    hardwoods. Conifer stands on the property have historically provided a
    large wintering area for white-tailed deer, the State's most important
    game species. These forests also provide ideal habitat for lynx and
    American marten, both species of regional conservation concern. The
    forests support breeding populations of many neotropical migrant
    songbirds, including more than 20 species of warblers. Ospreys and
    northern harriers breed on the property, and bald eagles utilize it as
    foraging habitat throughout the year.
        Conservation of this property will provide critically important
    ecological connectivity between the recently conserved 5,300-acre Errol
    Community Forest and the existing 20,513-acre Lake Umbagog NWR. This
    will benefit many types of wildlife by creating and preserving
    extensive wildlife travel corridors that extend from Umbagog Lake to
    the nearby Androscoggin River and to adjacent upland forests. This
    connection will help facilitate long-term conservation of important
    wetland and upland wildlife species, including migratory birds, large
    mammals, and endangered species. Addition of this 2,450-acre property
    to the Lake Umbagog National Wildlife Refuge will further accomplish
    the original purposes for the establishment of the Refuge in 1992,
    including protecting wetlands, wetland-associated wildlife, and
    migratory birds. Permanent protection of the Mollidgewock Brook and
    wetland complex will assist the Refuge in achieving these goals, as
    well as complement and enhance conservation efforts of several partner
    organizations elsewhere in the region. Additionally, acquisition of
    this property will support efforts to preserve outdoor recreational
    opportunities in the upper Androscoggin Valley.
        An appropriation of $1 million from the Land and Water Conservation
    Fund is needed to complete the acquisition of Phase II of the
    Mollidgewock Brook Project. This investment will be leveraged by over
    $900,000 in State and private money that will support Phase I and Phase
    III in order to complete the entire 5,000-acre project. Timely action
    on this request is needed to complete conservation of the Phase II
    parcel, which had been at risk of subdivision for second homes by
    virtue of its proximity to Umbagog Lake, the Androscoggin River, and
    other desirable recreational amenities of the region. With your support
    of this appropriation, we have an opportunity to conserve threatened
    acreage and add it to the Lake Umbagog NWR. Acquisition of this parcel
    will support the Refuge in its efforts to protect important wildlife
    habitat and link it to other conservation lands which are already
    protected by various Federal, State, and municipal agencies.
        The Mollidgewock Brook Project is one of many worthy acquisition
    proposals nationwide seeking LWCF funding. Unfortunately since fiscal
    year 2002, LWCF funding has diminished by about 75 percent, and the
    fiscal year 2009 Federal budget proposes even further cuts. These
    reductions have left our national parks, refuges, and forests unable to
    acquire from willing sellers many in-holdings and adjacent lands which
    have been identified as critical to protect and enhance recreational
    access, historic sites, wildlife habitats, scenic areas, water
    resources, and other important features. If we fail to act in a timely
    manner to conserve treasured natural and cultural resources while we
    have an opportunity, many may soon be lost or severely degraded. I urge
    the subcommittee to increase overall funding available for LWCF in
    fiscal year 2009.
        Thank you again for the opportunity to provide testimony in support
    of this important conservation initiative in northern New Hampshire.
                                     ______

                 Prepared Statement of the Blue Goose Alliance

        Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, the following is offered
    on behalf of the Blue Goose Alliance regarding the fiscal year 2009
    appropriations for Operations and Maintenance accounts of the National
    Wildlife Refuge System. We urge the committee to allocate an increase
    of $81 million, thereby advancing the funding to $514 Million for
    Refuge System operations in the coming year. Further, we ask that the
    Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) appropriations for fiscal year
    2009 be retained at the fiscal year 2008 level of $20.676 million.
    These funds are vital to assure continuation of a viable effort to
    address exchanges, inholdings, emergencies and hardships affecting
    habitats for endangered species, neotropical migrants and depleted
    populations of migratory birds.
        The Blue Goose Alliance is a national 501(c)(3) conservation
    organization. Its mission is to promote the legislative establishment
    of a National Wildlife Refuge Service within the U.S. Department of the
    Interior. To assist the accomplishment of that mission, the Alliance
    informs the public and Congress on needs and benefits of the Refuge
    System, and works independently or with other organizations to defend
    individual refuges against threatening projects or proposals.

                                    SUMMARY

        The Alliance thanks you, Madam Chairwoman, for your leadership last
    year as this committee worked to increase funding for the Refuge
    System. Those efforts were noteworthy given the difficult budget
    climate. Once again we urge you to move the Refuge System and its vital
    wildlife conservation programs forward by increasing funding in fiscal
    year 2009. A large group of organizations are working to establish
    adequate core program funding for the Refuge System by fiscal year
    2012. The level we endorse for fiscal year 2009 ($514 million for NWRS
    O&M) represents a logical and very important step towards that well-
    justified goal.
        We are deeply concerned with the administration's fiscal year 2009
    budget request for the National Wildlife Refuge System, which proposes
    damaging decreases within basic refuge programs. Each year rising basic
    costs erode the purchasing power of the funding provided by this
    committee so that an additional $15 million each year is necessary
    merely to maintain refuge programs at the previous year's level. The
    real need is to go beyond the inflation costs and allow refuges to
    increase activities and public benefits to higher levels.
        It is incomprehensible to us that the Fish and Wildlife Service
    (FWS) requested severe program cuts by diverting some fiscal year 2008
    funds, ``refusing'' money allocated to it, and attempting to confine
    some subactivities to fiscal year 2007 levels even as they continue
    refuge workforce reductions. Those tactics conflict with the
    Appropriations Act and directions provided by this committee.
        We also respectfully ask the subcommittee for an additional $1
    million to fund an independent study of the Refuge System. The National
    Wildlife Refuge Association in October 2007 first proposed such a
    study. It should detail the obscure stature of the Refuge System within
    the Department and FWS with consequent lack of leadership attention,
    weak decisions, forced staff reductions and inadequate funding
    undermining of the biological integrity, diversity, and environmental
    health of refuges. These factors also impede vital public outreach,
    foster lawlessness on refuges and limit the ability of field stations
    to mitigate and adapt to habitat and wildlife population changes
    wrought by global climate changes. The study would gauge the Refuge
    System's status and efforts to implement the 1997 Refuge Improvement
    Act.
        While the fiscal year 2009 President's budget request for the FWS
    attempts to look like an effort to reduce government spending, it
    actually diverts funds from basic refuge programs originating in the
    1997 statute, and funds new initiatives in the FWS and Department. This
    is a chronic problem for the System and a main reason the Blue Goose
    Alliance exists. We believe such diversions would cease if the Refuge
    System had full agency autonomy within the Department of Interior.

                     REFUGE SYSTEM PROGRAM RECOMMENDATIONS

        The FWS has asked for a decrease of $930,000 for subactivities
    within the Wildlife and Habitat Management subactivity. The proposal
    ``eliminates'' a congressional add-on in last year's appropriations. We
    support an increase of $25 million in this fundamental program. As
    Global Climate Change continues to impact coastal areas and especially
    northern Alaska, refuge wildlife and habitats must have the resources
    to help mitigate and adjust to the changes. Inland areas such as the
    prairie pothole region of north central States and the arid southwest
    are also feeling early effects of the greenhouse phenomenon. America's
    fish and wildlife require time to adjust to expected habitat changes;
    refuges can serve as assisting agents for those adjustments. Refuges
    need to improve wildlife surveys and monitoring activities, increase
    the health of all refuge wildlife populations and habitats, and
    anticipate coming changes.
        The FWS has asked for a decrease of $1,733,000 in the Visitor
    Services subactivity, again redirecting resources to ``other needs
    within the Fish and Wildlife Service'' at a time when National Wildlife
    Refuges are, more than ever, a destination point for people as well as
    wildlife. Refuge visitation continues to grow as birdwatching becomes
    ever more popular and refuges offer premier opportunities found nowhere
    else. Birding now has 82 million participants, having grown by 8
    percent since the year 2000. Today 35.4 percent of Americans 16 and
    older take active interest in birding. Altogether, over 8 billion
    birding days are expended each year, yet another increase in nature
    observations in general as humans seek balance in a stress-filled
    world.
        Environmental education is an especially important activity on
    refuges, and is increasingly popular with schools all across the
    Nation. Within the refuge system many refuges have a top quality EE
    program. Investments in EE are especially important as they reach our
    young people, the decision-makers of tomorrow. Volunteerism is another
    notable success story on refuges. Volunteers contribute 20 percent of
    the work hours performed on refuges. Rather than reduce this vital
    subactivity and programs, this is an opportune time for enhancement. In
    total, the Alliance supports an increase of $20 million for the Visitor
    Services subactivity.
        The FWS proposes a program decrease of $1,027,000 in Conservation
    Planning. The congressional mandate for completing Comprehensive
    Conservation Plans (CCP) for all 554 units of the Refuge System by 2012
    draws near. The larger, more complex refuges are only now beginning to
    be planned. A decrease in support at this juncture is unwarranted and
    unwise. An increase of $5 million in this subactivity would best
    support the necessary data collections and other activities required
    for quality planning. The recent tendency by the planners to use
    ``boiler-plate language'' in the CCPs should be replaced with sound
    planning and deeper thinking on upcoming issues to be addressed by the
    individual refuges. Global climate change has not been included in most
    of the plans completed to date. Because the plans are intended to guide
    the refuges for the next 15 years, and since early effects from climate
    changes are being noted, it is crucial to invest in completion of plans
    appropriate to the times.
        We support an even larger increase for the Law Enforcement
    subactivity than is included in the FWS budget request. The wildlife
    refuges along our Nation's southern border require increased capability
    given the often dangerous situations being encountered. Refuge law
    enforcement in general is lagging at a time of increased visitation and
    needs an important boost for visitor and wildlife protection. Overall
    plans have been developed but funds for equipment, training, and new
    personnel must be made available. We support an increase in this
    subactivity of $5 million.
        The FWS proposes to reduce the Refuge Maintenance subactivity by
    $2,384,000 while the National Wildlife Refuge Service continues to be
    crippled by a growing maintenance backlog currently exceeding $3
    billion. We propose an increase of $25 million in this vital program
    area. The present level of funding is inadequate and should be raised
    to provide a capacity more responsive to the initial investments and
    standards of responsible upkeep.

                                   CONCLUSION

        The 2007 ``Banking on Nature'' report States that recreational
    visits to national wildlife refuges generate substantial economic
    activity. In fiscal year 2006, 34.8 million people visited refuges
    outside of Alaska for recreation. Their spending generated almost $1.7
    billion of sales in regional economies. As this spending flowed through
    the economy, nearly 27,000 people were employed and $452.8 million in
    employment income was generated. Visitation projections for the coming
    year exceed 40 million people. It is time to recognize this economic
    contribution of the Refuge System by moving a strong step above the
    fiscal year 2008 funding for operations and maintenance. Such a move
    will enable the Service to better shelter its fish, wildlife and plants
    while providing important benefits for the visiting public and other
    supporters. It is an investment that continues to pay dividends in
    several ways. We hope that members of this committee agree.
        The proposed FWS fiscal year 2009 Budget for National Wildlife
    Refuges would reduce the ability of every refuge in the System to
    successfully conduct important science based biological programs and to
    hire vital new staff. It would also diminish opportunities for the
    public to engage in compatible wildlife-dependent recreation.
        The Blue Goose Alliance urges the subcommittee to provide an
    increase of $81 million for the National Wildlife Refuge System in
    fiscal year 2009, raising the Operations and Maintenance funding level
    to $514 million, and to fund an important and much needed independent
    study of the System. This sorely needed surge in funding will continue
    the reversal of deteriorating refuge conditions started by last year's
    appropriations. It will permit reopening several visitor contact
    stations and allow new or upgraded environmental education programs, an
    increase in volunteer programs and resulting output, and improve
    services to visitors. We also consider it vital that $20.7 be retained
    for the LWCF to assure an acquisition program commensurate with the
    need to save habitats for migratory birds and endangered wildlife.
        Thank you Madam Chairwoman for this opportunity to comment on the
    appropriation needs of the National Wildlife Refuge System.
                                     ______

         Prepared Statement of the Bonneville Shoreline Trail Committee

        Madam Chairman and honorable members of the subcommittee: Thank you
    for the opportunity to present this testimony in support of an
    appropriation of $1.5 million for the Forest Service to acquire the
    150-acre North Ogden property for the Bonneville Shoreline Trail.
        As you know, Madam Chairman, this project is one of many worthy
    acquisition projects nationwide seeking LWCF funding. Unfortunately
    since fiscal year 2002, funding for LWCF has diminished by about 75
    percent, and the fiscal year 2009 Budget proposes further cuts. These
    reductions have left our national parks, refuges, and forests unable to
    acquire from willing sellers critical inholdings and adjacent lands
    that have been identified to protect and enhance recreational access,
    historic sites, wildlife habitats, scenic areas, water resources, and
    other important features. I urge the subcommittee to increase overall
    funding for this program in fiscal year 2009.
        For years, the residents of Salt Lake, Weber, Davis, Utah, and
    Cache Counties have benefited from their unique geographical location
    along the slopes of the Wasatch Range, which provides recreational
    opportunities, an escape from urban pressures, and a sense of community
    pride and identity. Development pressure poses the most serious threat
    to this valuable resource and will increase as the Wasatch Front
    population doubles within the next 10 to 15 years. This population
    growth and increased public use of these lands have raised issues of
    landowner liability and put pressure on these property owners either to
    sell their land or to restrict access to the trails, raising the
    possibility that this vital public recreational system could be
    impaired or lost.
        In 1990, representatives of the Wasatch-Cache National Forest,
    Weber County, the City of Ogden, and other citizens groups concerned
    about the fragile thread that holds the trail system together, began
    meeting in an effort to protect and expand the trail corridor along the
    foothills of the Wasatch Mountain Range. As a result, the Bonneville
    Shoreline Trail (BST) project was developed, with a broad goal of
    extending the existing but threatened trail corridor already in place
    in the city of Ogden south to Provo, following the prehistoric
    shoreline of Lake Bonneville within the national forest. This
    partnership has been so successful that the communities in Cache and
    Box Elder County have worked to extend the trail north.
        Available for acquisition in fiscal year 2009 is the 150-acre North
    Ogden property in Weber County, a high priority for protection by the
    U.S. Forest Service. The property serves as important habitat for deer
    and elk and as an important buffer for fire protection for the rapidly
    developing area along the Wasatch Front. The property also provides
    watershed protection for neighboring areas in addition to key
    recreational resources.
        The North Ogden program is a partnership effort to provide a new
    stretch of the BST along the northern boundaries of North Ogden and
    Pleasant View, within the boundaries of the national forest. In 2005, a
    5-mile stretch of the BST along North Ogden and Pleasant View was
    secured through a trail easement along an existing utility corridor
    granted to the nonprofit Weber Pathways. The property available for
    protection this year is critical to the North Ogden program because it
    will bring Forest Service ownership to this stretch of the BST and add
    critical trail access to the citizens in this area of the State.
    Protection of this property will also protect beautiful views of the
    foothills of the Wasatch Front and Ben Lomond Peak, one of Weber
    County's most important landmarks, while conserving important wildlife
    habitat and winter range along this rapid growth area.
        In fiscal year 2009, $1.5 million is needed to acquire this BST
    property that is critically important to furthering the goals of the
    trail. If not protected, this area will be developed. Public access to
    this portion of the BST could be lost forever, and adjacent forest and
    wilderness lands would also be put at risk.
        Thank you, Madam Chairman, for the opportunity to present this
    testimony.
                                     ______

         Prepared Statement of the Bristol Bay Area Health Corporation

        The Bristol Bay Area Health Corporation (BBAHC) submits this
    statement regarding the fiscal year 2009 Indian Health Service budget.
    BBAHC is a consortium of 34 tribes in Southwest Alaska and was formed
    by the tribes of the region in 1973. We were the first tribal
    organization in the United States to use an Indian Self-Determination
    (Public Law 93-638) contract to manage and operate an Indian Health
    Service Unit, and have been managing and operating the Kanakanak
    Hospital and Bristol Bay Area Service Unit since 1980. We provide
    health services in a 40,000 square mile area--larger than the state of
    Ohio and with no roads. Our energy costs are enormous. Heating oil is
    now $5 a gallon in Dillingham and double that in the villages--in some
    cases heating oil has to be flown in, exacerbating the costs. Gasoline
    is $11 per gallon in the villages. Medevac services are $20,000 per
    flight.
        BBAHC is struggling to meet health needs with high costs and
    woefully inadequate facilities as reflected in our IHS budget requests:
      --$5.5 million increase for the Village-Built Lease program over a 3-
            year period with at least a $3 million increase in fiscal year
            2009 and a pro-rata share of any increase for BBAHC.
      --$2 million to complete the replacement of the boiler plant at
            Kanakanak Hospital.
      --Authority for IHS to accept non-IHS built facilities and to issue
            use permits for these facilities to tribes.
      --$3.8 million for design and construction of a dental building.
      --$2 million for design of an expansion and remodeling of the
            Kanakanak Hospital.
      --$1.4 million for BBAHC's Medivac program. This is the amount needed
            just so we can continue services at the current level.
      --Resources to stop the shoreline erosion--IHS owns the property
            underlying the Kanakanak Compound, and there is considerable
            contamination and beach erosion.
      --Funding is needed for water and sewer installation.
        We also strongly support the fiscal year 2009 IHS recommendations
    of the Alaska Native Health Board for:
      --A 20 percent increase in the IHS budget--$666 million increase over
            fiscal year 2008.
      --Full funding for contract support costs, a $100 million increase
            over fiscal year 2008. Nearly half of the CSC shortfall is in
            Alaska.
      --Funding for the Electronic Health Records Technology program--
            BBAHC's costs for this is $500,000.
      --Sanitation Construction--a $20 million increase over fiscal year
            2008.
      --Community Health Aide Program--a $3 million increase over fiscal
            year 2008.
        Boiler Plant Replacement.--Of great urgency is the need to complete
    the replacement of the hospital's boiler plant. Of the $5.4 million
    cost, we have obtained $3.4 million from various sources. We need an
    additional $2 million to complete the job. If the replacement is not
    completed soon we face a breakdown of the current system and closing of
    the hospital.
        The boiler plant will be in a new stand alone pre-fabricated
    building. A buried underground piping system will be added to connect
    the new building with the existing hospital heating system. A system of
    pipe anchors, pipe guides, and expansion joints will be provided to
    allow proper expansion of the steam piping system. The project will
    also incorporate space in the new boiler plant for the future
    relocation of the 500 kW standby generator system, which provides
    reliable power for the campus as a back-up to the utility power system.
        Village-Built Clinic Leasing Program.--The IHS lease program for
    village-built clinics has absolutely stagnated and it is not able to
    come close to keeping up with village needs. Funding for the IHS lease
    program is $3.7 million, the same as it has been for 19 years! We have
    not even had funding for inflationary increases.
        Thanks in part to assistance through the Denali Commission we have
    seen much needed expansion of some village-built clinics and new ones
    established. However, lease amounts for clinics that have expanded have
    not been increased, and indeed, are far below what one would consider
    reasonable local rates. And those clinics which have not expanded are
    also being leased at unreasonably low rates when one considers their
    rural, remote locations. An example is Ekwok, which has an annual
    clinic lease rate of only $9,146. Overall the current lease funding
    covers only approximately 55 percent of the operating costs, and those
    cost are expected to continue to increase as energy costs continue to
    skyrocket in rural Alaska.
        As new clinics have been added, they must be on a waiting list for
    clinic leases. In order for continued funding from the Denali
    Commission for clinic construction, the IHS leasing program funds must
    be increased. Such an increase would make an important difference in
    the provision of health services at the village level.
        Medevac Travel.--We request $1.4 million in recurring funding for
    BBAHC to support the high costs of Medevac services in the Bristol Bay
    region. As this subcommittee knows, there are few roads in Alaska and
    there are many instances where we must transport patients via air to
    the hospital in Dillingham, and, in instances where our hospital cannot
    provide the type of care needed, to Anchorage. Medevac transport costs
    $20,000 per flight.
        We receive $111,564 for Medevac but our costs are closer to $2
    million. We have received no increase since 2001! We aggressively
    pursue third party collections, but it can in no way make up for the
    huge shortfall we have in Medevac costs. Medicare and Medicaid
    reimbursements cover less than half of Medevac costs. Due to high
    energy and increased costs over the previous year we absorbed $500,000
    in Medevac costs last year.
        DHHS Hindering the Use of Facilities Built with Non-IHS Funds.--In
    the past BBAHC has used non-IHS funds to pay for the construction of an
    emergency room and substance abuse treatment and behavioral health
    facilities, which we added to the Kanakanak Compound property owned by
    the IHS. Once built, these facilities were given to the IHS, which in
    turn has allowed BBAHC to utilize them to provide services under our
    compact in accordance with the terms of a use permit. DHHS has been
    micro-managing how IHS deals with the accepting and permitting of these
    facilities, and in so doing has prevented us from utilizing this
    arrangement for future construction projects. These actions make no
    sense to us because Congress does not appropriate sufficient funds for
    the IHS to pay for the needed construction projects at Kanakanak
    Compound. We, as well as other tribal health providers in Alaska, are
    compelled to seek other funding sources to build desperately needed
    facilities in an effort to carry out our mission of providing quality
    health care services. Beneficiaries in our regional have greatly
    benefited from our emergency room and substance abuse and behavioral
    health facilities. However, you should know that in completing the
    behavioral health facility, we lost two construction seasons due to
    lags in the ``gifting process''. We ask this Subcommittee to urge DHHS
    to delegate to the IHS the authority to accept these types of gifts and
    to continue issuing use permits to tribes as it has done in the past.
        Dental Building.--Funding for a dental building involves
    considerably more than just funding for a facility. In our case:
      --There is a significant amount of contaminated soils at the current
            location.
      --New dental equipment will cost $600,000.
      --We will need to relocate a sewer line, light poles, and a manhole.
      --Footings for new main entry will need to be completed with this
            project.
      --Information Technology Space & Independent Servers for Digital
            Image.
        Beach Erosion.--Our tribal consortium utilizes IHS-owned property
    for the Kanakanak Hospital and Compound in providing health services
    under the Indian Self-Determinatin and Education assistance Act. When
    we took over this federal facility under a use permit, the government
    agreed to be responsible for hazardous conditions resulting from prior
    federal use of the property, including pockets of oil underground due
    to years of spills, leaks and overflows.
        The erosion of the shoreline of the hospital compound has increased
    this problem. The erosion has brought oil to the surface and well as
    materials from old garbage dumps and, very disturbing, human remains
    from a cemetery dating back to about 1900. The cemetery was used by a
    federally operated orphanage and school--and is now part of the IHS
    property on which Kanakanak Hospital is located. IHS needs to obtain
    the resources to stop the erosion and clean up the site. If this
    situation is not corrected it will eventually put the hospital itself
    at risk. The problem needs to be addressed immediately and the cost
    should not diminish the resources available for Alaska Native health
    care.
        Water and Sewer Installation.--While we have a water and sewer
    system in downtown Dillingham, the outlying areas of town are not on
    the system, and this is a similar scenario for several of our villages.
    Several have wells and septic systems where a sewer system is too
    costly. We are very concerned with the age of many systems that will
    fail and need to be replaced as they are outdated and inadequate to
    meet needs.
        Twenty Percent Increase in IHS Budget.--As mentioned above, we
    support the ANHB request for a 20 percent increase in the IHS budget,
    or $666 million over the fiscal year 2008 enacted level. While the IHS
    budget has not kept up with inflation and other built-in costs such as
    pay raises and population growth, the administration's proposed fiscal
    year 2009 budget would make matters dramatically worse. The
    administration proposes not one penny for built in costs, and by its
    own conservative estimates tribal and IHS program would have to absorb
    $144 million for built-in costs in fiscal year 2009. When you add to it
    the generally insufficient funding over the years for built-in cost and
    the $200 million that has been rescinded from the IHS budget since
    2000, a 20 percent increase is not at all out of line, even in this
    tight budget environment.
        Thank you for your consideration of our needs.
                                     ______

         Prepared Statement of the California State Coastal Conservancy

                                PROJECT REQUESTS
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Amount
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    FUNDING FOR THE DON EDWARDS SAN FRANCISCO BAY                 $4,000,000
     NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE (FWS, CONSTRUCTION)........
    MONITORING OF SAN FRANCISCO BAY SALT PONDS (USGS,              1,150,000
     BIOLOGICAL RESEARCH AND MONITORING).................
    CALIFORNIA SEAFLOOR MAPPING PROGRAM (USGS, COASTAL             1,500,000
     AND MARINE GEOLOGY PROGRAM).........................
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                    SUMMARY

        On behalf of the California State Coastal Conservancy, I want to
    thank the subcommittee for the opportunity to present our priorities
    for fiscal year 2009 and, at the same time, express our appreciation
    for your support of the Conservancy's projects in the years past. The
    Conservancy respectfully requests needed funding for the following
    critical projects during fiscal year 2009: $4 million for the Don
    Edwards San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge for project costs
    associated with the South San Francisco Bay Salt Ponds Restoration
    Project; $1,150,000 for the USGS Biological Research and Monitoring
    Program in support of the South San Francisco Bay Salt Ponds
    Restoration Project, and; $1,500,000 for the USGS Coastal and Marine
    Geology Program in support of the California Seafloor Mapping Program.

                             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 accomplish
    these goals.
        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

        The Conservancy is seeking two project requests before the
    subcommittee in support of this critical project. Our requests include
    $4 million in funding for the Don Edwards National Wildlife Refuge
    under the Fish and Wildlife Service's Construction account and a
    $1,150,000 request from the U.S. Geological Survey through the agency's
    Biological Research and Monitoring account. Both requests will be used
    to further construction of this project during fiscal year 2009 and
    will continue to keep us on schedule for the completion of Phase one of
    the restoration effort.

    Fish and Wildlife Service Funding Request--$4 million
        Specifically, the $4 million being requested for the Don Edwards
    National Wildlife Refuge will provide the Fish and Wildlife Service
    with the funding they need to effectively manage these lands, including
    installation and management of water control structures, levee
    maintenance, and the monitoring of the salt ponds. Of the total
    requested amount, $3,000,000 is requested to match California State
    funds for implementation of Phase I of the South Bay Salt Pond
    Restoration Project. Phase I includes continued construction and
    restoration of various salt ponds at the Don Edwards National Wildlife
    Refuge. This funding will also be utilized for additional planning for
    the long-term habitat restoration plan which will be complete in 2008.
        In addition, $1 million of the requested funding will be utilized
    by Fish and Wildlife staff for levee maintenance at the Refuge that is
    need to provide continued protection for the Silicon Valley. This
    funding is critical to the project and the local community as it will
    protect the project area from tidal flooding prior to implementation of
    the permanent flood control solution by the Corps of Engineers which is
    currently ongoing.

    U.S. Geological Survey Funding Request--$1.15 million
        The Conservancy is also seeking $1.15 million from the U.S.
    Geological Survey in support of the South San Francisco Bay Salt Ponds
    Restoration Project. This funding is critical to the current and future
    success of this groundbreaking project as project progression is based
    on adaptive management principles. This funding will be utilized by
    USGS to conduct interdisciplinary monitoring (biological, hydrological,
    and water quality studies) of Salt Ponds in the San Pablo Bay and San
    Francisco Bay. With restoration work occurring in both the South Bay
    and North Bay salt ponds, there is an urgent need for monitoring to
    guide planning and implementation efforts. In fact, the continuance of
    the project and current and future restoration activities are all
    dependent upon the successful implementation of the monitoring this
    funding will provide. Monitoring costs for the project during the
    fiscal year are expected to be in the amount of $900,000.
        Included in this request is $150,000 for the creation of a lead
    scientist position associated with the South San Francisco Bay Salt
    Ponds Restoration project. This position would greatly expand our
    ability to monitor the hydrological and biological changes occurring in
    the Bay as a result of project implementation and would provide
    consistency in accomplishing this task. Funding for both the monitoring
    of the project area and the creation of a lead scientist position is
    greatly needed as it will ensure a sound scientific and technical basis
    for the plan's implementation, ultimately resulting in a leveraging of
    Federal investment, wiser expenditure of funds in the long term and a
    more effective and efficient project. The fiscal year 2008
    appropriation for this request was $500,000.

                     CALIFORNIA SEAFLOOR MAPPING INITIATIVE

        The California State Coastal Conservancy, in conjunction with
    numerous State and Federal partners, is ambitiously pursuing the
    mapping of the entirety of the seafloor directly off the coast of the
    State of California. This project will produce detailed bathymetric
    maps of some of the most productive ocean waters in the United States
    and the world and as such is critical for a multitude of reasons.
        A large number of ocean management decisions can be made more
    effectively with accurate statewide mapping of seafloor substrate,
    marine habitat types, and bathymetry (underwater topography) of
    California's coastal and nearshore waters. This information will inform
    the designation of new marine reserve areas as well as the monitoring
    of all reserve areas along the California Coast. High resolution
    seafloor maps will distinguish underwater habitats and highlight
    faults, chasms, fissures, crevices and pinnacles and will help identify
    and understand known and unknown fault dynamics along the seismically
    active California Coast. This information will then be utilized by
    scientists and resource managers to identify potential biological hot
    spots to aid their understanding of the highly productive and diverse
    ecosystem along the California Coast. Further, information concerning
    the size and extent of activity associated with known and unknown
    underwater fault lines will allow our communities to better prepare for
    the possibility of cataclysmic seismic activity of the California
    Coast.
        In addition, the project will provide extensive navigational
    benefits as it will identify hidden reefs, sunken obstacles and other
    navigation hazards in California's near and offshore waters. This
    information is essential for the safety of maritime commerce vessels,
    and subsequently the economies of California and the Nation. These maps
    will provide greater knowledge and understanding of navigational
    channels and hazards surrounding the Ports of Los Angeles, Long Beach,
    and Oakland, the Nation's 1st, 2nd and 4th busiest port facilities
    respectively, which collectively are responsible for 50 percent of the
    Nation's total container cargo volume.
        Examples of some additional applications that would benefit from
    marine mapping and data include: understanding sediment transport and
    sand delivery, identifying dredging and dumping sites, regulation of
    offshore coastal development, and illuminating the dynamics of
    fisheries and other marine species. Detailed bathymetric maps are also
    critical in the development of an ocean circulation model that will
    allow us to better predict ocean response to natural and human-induced
    changes.
        In support of this effort the Conservancy is seeking $1.5 million
    during fiscal year 2009 from the U.S. Geological Survey's Coastal and
    Marine Geology Program. This funding will be utilized for scientific
    data collection (hydrographic surveys of the seafloor, video ground-
    truthing of remotely collected data to verify habitats and geologic
    structure, and seismic profiling to determine geologic stability) and
    for final map production associated with the project. Although most of
    the hydrographic survey data will be collected by private industry, the
    Coastal and Marine Geology Program of the USGS is uniquely qualified to
    ground truth the accuracy of the data, and in coordination with the CA
    Geological Survey, create finished map products.
        We are committed to the success and completion of the project and
    as such have secured $12.5 million from the State of California Ocean
    Protection Council (OPC) to date for the advancement of the project.
    The OPC also intends to appropriate an additional $7.5 million in
    fiscal year 2009 if funds become available. We are also working with
    the Packard Foundation to determine the potential of financial support.
    In addition to these efforts, we are seeking $6.3 million in Federal
    funding during fiscal year 2009 which includes the $1.5 million being
    requested from the subcommittee for USGS.
                                     ______

               Prepared Statement of the Cascade Land Conservancy

        Madam Chairman and honorable members of the subcommittee: I
    appreciate the opportunity to provide testimony on behalf of an
    important land acquisition funding need at Mount Rainier National Park.
    I am supporting an appropriation of $2.5 million from the Land and
    Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) in fiscal year 2009 to continue the
    acquisition of important parcels within the recently expanded
    boundaries of the national park.
        As you know, Madam Chairman, these projects are some of many worthy
    acquisition projects nationwide seeking LWCF funding. Unfortunately
    since fiscal year 2002, funding for LWCF has diminished by about 75
    percent, and the fiscal year 2009 Budget proposes further cuts. These
    reductions have left our national parks, refuges, and forests unable to
    acquire from willing sellers critical inholdings and adjacent lands
    that have been identified to protect and enhance recreational access,
    historic sites, wildlife habitats, scenic areas, water resources, and
    other important features. I urge the subcommittee to increase overall
    funding for this program in fiscal year 2009.
        Mount Rainier National Park was established on March 2, 1899, the
    first of three national parks in Washington state. Today it encompasses
    235,625 acres, ranging in elevation from 1,610 to 14,410 feet above sea
    level. Mount Rainier itself is an active volcano, encased in over 35
    square miles of snow and ice and surrounded by old-growth forest and
    stunning wildflower meadows. The park is also rich in cultural
    resources and was designated a national historic landmark district as
    an outstanding example of early park planning and national park rustic
    architecture.
        The proximity of the park to large cities like Seattle, Tacoma and
    Portland makes the park a busy tourist destination. Nearly 2 million
    people come to enjoy the grandeur and beauty of Mount Rainier each
    year--hiking its trails, climbing the summit, snowshoeing or cross-
    country skiing on its slopes, camping along its glacier-fed rivers,
    photographing wildflower displays in subalpine meadows, or just
    admiring the view.
        Ensuring access for the park's many visitors has been a particular
    concern at the northwest entrance. The Carbon River Road has frequently
    been washed out, preventing visitors from reaching the Ipsut Creek
    campground and picnic area, as well as day-use parking for access to
    the Carbon Glacier and Wonderland Trail. To address this problem, and
    to eliminate the considerable maintenance costs necessitated by the
    frequent flooding, Congress passed legislation in 2004 extending the
    park's northwestern boundary 3 miles along the Carbon River Valley.
        The addition of these new lands will allow the National Park
    Service to establish a new campground with associated roads and
    parking, new hiking trails, and riverfront fishing areas. The new roads
    will permit the current road to be eventually converted to a hiking-
    and-biking trail, and the Ipsut Creek campground will become a
    backcountry camping site. The expansion will also afford much needed
    protection to the beautiful Carbon River Valley, conserving habitat for
    endangered and threatened species such as the marbled murrelet,
    northern spotted owl, and Chinook salmon. The valley contains one of
    the last inland old-growth rainforests in the United States, and
    connects wildlife corridors from the park to Puget Sound.
        There are two principal targeted acquisitions for 2009. Of most
    importance to our organization is the Carbon River Ranch, formerly
    owned by the Thompson family. Acquisition of the remaining 100 acres of
    this parcel is critical to the expansion, as it would form the new
    entryway to the National Park. The property is along the Carbon River
    and is prime recreational land. If the Park Service does not acquire
    this land, it would likely be developed. Also critical to the expansion
    of the Park is the Carbon River Gateway, a 440-acre parcel now owned by
    a timber company. Acquisition of this parcel would link current Park
    Service lands with other previous and planned acquisitions. The Carbon
    River flows through this parcel, which also contains timber that could
    be logged if the Park Service does not acquire this land.
        An appropriation of $2.5 million in fiscal year 2009 will allow the
    National Park Service to complete the acquisition of the Carbon River
    Ranch (the Thompson property) and to acquire the Carbon River Gateway
    parcel. These acquisitions will be a critical step towards attaining
    the recreational, management, and environmental goals of the boundary
    expansion.
        Madam Chairman, and distinguished committee members, I want to
    thank you for this opportunity to testify on behalf of this important
    national protection effort in Washington at Mount Rainier National
    Park.
                                     ______

               Prepared Statement of the Cascade Land Conservancy

        Madam Chairman and honorable members of the subcommittee: Thank you
    for this opportunity to testify in support of a fiscal year 2009 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 of $4 million
    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 forestland in the Mount Baker-Snoqualmie and Wenatchee national
    forests at Big Creek, Jim Creek, and Sawmill Creek.
        The Mount Baker-Snoqualmie and Wenatchee national forests are part
    of the majestic forests of Washington's Cascade Mountains. The Mount
    Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest extends more than 140 miles along the
    western slopes of the Cascades from the Canadian border to Mount
    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
    Cascades' volcanic summits.
        The central Cascades are bisected by the Burlington Northern Santa
    Fe Railroad and by Interstate 90. The original railroad through the
    Snoqualmie Pass was constructed by the Northern Pacific Railway, which
    received land grants from the Federal Government in alternating square
    miles along the route. The legacy of this 19th century land grant
    system is the large checkerboard ownership pattern that now threatens
    this critical area of wildlife connectivity. The Washington Cascade
    Ecosystem project area is strategically located amid several key
    landscapes. To the north lie the Alpine Lakes, Glacier Peak, and
    Pasayten wilderness areas, providing wildlife connectivity as far as
    Canada. To the south lie the Norse Peak, William O. Douglas, and Goat
    Rocks wilderness areas alongside Mount Rainier National Park. 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 owl, marbled
    murrelet, 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 rising cost of housing in King County and the increasing
    traffic congestion caused by a growing population make the Cascades
    attractive for those seeking less expensive first homes and more
    extravagant second homes, exacerbating the challenges presented by the
    pattern of checkerboard ownership. Fragmented forestlands present
    difficulties for forest managers with respect to fire suppression,
    containment and eradication of invasive species, limits on public
    access, and protection of watersheds.
        Both the Mount Baker-Snoqualmie and Wenatchee forestland and
    resource management plans address the need for significant land
    acquisition for recreation and ecosystem protection. Acquisition of
    parcels in this area is part of an ongoing program of consolidating
    lands in the central Cascades, which has long been a Forest Service
    priority. This program seeks to consolidate Federal land management and
    prevent future fragmentation due to subdivision and other development.
        The Cascade Land Conservancy, which includes both King and Kittitas
    counties within our focus area, has worked for numerous years in
    partnership with other non-profits and Federal and State agencies to
    protect lands within the central Cascades area. Over the years, our
    partners have leveraged Federal funds with private philanthropic
    support as well as State funds to protect several important parcels in
    the area and increase recreational access and wildlife connectivity.
    However, these efforts will fall short if we cannot continue to acquire
    critical inholdings within the National Forests that knit this amazing
    landscape together.
        Available for acquisition in fiscal year 2009 are three properties
    near the crest of the Cascade Mountains. The proposed acquisitions are
    all within the boundaries of the Mount Baker-Snoqualmie and Wenatchee
    national forests, which share a common border that runs north and south
    along the crest of the range. The Pacific Crest Trail traverses the
    crest of the Cascades between these two national forests. This is a
    mountainous area of intermingled ownership, which places citizens and
    private property at increased risk from catastrophic wildland fire and
    restricts public access to our national forests and outdoor
    recreational opportunities.
        The Big Creek and Jim Creek parcels are located south and east of
    the Pacific Crest Trail in the Wenatchee NF. Each is 640 acres, and
    they are named for the Yakima River tributaries of Big Creek and Jim
    Creek, which flow respectively through each parcel. Much of the Big
    Creek property possesses incredible forest reserves due to its roadless
    nature. Many trails that feed into the Pacific Crest Trail traverse
    this property, giving the public greater access to these lands for
    recreation. The upper slopes are blanketed with old-growth forests,
    while second growth is found on the lower slopes. Under Forest Service
    ownership, these lands will be available to the public for hiking,
    fishing, camping, and cross-country skiing.
        The Sawmill Creek South parcel is named for the primary creek
    running adjacent to this 190-acre parcel, which contains luxuriant old-
    growth trees. These trees provide habitat for the threatened northern
    spotted owl and marbled murrelet. In addition, these forests provide a
    protective buffer for Sawmill Creek, which hosts a distinct population
    of trout. Given the strategic location of the Sawmill Creek South
    parcel, its acquisition will provide additional protection for the City
    of Tacoma's drinking water.
        The acquisitions of the Big Creek, Jim Creek, and Sawmill Creek
    South properties will improve forest management, enhance recreational
    activities, protect water quality, and secure vital wildlife migration
    corridors. An fiscal year 2009 Forest Service appropriation of $4
    million from the Land and Water Conservation Fund is needed to acquire
    and permanently protect these lands as part of the Washington Cascade
    Ecosystems program.
        As you know, Madam Chairman, this project is one of many worthy
    acquisition projects nationwide seeking LWCF funding. Unfortunately
    since fiscal year 2002, funding for LWCF has diminished by about 75
    percent, and the fiscal year 2009 Budget proposes further cuts. These
    reductions have left our national parks, refuges, and forests unable to
    acquire from willing sellers critical inholdings and adjacent lands
    that have been identified to protect and enhance recreational access,
    historic sites, wildlife habitats, scenic areas, water resources, and
    other important features. I urge the subcommittee to increase overall
    funding for this program in fiscal year 2009.
        Madam Chairman, thank you for this opportunity to provide testimony
    in support of this critical forest protection effort.
                                     ______

            Prepared Statement of the Center for Plant Conservation

        We respectfully request increased appropriations to a total of $10
    million for the BLM Native Plant Materials Development Program and $5
    million for the U.S. Forest Service Native Plant Materials Development
    Program. In addition we request $5 million in increased funding for the
    Endangered Species program in the Bureau of Land Management to begin to
    address dramatically increasing plant conservation needs. Further, we
    request an increase of a minimum of $100 million in additional funding
    for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Recovery Program budget to help
    address the imbalance in funding for recovery plan development and
    implementation for plants. We also appeal to the subcommittee to revise
    the current definition of wildlife used in the State Wildlife Grant
    Program, which excludes plants. Current guidance does not allow these
    funds to be expended for projects whose main objective is recovery of
    declining plants, and has further aggravated the imbalance in plant
    conservation activities and availability of resources at the state
    level.
        The Center for Plant Conservation is a conservation organization
    whose mission is to conserve and restore the rare native plants of the
    United States. We are a coordinated, science-based network of 36
    botanical institutions working for the recovery of our most imperiled
    native species on public and private lands nationwide. Our network
    represents a wealth of expertise and experience. Our organization works
    through professional staff in botanical institutions, hand-in-hand in
    productive partnerships for plant conservation and recovery. We have
    provided match resources of nearly $750,000 in our cooperative work
    with the Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Forest Service, and National
    Park Service in the last few years, and implement approximately $3
    million in plant recovery research and restoration each year.
        We rely on our public agencies as administrators of our public
    natural resource laws, and stewards of our public land plant trust
    resources. Public lands are instrumental in maintaining healthy
    environmental systems and serve as a primary source of the increasingly
    valuable natural resource plant biodiversity represents for the Nation.

                   NATIVE PLANT MATERIALS DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM

        The Center for Plant Conservation regards the Native Plant
    Materials Development Program as one of the most significant public
    works projects of our times, and has been an active partner for five
    years. The NPMD program works to collect, develop and distribute native
    plant seed to agency partners and industry for increase and use in
    Federal land restoration efforts following fire and other disturbances.
    Expanding the variety and quantity of native plant materials will
    create new business opportunities for the private sector, reduce cost
    for Federal land restoration, and improve availability for public and
    private uses.
        In 2001 Congress directed the BLM and the Forest Service, working
    through the Plant Conservation Alliance (PCA), to develop a long-term
    program to manage this effort. The program is funded through ``burned
    area rehabilitation program funds'' in BOTH the Dept of Interior BLM
    appropriations and USDA Forest Service (NFN3 line item) in
    appropriations bills. Program success is contingent on consistent and
    increased funding.
        While seed collection has moved forward well, more work is needed,
    as well as seed increase projects before seed can be released to the
    commercial sector. These projects require several more years of effort
    to reach target needs.
        BLM developed a 10-year funding strategy, identifying a need for a
    relatively modest $120 million from 2003-2012. In spite of great
    progress, to date the BLM's NPMD program has received only $27.3
    million. The BLM strategy works with a nationwide collaboration of
    partners to secure seed, and has engaged many organizations. Positive
    collaborative partnerships for public lands have been fostered
    nationwide, and partners have invested over $5 million of non-federal
    match, making the program cost effective.
        In addition to the fire rehabilitation program, other BLM programs
    will benefit from improved native plant materials (oil and gas, range,
    wildlife and recreation) and current funding could be increased through
    their fiscal participation. We request an appropriation of $10 million
    for the BLM Native Plant Materials Program appropriation. In the
    President's budget $0 has been recommended for the U.S. Forest Service
    Program. Abandonment of this USFS program which has made significant
    progress in developing new stocks for public and private benefit is
    fiscally wasteful. We request continued funding for the USFS Native
    Plant Materials Development program (line item NFN3 in their budget) as
    well, in the amount of $5 million.

                      BLM PLANT CONSERVATION PROGRAM NEEDS

        The President's energy plan will increase significant disturbance
    of large areas of BLM lands for energy development. Challenges to the
    integrity and productivity of BLM lands from invasive species and
    global climate change have also increased potential impacts to
    significant numbers of federally listed and BLM special status plant
    species.
        The BLM is one of our largest Federal landholders, and therefore
    one of our most significant agencies in conserving plant biodiversity.
    The CPC recognizes the leadership of the BLM in establishing a Plant
    Conservation Program to take an integrated approach to these
    significant issues. This agency needs increased funding to evaluate
    impacts, secure wild populations, and plan and implement restoration
    and management practices to preserve valuable plant biodiversity on the
    262 million acres of BLM lands.
        Additional botanists are needed for BLM field offices, as well as
    funds to support planning and implementation of identified program
    needs. We request an increase of $5 million in BLM Endangered Species
    Program funds (approximately 2 cents an acre) to help address these
    emerging needs, and recommend these funds be administered through the
    Plant Conservation Program.

                U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE RECOVERY PROGRAM

        The President's budget would cut the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
    Recovery Program by 7.5 percent, over $5 million. This would be
    catastrophic for our federally listed plants, which are historically
    under-funded and under-served in recovery programs. While 57 percent of
    the federally listed species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) are
    plants, they historically receive only 3-5 percent of federal agency
    expenditures for listed species recovery.
        Our research has demonstrated that approximately 75 percent of our
    federally listed plant species have fewer than 100 individuals
    remaining in the majority of remaining sites, and are at a high risk of
    extinction within 20-25 years unless intervention is initiated quickly.
    We have also shown that 87 percent of federally listed plant species
    are very closely related to agronomically important species. Given the
    high natural resource value of our wild plants for healthy air and
    water, mediating global climate change, the raw material for plant
    breeding in support of sustainable agriculture, and potential medically
    and economically significant products, this imbalance presents a real
    threat to the future economic well-being of our nation. More botanists
    and more dollars for recovery actions are needed.
        As noted above, the Center for Plant Conservation renders
    tremendously valuable public benefits in recovery efforts for our most
    imperiled plants, but we cannot garner the resources to solve this
    problem for the nation solely through private efforts. The backlog of
    work needed to properly respond to recovery needs for all federally
    listed species has been estimated to be well over $300 million.
        Rather than reducing recovery efforts, an increase in the USFWS
    Recovery Program Budget is needed to begin to address the most
    critically imperiled plant and animal species. We are requesting an
    increase of $100 million in the USFWS Recovery Program Budget. Further,
    we believe $80 million should be dedicated to implementation of
    recovery activities for priority listed plant species, which have been
    so long neglected. At least $20 million of this appropriation should be
    designated for recovery for Hawaiian plant species, as Hawaii has long
    been documented as our greatest national treasure for plant
    biodiversity.
        Thank you for the opportunity to present testimony regarding the
    proposed Department of the Interior Appropriations. We hope you will be
    able to respond to these urgent needs for these valuable national
    resources.
                                     ______

              Prepared Statement of the Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma

        Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the committee, I thank
    you for allowing me an opportunity to submit the Choctaw Nation of
    Oklahoma testimony that outlines our funding requests for fiscal year
    2009 budgets of the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) and Indian Health
    Service (IHS) in the bill making appropriations for interior,
    environment and related agencies.

                            CHOCTAW SPECIFIC REQUEST

        Last year, Chief Pyle submitted testimony (presented by Mickey
    Peercy, Executive Director of Health for the Choctaw Nation and Joy
    Culbreath, Executive Director of Education) before this subcommittee
    during consideration of the Budget proposal for fiscal year 2008, of
    the Choctaw Nation's desire to restore a tribally controlled academic
    program for Jones Academy, near Hartshorne, Oklahoma. Named for the one
    of the great Chiefs of the Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma, Jones Academy
    has been operating for over 100 years, and, until the BIA terminated
    all academic programs in the 1950s, provided excellent educational
    services to students from many Tribes.
        The Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma was one of the first American Indian
    Tribes to provide tribally supported education to all children, boys
    and girls. We opened schools soon after our removal over the Trail of
    Tears in the 1830s, and until these schools were absorbed by the new
    BIA system in the 1880s, they were Tribally controlled. The BIA used
    the schools as a tool of assimilation and, until the 1950s, many of our
    schools were either BIA schools, or were the basis for the new State of
    Oklahoma system.
        The BIA shut down the academic program of Jones Academy and
    required us to send children residing at Jones to the public schools of
    the Hartshorne, Oklahoma School District (hereinafter HSD). Our
    experiences, and, more importantly, our students' experiences, in the
    public schools were not as positive or successful as we desired. Our
    Tribe continued to provide many tribally sponsored services such as
    tutoring, mentoring, Foster Grandparents and other tools, but our
    children did not achieve the academic results that we felt were
    possible.
        When Tribal Self Determination became the policy of the United
    States in the 1970s and through today, our hope was that it would lead
    to a resurrection of tribally controlled education, particularly for
    our elementary school children. We believed, and continue to believe,
    that if they have a firm foundation, they can succeed in any setting.
    Today, with more Tribal resources and renewed hope and determination,
    we ask you to grant us access to this Tribal right.
        Since the 2003-2004 Academic year, our Tribe has operated a
    separate program providing small classes, special services, and
    assistance to our children in grades 1-6. Under the authority of an
    agreement with the HSD, we operate a separate site on the Jones Academy
    campus. Our students in grades 7 through 12 continue to attend HSD site
    schools, and our relationship with the school district has changed. HSD
    receives funding for Jones Academy students from the U.S. Department of
    Education. The Tribe augments this funding by providing a quarter of a
    million dollars in tribal funds for Jones Academy, a commitment of
    which we are proud. Our older students will continue in classes at HSD,
    and we look forward to continuing our work with them.
        However, for our youngest scholars, grades 1-6, we want to assume
    full tribal control of the policy and academic program, and to do so
    while maintaining our Federal Trust relationship with the Federal
    Government. This means we are requesting an exemption from the
    moratorium on distribution of Indian Student Equalization Formula
    funds, which has been included in each fiscal year Appropriations Act
    for a decade.
        The moratorium was not originally put in place over academic
    concern. It was put in place because of concerns regarding the
    implementation of a new construction and facilities improvement and
    maintenance program. It was never explained as being permanent and we
    do not believe that was the intent. While it may be an effective
    control over Indian education for the Bureau, it is unfair in
    situations such as ours.
        This limitation on funding of ``new'' or ``expanded'' programs has
    been interpreted as an absolute bar to any discussion of academic
    programs with Tribes, including the resumption of our terminated
    academic program. While we have met in the past 5 years with BIA
    officials who sympathize with our problem and admit they see the
    dichotomy, the BIA says we must start with the appropriations members.
        That is what was presented in the testimony of last year. Things
    have changed substantially in the past year. I will cite these changes,
    and renew our request.
      --We have completed construction and equipping of a new $10.2 million
            state of the art facility for grades 1-6. The Choctaw Nation
            paid for this facility and asks for no federal construction/
            facilities or improvement and repair funding. We are proud of
            this achievement and excited about what it means for the future
            of our students.
        The moratorium purpose does not apply to us.
      --Last year, after the testimony, the BIA told your staff that
            allowing us to resume programs was a bad idea, since there are
            a lot of Tribes in the same position. Since then, we have tried
            to find any information that can identify a Tribe which (1) had
            an academy program terminated in the Termination Period, (2)
            which has built a new school for such a program, showing
            commitment and faith in the future and (3) which has a proven
            track record of academic performance for a program under its
            day-to-day control. We have been unable to locate such a
            program. What we have discovered is that the BIA has allowed
            expansions of program in tribally built facilities.
      --Last year, during Floor consideration the Chairman conducted a
            colloquy with our Congressman, Dan Boren, regarding concern
            that the moratorium was stifling Self Determination, and, more
            specifically, unfairly penalizing the Choctaw Nation. Mr. Boren
            pointed out that the BIA was ignoring this subcommittee's
            directive, included in the report accompanying the fiscal year
            2006 appropriations bill for the Department of the Interior,
            that it develop guidelines and methods to allow consideration
            of expanded and re-instated academic programs. We were
            encouraged by your agreement that this was an issue the
            subcommittee needs to address.
      --Finally, Mr. Chairman, I am very proud to relate a success story
            for Jones Academy.
        In January of this year, teachers at Jones Academy received
    monetary awards from the State of Oklahoma for being recognized as one
    of only 3 schools in the State to receive #1 in Academic Performance
    Index (API) scores. This information can be found in the news releases
    on the Oklahoma State department website www.sde.state.ok.us.
        While we mean no disrespect, it is a fact that such performance has
    not been achieved in the past or in other settings. It is made possible
    because of an on-site program run by personnel over whom we have day to
    day management. However, for the basic policy, we are still under
    limits set by the HSD. Imagine what we could do if we were free to
    determine all programs, set new academic courses and horizons and to
    renew our Choctaw heritage in education. Imagine this in a setting,
    which renews and continues our unique relationship with the Federal
    Government. We ask for your permission for such a chance.

                           NATIONAL FUNDING CONCERNS

        The Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma supports the requests of the
    National Indian Health Board and the National Congress of American
    Indians in restoring funds for National Urban Indian Health programs.
    In addition:
    Indian Health Service
      --$160 million increase for 100 percent full funding of IHS Contract
            Support Cost, including Direct Service Cost
      --$486 million increase for IHS mandatory, inflation and population
            growth
      --$152 million increase for Contract Health Service
      --Restore $21 million for health care facilities construction
      --Maintain annual funding for the Special Diabetes Programs for
            Indians at $150 million until new authority is enacted
      --$5 million increase in the Office of Tribal Self-Governance
            (Restore $4.7 million and $.3 million in shortfalls, pay costs
            increases and inflation)
    Bureau of Indian Affairs
      --$25 million increase for Tribal Priority Allocations (TPA)--general
            increase for core programs
      --Tribal Government--Self-Governance: Restore HIP @ $13.6 million and
            JOM @ 21.4 million
      --Support increases to Tribal Education Programs and Tribal college
            operations
      --$50 million increase for 100 percent full funding of Direct and
            Indirect contract support costs
      --Annual increases in Tribal Public Safety and Justice programs in
            Tribal communities
      --$500,000 for Office of Program Data Quality
      --Support increases in the Office of Self-Governance for IT and
            Staffing
        On behalf of the Choctaw People, again, we thank you for this
    opportunity to submit our requests for fiscal year 2009 in the Bureau
    of Indian Affairs and Indian Health Services Appropriations.
                                     ______

        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 seven Villages
    of the Chugach Region (Tatitlek Village IRA Council, Chenega IRA
    Council, Port Graham Village Council, Nanwalek IRA Council, Native
    Village of Eyak, Qutekcak Native Tribe, and Valdez Native Tribe) 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.

                                FUNDING HISTORY

        CRRC normally receives its base funding through a self-
    determination contract with the Department of the Interior. The Indian
    Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act, Public Law No. 93-638,
    authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to enter into contracts with
    Indian tribes and tribal organizations to deliver services that would
    otherwise have been delivered by the BIA. CRRC entered into its
    original three-year contract in 1993, and that contract has been
    renewed several times by the Secretary in the years since.
        The act requires Interior to provide ``not less than the
    appropriate Secretary would have otherwise provided for the operation
    of the programs'' covered by the contract (the so-called ``Secretarial
    Amount'') plus additional ``contract support costs.'' 25 U.S.C.  450j-
    1(a)(1)-(2). The act further specifies that Interior generally cannot
    reduce the contract funding amount from one year to the next. Despite
    this legal obligation to provide consistent annual funding to CRRC
    through the contract, the BIA has in recent years tried to avoid its
    funding obligation by failing to request funding for CRRC in its
    budget. We ask Congress to restore this funding in order to assist BIA
    in meeting its legal obligation.
        CRRC received $350,000 as part of the BIA's base budget from fiscal
    year 1994 though fiscal year 2002. Beginning in fiscal year 2003, CRRC
    was not included in the BIA budget (despite contractual obligations),
    but the program was restored each year with the help of Congress. In
    fiscal year 2006, the BIA unilaterally reduced CRRC's funding to
    $300,000--a significant cut from our previous level of funding. After
    across-the-board reductions, CRRC received approximately $270,000 in
    fiscal year 2006.
        In fiscal year 2007, Congress again provided $300,000 for CRRC, but
    the BIA seized on the absence of associated earmark language to
    redirect CRRC's funding elsewhere in its budget. Despite repeated
    appeals to the agency and despite its contractual obligation to pay,
    the BIA did not provide CRRC with any funding in fiscal year 2007. As a
    result, CRRC was forced to take out a bank loan of $100,000 just to
    avoid closing its operations entirely. We were also forced to lay off
    many employees, and several of our projects were put on hold because of
    the lack of employees.
        In fiscal year 2008, the BIA again sought to withhold all funding
    and in fact tried to cut off CRRC's contract (which is illegal under
    the Self-Determination Act). CRRC was forced to expend several thousand
    dollars in legal fees to file suit in order to obtain its rightful
    funding for fiscal year 2008. We fear that without congressional
    assistance in the form of an earmark, we will be forced to sue the BIA
    every year in order to obtain the funding that CRRC should rightfully
    receive pursuant to its contract.

                                   EMPLOYMENT

        CRRC has provided employment for 35 Native people in the Chugach
    Region, an area where Native people face high levels of unemployment.
    As a result of the reduction and elimination of funding in fiscal year
    2006 and fiscal year 2007, CRRC had to lay off several employees,
    including most of our Village employees. 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. If funding is not restored, CRRC will be unable to
    resume village projects and rehire our employees. These families will
    create a much larger burden on State and Federal financial resources,
    as they will be forced to depend upon State and Federal welfare
    programs to provide funding for necessary living expenses.

                               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 four 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 and implementing
            a model curriculum in natural resource management for Alaska
            Native students, integrating traditional knowledge and Western
            science. The goal of the program is to encourage more Native
            students to pursue careers in the sciences. So far, there are
            15 students enrolled in the program who have earned a total of
            nine university credits each that can be applied toward a
            certificate in natural resource management.
      --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.

                          HATCHERY OPERATIONS FUNDING

        CRRC also seeks annual funding of $150,000 for hatchery operating
    expenses and research and development funding to develop new shellfish
    species until we are self-sustaining. Once the hatchery is self-
    sustaining, CRRC plans to expand its production so that it can support
    some of CRRC's base operating costs as well. Alutiiq Pride has been
    successful in culturing geoduck and razor clam species but additional
    research and development funding is needed to assist in the nursery,
    growth and marketing stages. Last year, Alutiiq Pride produced 4
    million oyster seed. This year, the Hatchery anticipates sales of 8
    million oyster seed. Revenue from such sales, however, is quite modest
    ($40,000). The geoduck shellfish farming industry is expected to grow
    rapidly. If Alutiiq Pride can sell geoducks and razor clam seeds, the
    production potential from only 2 million seed sales can approach
    $400,000, a tenfold revenue increase.
        The shellfish industry in Alaska has not yet grown to the point
    where seed sales cover the cost of operations. Oyster sales have
    matured and geoduck seed sales will coincide with the expected growth
    of that industry. Alutiiq Pride is undertaking hatchery, nursery and
    grow out operations research to adapt mariculture techniques for the
    Alaskan shellfish industry. The hatchery has recently become involved
    in king crab research, as described above. Until the hatchery is self-
    sufficient in 3-5 years, however, it requires operations and research
    and development funds if it is to meet the State's growing demand for
    shellfish seed.

                                     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 the
    Administration for Native Americans, Environmental Protection Agency,
    NOAA, and the U.S. Fish & Wildlife 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. Our base budget is as
    follows:

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Projected cost
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    A. Chugach Region Shellfish Mariculture Development..            $75,000
        --Oyster grow-out operations in Tatitlek
        --Oyster marketing
    B. Nanwalek Sockeye Salmon Development Project.......             20,000
        --Seek funds for disease free water engineering
         study
        --Operate smolt out-migration weir
    C. Port Graham Pink Salmon Hatchery..................             75,000
        --Broodstock development
        --Sockeye and pink salmon fry production
        --Training and education for hatchery crew
    D. Program Development/Regional Office Operations....            180,000
        --1 staff person/supplies/quarterly board
         meetings
        --Biological Professional Assistance
        --Project development and Planning
        --GIS Mapping
        --Resource Evaluation and Management
                                                          ------------------
          Total Direct Costs.............................            350,000
    Indirect Cost (27.7 percent).........................             96,950
                                                          ------------------
          TOTAL PROJECTED BASE BUDGET....................            446,950
    Alutiiq Pride Shellfish Hatchery Operations..........            150,000
                                                          ------------------
          TOTAL..........................................        \1\ 596,950
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ $500,000 requested.

                                     ______

      Prepared Statement of the Citizens Committee to Complete the Refuge

        The Citizens Committee to Complete the Refuge (Don Edwards San
    Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge) appreciates the opportunity to
    comment on the fiscal year 2009 Budget, and strongly urges the
    subcommittee to appropriate $514 million for operations and maintenance
    of National Wildlife Refuges.
        Senior members of our organization have advocated for refuges,
    locally and nationally, for more than 40 years. The magnificent
    American wildlife that existed historically has survived because of
    President Theodore Roosevelt's remarkable idea in 1903 to establish
    protected regions for indigenous plant and animal life.
        We have become aware of the esteem in which our 100 million-acre
    National Wildlife Refuge System is held worldwide, having been visited
    by people from all continents who have sought to learn American methods
    of protecting wildlife and valuable habitats. With that in mind, we
    deeply regret what inadequate funding for years has brought about in
    refuges nationwide. In some, staffing has been greatly reduced or even
    eliminated; decreased maintenance has led to unsafe conditions; vital
    biological research has been hampered; and fewer programs are available
    to the public.
        We are members of the National Wildlife Refuge Association, and
    wish to support the testimony of its president, Evan Hirsche. In
    addition to operations and maintenance funds, he requests funding for
    other important programs listed here:
        Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program ($55.1 million)
        Volunteers and Invasives Program ($1 million)
        LWCF ($100 million or more)
        Infrastructure ($25 million)
        State and Tribal Grants ($85 million)
        NFWF ($10 million)
        Climate Change Planning ($30 million)
        Prevent land exchange at Izembek NWR
        Finally, I wish to thank the subcommittee for its support of
    refuges, our own included, the San Francisco Bay National Wildlife
    Refuge Complex. In the midst of 7 million people, it has contributed
    remarkably to our quality of life. It has provided flood control, clean
    air and clean water, places of peace and serenity, preservation and
    restoration of extremely endangered species, and great recreational
    opportunities.
        This Complex also offers a rare opportunity to respond to the
    threat of climate change and rising sea level because it preserves so
    much of the shoreline of San Francisco Bay. At this moment, the bay is
    the site of one of the most remarkable restoration projects undertaken
    in the United States. The restoration of thousands of acres of salt
    ponds can bring back the biodiversity that existed decades ago.
        Surely the actions of your subcommittee in supporting the National
    Wildlife System is government at its finest. This is a legacy that we'
    are leaving for those that come after us.
                                     ______

                     Prepared Statement of Michael S. Clark

        Madam Chairman and honorable members of the subcommittee: Thank
    you, Madam Chairman, for the opportunity to present this testimony in
    support of an appropriation of $4 million from the Land and Water
    Conservation Fund (LWCF) to acquire the first of two phases of 1,470
    acres of patented mining claims on Montana forestlands near the
    boundaries of Yellowstone National Park. These funds would protect
    roughly half of the claims, which lie on the headwaters of three major
    tributaries of the Yellowstone River, immediately adjacent to
    Yellowstone National Park and the Absaroka-Beartooth Wilderness Area.
        As you know, Madam Chairman, this project is one of many worthy
    acquisition projects nationwide seeking LWCF funding. Unfortunately,
    since fiscal year 2002, funding for LWCF has diminished by about 75
    percent and the fiscal year 2009 Budget proposes further cuts despite a
    rising need for funds to protect and enhance recreational access,
    historic sites, wildlife habitats, scenic areas, water resources and
    other important features. I urge the subcommittee to increase overall
    LWCF funding to at least $278 million for this important program in
    fiscal year 2009.
        My testimony today is directed toward acquisition of land lying
    within the New World Mining District, an area that lies within the
    Custer and Gallatin Forests, immediately adjacent to our Nation's first
    national park and one of our largest wilderness areas in the Lower 48
    States. The District lies at the very heart of the Greater Yellowstone
    Ecosystem, an 18-million acre region in Montana, Idaho and Wyoming that
    includes Yellowstone and Grand Teton national parks and portions of
    seven different national forests and three national wildlife refuges.
        The Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem contains some of the best
    wildlife habitat in the country. Living within its boundaries are
    grizzlies, lynx, moose, mountain lions, wolverines, big horn sheep,
    black bears and the largest elk herds in North America. With the
    successful reintroduction of the gray wolf, the region now contains the
    full range of mammals that lived in the region during the time of Lewis
    and Clark.
        The lands we wish to acquire with this appropriation are old mining
    claims that form the core of the New World Mining District near Cooke
    City, a historic mining town and now a center of recreational tourism
    near the northeast entrance to Yellowstone National Park.
        The New World Mining District was created in recognition of the
    historic concentration of gold, silver and copper mines that operated
    around Cooke City beginning in the 1870s. Over time, the New World
    Mining District became the second largest producer of gold in Montana
    and remained an active producing area until the mid-1950s. Industrial-
    scale mining ceased in the area around 1958 and did not appear to be
    viable until new exploration technologies revealed that up to 2 million
    ounces of recoverable ore still remained in the ground.
        In 1989, Crown Butte Mines, a subsidiary of Canadian mining giant
    Noranda, Inc, proposed a massive gold mine in this location, in the
    midst of the headwaters of three major tributaries that flow through
    either Yellowstone Park or the Absaroka Beartooth Wilderness Area or
    into the Clarks Fork River that flows from Montana into Wyoming. The
    proposal sparked an international controversy because of the threat the
    mine posed to Yellowstone National Park and the surrounding wild lands.
        In 1996, after years of controversy, law suits, international media
    attention, and scientific debate, the mining company reached an
    agreement with the Clinton Administration and a coalition of
    environmental groups to cease development of the mine. As part of the
    settlement, the company would receive $65 million to stop the mine
    development. In return, the company would set aside $22.5 million to
    clean up past contamination of the mine sites.
        One of the company's key partners in the mining venture was a
    retired schoolteacher named Margaret Reeb, who had acquired a range of
    mining claims including some that she had inherited from her father who
    was a gold prospector for many years in the Cooke City area. Ms. Reeb
    was an outspoken advocate for mining in the area, and the mining
    company was unable to convince her that she should sell her claims as
    part of the original settlement agreement between the company, the
    Federal Government and the various environmental organizations, who had
    banded together to stop the mine. In the wake of the agreement to stop
    the mine, Ms. Reeb continued to hold on to her land, although she did
    agree to stop her efforts to mine gold there. The lands owned by the
    Canadian mining company were turned over to the Forest Service. And, in
    a key follow-up move, Congress also passed legislation, formally
    withdrawing all of the land that the Federal Government owned in the
    district (including all of the claims that it had acquired from the
    mining company) from Federal mineral location and entry, effectively
    wiping out the threat of other mining companies trying to patent the
    land again. At her death 2 years ago, Ms. Reeb's lands passed into the
    hands of her nephews who have now agreed that their aunt's mining
    claims should be put into public ownership as was originally proposed
    by the agreement in 1996 to stop development of the New World Mine.
        In the years since the agreement was signed, the Forest Service has
    carried out an excellent reclamation effort to clean up the historic
    mine waste sites, which had contaminated the land and water in the
    area. Using the $22.5 million, which had been set aside under the
    agreement, the reclamation project has turned the area into what is
    perhaps the finest high-altitude hard rock mine reclamation effort in
    the western United States.
        Now, with this opportunity to acquire the Reeb lands, the final
    chapter in this dramatic story can be brought to a successful
    conclusion. With the Reeb lands passing into public ownership, the
    threat of an industrial mining operation next to Yellowstone Park and
    the Absaroka-Bearthooth Wilderness area will completely disappear. In
    addition, the threat of these lands succumbing to second-home
    developments in the middle of very wild country above 8,000 feet in
    elevation will also be erased.
        Over the past 136 years since the creation of Yellowstone National
    Park, our government has wisely invested enormous resources in the
    management and protection of the park and the surrounding national
    forest lands. Today, this concentration of public wild lands contains
    one of the most diverse and intact ecosystems on the face of the earth.
    As our people continue to use our national public lands for recreation
    and as our scientists continue to expand their knowledge of the genetic
    and natural diversity of these lands, the need to ensure their
    comprehensive and permanent protection becomes ever more important.
        LWCF monies are critical to achieving public ownership of these
    lands and ensuring that these high-altitude resources are forever
    protected and preserved.
        As the lead negotiator for the conservation groups who fought
    against Crown Butte Mines' plans and who has subsequently watched the
    amazing transformation of these lands over the past decade as they have
    been cleaned up and restored, I respectfully urge the committee to
    approve the $4 million appropriation that is needed to complete the
    first phase of this 2-year project We owe it to ourselves and to future
    generations.
        Thank you, Madam Chairman, for the opportunity to present this
    testimony.
                                     ______

     Prepared Statement of the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum

        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 Budget Justification documents have stated 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 2009 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 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 has
    recognized that the BLM has now identified projects that in fiscal year
    2009 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, and
      --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 quantified 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 Commission of Nevada

        As a Nevada representative of the Colorado River Basin Salinity
    Control Forum and Advisory Council, the Colorado River Commission of
    Nevada (CRC) supports funding for the Bureau of Land Management (BLM)
    for the Soil, Water, and Air Management Subactivity that assists the
    Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Program. As one of the five
    principal Soil, Water, and Air Program priorities, the CRC 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.
        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 Confederated Tribes of the Colville
                                  Reservation

        On behalf of the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation
    (Colville Tribe or the ``Tribe''), I appreciate the opportunity to
    provide testimony to the subcommittee on two programs of interest of
    the Colville Tribe and to other Indian tribes nationally: (1)
    restoration of $630,000 for the Lake Roosevelt Management-Enforcement
    program; and (2) a $1.5 million programmatic increase for the Bureau of
    Indian Affairs' (BIA's) Indian energy programs. Both of these programs
    are administered in the Trust-Natural Resources Management account and
    the Tribe has worked, and continues to work, with Senator Patty
    Murray's and Senator Maria Cantwell's offices on these requests.
        Before discussing these programs, I would like to take this
    opportunity to provide some brief background on the Colville Tribe.
    Although now considered a single Indian tribe, the Confederated Tribes
    of the Colville Reservation is, as the name states, a confederation of
    12 smaller aboriginal tribes and bands from all across eastern
    Washington State. The Colville Reservation encompasses approximately
    1.4 million acres and is located in north central Washington State. The
    Colville Tribe more than 9,300 enrolled members, making it one of the
    largest Indian tribes in the Pacific Northwest. About half of the
    Tribe's members live on or near the Colville Reservation.

     RESTORATION OF $630,000 IN FUNDING FOR THE LAKE ROOSEVELT MANAGEMENT-
                              ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM

        As the subcommittee is aware, Lake Roosevelt Management/Enforcement
    funds enable both the Colville Tribe and the Spokane Tribe of Indians
    to employ law enforcement officers to patrol Lake Roosevelt and its
    shoreline to enforce Federal laws (through cross-deputization
    arrangements) and tribal health and safety laws. Lake Roosevelt is the
    151-mile reservoir of the Grand Coulee Dam, the largest hydroelectric
    power plant in the United States and the third largest in the world. As
    a national tourist destination, Lake Roosevelt receives approximately
    1.5 million visitors annually.
        The law enforcement patrols funded by Lake Roosevelt Management/
    Enforcement funds have become increasingly critical since the September
    11 terrorist attacks. Tribal personnel funded by Lake Roosevelt
    Management funds have in recent years worked cooperatively with the
    Bureau of Reclamation and the National Parks Service to increase their
    patrols to correspond with the heightened security of the Grand Coulee
    Dam. To this end, Lake Roosevelt Management/Enforcement funds play a
    direct role in protecting public safety by ensuring that a key access
    point to the Grand Coulee Dam, Lake Roosevelt, remains patrolled.
        The enforcement patrols funded by the appropriations are an
    integral part of combating ongoing smuggling activity involving float
    planes from Canada. Unmarked aircraft use Lake Roosevelt and other
    waterways on the Colville Reservation as a smuggling route for cocaine,
    ecstasy, and other contraband. In March 2006, Colville tribal officers
    funded by the appropriations apprehended one of the pilots of a float
    plane and recovered an estimated $2 million in illegal drugs. The
    Colville Tribe continues to receive several reports of sightings of
    these planes every month.
        Funding for Lake Roosevelt Management/Enforcement program was
    included in the Department of the Interior's annual budget beginning in
    the early 1990s under the terms of an agreement between the tribes, the
    Secretary of the Interior, and other federal agencies. When the funds
    were omitted from the budget without explanation in fiscal year 2001,
    the tribes have had to seek Congress's assistance to restore the funds
    through the appropriations process. The Tribe appreciates the
    Subcommittee's continued support for this program and respectfully
    requests that the Subcommittee include this activity in its bill at the
    full $630,000 level.

     $1.5 MILLION PROGRAMMATIC INCREASE FOR THE BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS'
                             INDIAN ENERGY PROGRAMS

        The Colville Tribe also respectfully requests that the subcommittee
    consider a $1.5 million programmatic increase for the BIA's Indian
    energy programs. The BIA's Indian energy programs are administered by
    the Office of Indian Energy and Economic Development (IEED). As the
    Colville Tribe can attest from its productive experience with the IEED
    in recent years, these programs bring much needed technical assistance
    and capacity building to Indian country and enable Indian tribes to
    maximize, leverage, and develop energy resources on tribal lands in two
    critical ways:
        Grants.--The IEED provides grants to Indian tribes to assess energy
    resources on tribal lands, build capacity, conduct feasibility studies,
    and for other purposes. Since 2005, the Colville Tribe has received
    grants from this program that have allowed the Tribe to begin
    development of a new cogeneration facility on the Colville Reservation
    that will utilize woody biomass. A programmatic increase for this
    activity would enable more Indian tribes to receive grants for energy
    development activities. Since fiscal year 2000, 70 Indian tribes have
    received grants for energy related activities under this program.
        Tribal Energy Resource Agreements (TERAs).--Authorized under Title
    V of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, TERAs are agreements between Indian
    tribes and the Secretary of the Interior that are intended to maximize
    tribal oversight and management of energy resource development. Once
    the IEED determines that a tribe possesses the requisite management
    capacity and approves a TERA, the tribe can then engage in a variety of
    energy development activities under an entirely new, flexible mechanism
    for entering into energy-related business agreements with third
    parties. The BIA published its final rule implementing the TERA program
    on March 10, 2008, and numerous applications are expected. A
    programmatic increase would provide the IEED with sufficient resources
    to ensure that Indian tribes are able to take advantage of this new
    economic development tool.
        The tribal energy programs carried out by the IEED are administered
    in the Minerals and Mining account within the BIA's Trust-Natural
    Resources Management budget activity. Within that account, the
    President's Budget includes a total of $2 million for tribal energy
    activities for fiscal year 2009. Of that $2 million, $1.4 million is
    for grants (encompassed within the $6.93 million requested in the
    Minerals and Mining Projects line item), and $600,000 is for the IEED
    to consult with Indian tribes and begin the TERA review process
    (encompassed within the $1.49 million requested in the Minerals and
    Mining Central Oversight line item). The Tribe seeks an increase of $1
    million for grants to Indian tribes and $500,000 for TERA
    implementation. To this end, the Tribe suggests the following report
    language: Changes to the Request include increases to Minerals and
    Mining of $1 million for grants for tribal energy activities and
    $500,000 for implementation and approval of Tribal Energy Resource
    Agreements. Other Indian tribes and tribal organizations support this
    programmatic increase, including, among others, the Council of Energy
    Resource Tribes and the Southern Ute Indian Tribe.
        Thank you for the opportunity to provide this testimony and for
    your consideration of these issues. Should the subcommittee have any
    questions, please feel free to contact me directly via e-mail at
    mike.marchand@colvilletribes.com, by phone at (509) 634-2218, or via
    facsimile at (509) 634-4116.
                                     ______

     Prepared Statement of the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian
                                  Reservation

        Honorable Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein, ranking member Wayne Allard,
    and members of the committee: I am Antone C. Minthorn, chairman of the
    board of trustees of the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian
    Reservation (CTUIR), home of the Umatilla, Cayuse and Walla Walla
    Tribes.
        Once again the proposed budget for Indian Affairs does not support
    strong tribal self-government and self-determination. In fact, the
    fiscal year 2009 proposed budget goes in the opposite direction as
    there is $100 million in proposed budget cuts. The proposed budget does
    not help meet the trust responsibilities the Federal Government owes to
    treaty tribes because the total Office of Indian Programs budget is
    still below the fiscal year 1994 enacted level, without adjusting for
    inflation.
        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. Unfortunately,
    tribal governments are treated differently than States because we are
    forced to compete for funds to address local needs rather than directly
    receiving those funds. 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 remains.
    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 will address
    several issues beyond the total amount of funds that are currently
    proposed. These include:
      --Proposed reductions to specific line items in the Tribal Priority
            Allocations (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 Requests That the Water Rights Negotiation/Litigation and
    Litigation Support/Attorney Fees Programs be Restored to at Least
    Fiscal Year 2004 Budget Levels.--Apparently this administration does
    not consider water an important resource or a trust asset of tribes. In
    fiscal year 2004 the Water Rights Negotiation/Litigation and Litigation
    Support/Attorney Fees component of the BIA budget was $15.5 million. By
    fiscal year 2008 the funding dropped to $9.95 million and there is a
    further proposed $1.0 million reduction for fiscal year 2009, a 42
    percent reduction since fiscal year 2004. The justification for this
    cut was ``to ensure other core responsibilities to American Indians/
    Alaska Natives were met''. The CTUIR has a strong interest in the BIA
    budget for Water Rights Negotiations. In 2007, after CTUIR requests
    pending for a decade to assess the water rights of the CTUIR and the
    prospect for settling those water rights in the Umatilla Basin,
    Secretary Kempthorne appointed a Federal Water Rights Assessment Team.
    The CTUIR has been working closely with the State, Irrigation Districts
    and other stakeholders for the past 25 years to restore salmon and to
    meet the water needs of the CTUIR without harm to existing water rights
    holders. In 2009, the CTUIR expects to be requesting the appointment of
    a Federal negotiation team for a comprehensive settlement of the
    Tribe's water rights in the Umatilla Basin. The CTUIR will need BIA
    financial assistance under the Water Rights Negotiation line item to be
    successful in our negotiations. The success the CTUIR has had in the
    Umatilla and Walla Walla basins is recognized as a national model for
    bringing together diverse water interests and cooperatively solving the
    multi-dimensional problems around use of water.
        The CTUIR Requests That the Water Management Program be Restored to
    at Least Fiscal Year 2004 Budget Levels.--Water Management Planning and
    Pre-Development is another component of the BIA budget that now plays a
    significant role in tribal efforts to adjudicate their water rights.
    Again this program has seen sharp decreases, going from $8.1 million in
    fiscal year 2004 to $5.6 million in fiscal year 2008, a 30 percent
    reduction. According to the budget justifications, these ``funds are
    being used to conduct water management and planning projects for the
    purpose of managing and conserving Indian water resources.'' 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
    measuring water quality standards.
        The CTUIR Strongly Objects to the Continuing Decline in Resources
    for Trust--Natural Resources Management and Requests That Funding be
    Restored to at Least Fiscal Year 2006 Levels.--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 further States that a
    significant portion of these activities are carried out by tribes under
    contracts/compacts--in other words, these programs are having a
    positive impact 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. While Congress restored $2 million of the
    reduction in fiscal year 2008 the proposed fiscal year 2009 budget
    still includes $5.4 million in cuts. We have identified a need for an
    increase of $310,000 for 6.5 additional FTE's to our local budget.
    These funds are required to implement the Forestry, Agriculture, and
    Range Management Plans that will be adopted this year. It does not make
    sense to build up a system to track funds when the natural resources
    cannot be managed in such a way as to generate those 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 $7.4 Million Requested for Probate Backlog 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. In fiscal year
    2006 the BIA conducted a review of the local services and recommended
    that two additional real estate staff be added to meet the work load.
    More recently we conducted a review of the staffing needs and found
    that three additional real estate staff and one 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 Requests That $3 Million Over the FIscal Year 2008
    Enacted Level be Added to the Tribal Court TPA Line Item to Increase
    Resources at the Local Level.--In fiscal year 2008 Congress increased
    this line item by $2.3 million but the proposed budget removes this
    increase. 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.
        The CTUIR Requests That Welfare Assistance Funding be Restored to
    at Least the Fiscal Year 2005 Enacted Level.--A $14.4 million reduction
    in fiscal year 2009 is being proposed on top of the $5 million
    reduction imposed in fiscal year 2007. The budget justifications
    indicate this represents the removal of able bodied adults from the
    roles. However, that program change cannot be made until the
    regulations are amended, a process to our knowledge that has not begun.
    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 a Minimum 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. The Johnson O'Malley (JOM) program is again proposed to
    be completely eliminated despite Congress's continuing support. 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 who attend local schools, 40 percent are not
    meeting the statewide standards in English/Language or in Math and are
    in need of the additional services provided by the JOM program. The
    fiscal year 2009 proposed budget also calls for a $5.9 million or 20
    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 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 Opposes the Proposed Elimination of 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. The elimination of this program does not meet the
    needs of the United States or tribes. The OST has given some indication
    it will be rolling out some form of new concept for land consolidation,
    but to date we are unaware of any discussions with Tribal leaders.
        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 CTUIR Adamantly Opposes the Proposed 8 Percent Reduction to the
    U.S. Forest Service budget.--In the 1855 Treaty the CTUIR ceded 6.4
    million acres of land to the U.S. Government but reserved the rights to
    hunt, fish, gather foods and medicines and graze livestock on
    ``unclaimed lands'' within the aboriginal area. The majority of the
    open lands are now under the control of three different National
    Forests. Past staffing and funding cuts already prevent the Forest
    Service from meeting even their most fundamental mission. Proposed
    budget cuts will only make the problems worse for future
    administrations, magnifying the damage and increasing the cost to
    repair. Over the past several years the Tribe has worked diligently to
    develop a cooperative relationship with the USFS and to educate them
    about the Tribe's treaty rights and their responsibility to protect
    those rights. A 10 percent staff reduction would jeopardize that
    relationship as USFS personnel would just not have the time to deal
    with these matters. Finally such a reduction would put the CTUIR and
    all rural communities at risk because of the reduced capacity to
    implement fire prevention projects.
                                     ______

           Prepared Statement of The Conservation System Alliance \1\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ The Conservation System Alliance is a coalition of over 75
    conservation, historic preservation, faith-based, recreation, business
    and place-based friends groups representing millions of Americans
    nationwide. The Alliance aims to protect, restore and expand the
    National Landscape Conservation System by making it permanent, well-
    funded, well-managed, and inclusive of the best natural and cultural
    resources under the care of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). This
    testimony is submitted by John Garder, Public Lands Associate at The
    Wilderness Society, on behalf of the Alliance.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Mr. Chairman, the Conservation System Alliance would like to thank
    you for the opportunity to provide recommendations and comments on the
    fiscal year 2009 Department of the Interior and Related Agencies
    Appropriations bill. On behalf of our millions of members, we provide
    below our fiscal year 2009 funding recommendation for $70 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 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 hunting 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
    BLM landscapes that are vital components of America's 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 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
    System lands and waters poses considerable threats to the integrity of
    these historically and biologically extraordinary landscapes.

           CONSERVATION SYSTEM BUDGET ACCOUNTABILITY AND TRANSPARENCY

        Clarity in the System's budget is critical to ensuring that its
    units receive needed resources. The Alliance commends BLM for providing
    new Subactivities for Monuments and National Conservation Areas in the
    fiscal year 2009 budget, and for giving this spectacular System
    increased attention in budget documents, important first steps towards
    giving the System needed budgetary attention and clarity. However, we
    are disappointed that BLM failed to provide line item program elements
    for the Conservation System's Wild and Scenic Rivers and National
    Scenic and Historic Trails, though directed to do so in the fiscal year
    2008 Omnibus Appropriations Committee Report. Budget clarity for all
    System units is needed to ensure that all System managers can
    adequately plan and accurately track expenditures and to ensure
    accountability to Congress and the American public. We ask the
    Appropriations Committee to direct the Bureau to provide Subactivities
    for the Conservation System's Trails and Rivers and provide greater
    clarity for the Conservation System in future budget documents.

    FISCAL YEAR 2009 OPERATIONS, MAINTENANCE AND PLANNING BUDGET NEEDS FOR
                                   THE SYSTEM

        If enacted, the President's fiscal year 2009 budget would be the
    lowest level of funding ever for the Conservation System: $51.8
    million, or less than $3 an acre. This constitutes a destructive cut of
    over $8 million from the final fiscal year 2008 enacted budget, after
    one-time additions (source: BLM). The System warrants funding of at
    least $70 million in fiscal year 2009--a modest increase over historic
    funding levels when accounting for the growth of the System, growth in
    visitation, inflation and significant uncontrollable costs, such as
    insurance increases. The administration's total proposed budget of just
    $51.8 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 $70 million as
    permanent base funding for operations and management of the
    Conservation System. 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.
      --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. For example,
    Arizona's Grand Canyon-Parashant National Monument, spanning over a
    million acres, needs $1.2 million for stabilization of twelve of its
    historic and cultural sites, including old ranches and homesteads.
    Colorado's McInnis Canyons National Conservation Area, where visitor
    use has increased nearly 90 percent in the last 5 years, needs $150,000
    to hire a full time law enforcement officer and two seasonal rangers to
    protect resources and ensure visitor safety.
        We also respectfully 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 2009 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 2009 budget.
        conservation system land and water conservation fund priorities
        The President's fiscal year 2009 budget would provide less than
    $4.5 million for BLM land acquisition via LWCF, which would be the
    lowest level ever and far below historic levels. We support the
    projects proposed for funding from the Land and Water Conservation Fund
    in the President's request, but they are insufficient. We strongly
    recommend at least an additional $16 million for projects in Santa Rosa
    and San Jacinto Mountains National Monument and California Desert
    Wilderness (CA), Las Cienegas National Conservation Area (AZ), Nez
    Perce National Historic Trail (MT), Kasha-Katuwe Tent Rocks National
    Monument (NM), Cascade Siskiyou National Monument and the Crooked and
    Sandy Wild and Scenic Rivers (OR). These projects offer willing
    sellers, local support, and opportunities to resolve inholder/access
    issues and protect recreational opportunities and biological integrity.
    support the protection of cultural resources on land managed by the blm
        The fiscal year 2009 budget proposes only $13.5 million for BLM's
    1050 account for cultural resource management and protection. This is a
    16 percent reduction from the fiscal year 2008 enacted level and a 19
    percent decline from 2007. In fact, the $13.5 million request would be
    below fiscal year 1991 funding levels after adjusting for inflation.
    The administration's request for cultural resource management fails to
    keep pace with increased energy development and recreational uses that
    have the potential to damage or destroy significant archaeological
    sites on BLM lands. We encourage the Interior Appropriations
    Subcommittee to increase funding for the BLM's cultural resource
    program by at least a modest $3 million for a total of at least $16.5
    million. Funds from the 1050 account pay for archaeologists in BLM
    Field Offices but have never been sufficient to pay for proactive
    surveys and the protection of significant cultural resources. A
    reduction in funds only exacerbates this problem and insures there will
    be costly conflicts between energy development and recreational use and
    the protection of cultural sites on BLM land.

     RESTORE NEEDED FUNDING FOR THE NATIONAL TRAILS SYSTEM AND RECREATION
                                   MANAGEMENT

        BLM created a 10-year Strategy to ensure safe public access to its
    13 National Scenic and Historic Trails while preserving their critical
    natural, historic, and cultural resources. Funding is needed to
    implement this Plan, including actions to administer the Iditarod, El
    Camino Real de Tierra Adentro, and Old Spanish National Historic
    Trails, to continue progress toward completing the Continental Divide
    National Scenic Trail, and to protect the Pacific Crest National Scenic
    Trail. To implement the Trail Plan, we urge Congress to allocate at
    least $6 million as permanent base funding for the National Scenic and
    Historic Trails, an increase of $3.5 million over the permanent base
    shown in the President's request. This funding should be established in
    a new National Scenic and Historic Trails Subactivity account.
    Alternatively the funding should be allocated within the Recreation
    Management 1220, Cultural Resources 1050, Annual Maintenance 1652, and
    Challenge Cost Share 1770 Subactivities. We urge the Conservation
    System office to prioritize Recreation Management Subactivity funding
    for planning, establishment, and maintenance of hiking trails on the
    ground throughout the Conservation System.

    Appendix.--Additional Examples of Funding Needs in Fiscal Year 2009 for
                the BLM's National Landscape Conservation System
        The list of Conservation System funding needs assembled in the
    accompanying fact sheet (Support our Western Heritage: Invest in the
    BLM's National Landscape Conservation System) is by no means intended
    to be comprehensive. This appendix, though also not intended to be all-
    inclusive, lists some additional examples that further convey the need
    for increased funding for the Conservation System.
    Funding Priority #1: Cultural Resources Research and Protection
        Additional needs include:
      --Arizona's Agua Fria National Monument has over 400 recorded sites,
            among them multi-room pueblos dating from 1250 to 1450 that
            provide crucial archaeological pieces to the Southwest's
            historic puzzle. Located within an hour of fast-growing
            Phoenix, the Monument needs funding for two critical positions:
            an outdoor recreation planner (to help manage off-road vehicle
            use and other visitor pressures) and a full-time archaeologist.
      --Other examples include Arizona's Sonoran Desert National Monument,
            which lacks a full-time archaeologist; Ironwood Forest National
            Monument, which is home to two historic districts, yet has no
            archaeologist to solicit needed public involvement in
            protecting cultural resources there; Las Cienegas NCA, which
            has a several million dollar backlog for historic site
            preservation; and California's Carrizo Plain National Monument,
            which needs $100,000 to stabilize cultural and historical
            sites.

    Funding Priority #2: Rangers for the Conservation System
        Additional needs include:
      --Widespread marijuana cultivation on BLM lands--including
            Conservation System lands--is causing significant resource
            damage and threatening public safety. The problem has grown
            extensively, such that BLM law enforcement from other areas are
            re-assigned to help with detection and enforcement. However,
            even with reassignments, the BLM cannot keep up with this
            important public safety issue. At least nine BLM California law
            enforcement staff positions are needed to restore affected
            areas and protect public safety. This would prevent the
            temporary transfer of much-needed officers from Conservation
            System and other lands. $2 million would allow for twenty
            additional BLM officers to focus on this important public
            safety problem, relieving full or part-time Conservation System
            officers and allowing them to focus on other needed management
            priorities.
      --Colorado's Gunnison Gorge National Conservation Area struggles to
            curb illegal trash dumping, target shooting, theft from fee
            stations, and vandalism. Just one enforcement officer patrols
            all 64,000 acres, in addition to areas outside the NCA.
            $100,000 would fund an officer.
      --Other examples include Agua Fria, Carrizo Plain and Cascade
            Siskiyou National Monuments, which each need an additional law-
            enforcement officer; Headwaters Forest Reserve, which needs a
            ranger; and the Wild and Scenic Rivers, which need four
            seasonal rangers. These positions require approzimately
            $680,000.

    Funding Priority #3: Sound Science, Monitoring, and Restoration
        Additional needs include:
      --Oregon's Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument is an ecological wonder
            with high biological diversity at the nexus of three different
            ecosystems. An unmet priority is to monitor the impacts of
            grazing and rangeland health on biological objects that the
            Monument was created to protect, including a rich mosaic of
            grass and shrublands, black oak woodlands and more. Other
            priority needs include mapping to inform invasive species
            control and road decommissioning to restore landscapes.
      --Alaska's Steese National Conservation Area was established to
            protect habitat for wildlife, including Dall sheep and caribou.
            $200,000 would enable BLM to carry out baseline caribou
            monitoring as land managers attempt to rebuild the population,
            as well as fund two seasonal staff to assess the interactions
            between caribou health, recent wildfires, and invasive species.
      --Other examples include Wild and Scenic Rivers, which are in need of
            $335,000 for inventorying, monitoring and restoration; Sonoran
            Desert National Monument, which needs a natural resources
            specialist; Las Cienegas NCA, which has an unfunded operational
            need of $350,000 for recreation site maintenance,
            implementation of recreation site construction, biological
            monitoring, road maintenance, interpretive supplies and more;
            San Pedro Riparian NCA, which is in need of $40,000 for water
            gap construction to prevent livestock, off-road vehicle and
            flash flood damage to critical riparian areas; Carrizo Plain
            National Monument, which is in need of $100,000 to contract
            university wildlife research to better determine the needs of
            numerous threatened and endangered species; Headwaters Forest
            Reserve, which needs a natural resources specialist, as well as
            $15,000 for monitoring of numerous bird species; and King Range
            NCA, which has a priority need of $85,000 for the monitoring of
            Pacific Salmon.

    Funding Priority #4: Support for Volunteer Programs and Conservation
            Partnerships
        Additional examples of substantial benefits from volunteers through
    partnership funding are:
      --In Red Rock Canyon National Conservation Area near Las Vegas,
            volunteers provide the equivalent of 8-9 full-time staff
            people.
      --At Colorado's Canyons of the Ancients National Monument, a
            volunteer workforce contributes more than 10,000 hours annually
            at the Monument's Anasazi Heritage Center, as well as outdoors
            in the Monument gathering data, monitoring archaeological
            sites, and restoring lands--time worth $174,000.
      --Friends of Nevada Wilderness organizes volunteer restoration
            projects in Conservation System wilderness to eliminate
            unnecessary roads and disguise illegal routes with rocks and
            vegetation.
      --However, Headwaters Forest Reserve benefits from a supportive
            regional coalition but lacks capacity to perform outreach and
            establish a place-based friends group.

    Funding Priority #5: Ensuring Adequate Recreation Management
        Other examples include:
      --In Arizona, in BLM's Phoenix District, which includes several
            flagship Conservation System units in the fastest growing
            county in America, in one of the fastest growing States in
            America, there are only four permanent outdoor recreation
            planners. This lack of Outdoor Recreation Planners hinders
            their ability to keep recreational trails safe, accessible and
            enjoyable.
      --Arizona's San Pedro Riparian NCA is in need of funds for site
            improvement and maintenance on the eleven regularly visited
            trailheads and two major facilities that receive high visitor
            use.
      --Other examples include the Vermilion Cliffs National Monument,
            which is in need of two recreation positions; the Carrizo Plain
            National Monument, which needs ongoing maintenance and
            enhancement of recreational programs; the King Range NCA, which
            needs additional funding to facilitate special recreation
            permits and collect camping fees; Santa Rosa and San Jacinto
            Mountains National Monument, which needs $200,000 to upgrade
            existing camping sites and add additional sites, and to upgrade
            the public water system; Pompeys Pillar National Monument,
            which needs operating funds for its visitors' center; the Upper
            Missouri River Breaks National Monument, which needs funding
            for plan implementation, including travel planning; and Kasha-
            Katuwe Tent Rocks National Monument, which needs $140,000 for
            recreation maintenance and other materials.

    Funding Priority #6: Educational Outreach
        Additional needs include:
      --The California Coastal National Monument would like to initiate
            kiosks and other public educational materials to minimize
            coastal damage and enhance resource education and development.
            Local groups are raising financial support for a series of
            public ``gateways,'' but BLM staff lack funds and staff to
            fully pursue the opportunities that come with working to
            involve local people in the management of their resources.
      --A University of Utah student has volunteered to write a public
            geology guide for Arizona's Vermilion Cliffs National Monument
            but lacks $12,000 in BLM funding.

     SUPPORT OUR WESTERN HERITAGE: INVEST IN THE BLM'S NATIONAL LANDSCAPE
                    CONSERVATION SYSTEM IN FISCAL YEAR 2009

        The Bureau of Land Management's (BLM) National Landscape
    Conservation System is a network of the last places to experience the
    history and beauty of the American West. The System brings together BLM
    lands and waters designated for protection by Congress or the
    President, like National Monuments, National Historic Trails and Wild
    and Scenic Rivers. Yet with bare bones funding for management and land
    stewardship, the BLM can't keep its most extraordinary 26 million acres
    healthy, wild, and open.
        If enacted, the proposed funding level for fiscal year 2009 would
    be the lowest since the Conservation System's inception in 2000: just
    $51.8 million, or less than $2 an acre. Meanwhile, needs have increased
    and staff is minimal. Historic sites are vandalized and resources lost
    before they are even identified. With eleven of the 15 fastest growing
    States in the country in the West, the Conservation System is people's
    new backyard for recreation. These sites are also natural draws for
    local tourism and sustain local economies. While representing just 10
    percent of BLM lands, the System receives about a third of all visitors
    to BLM's 260 million acres. In some parts of the System, visitor use
    has more than tripled in the past 5 years. Yet the System receives less
    than 3 percent of BLM's funding.
        The BLM's Conservation System warrants funding of at least $70
    million in fiscal year 2009--a modest increase over historic funding
    levels when adjusting for inflation and uncontrollable costs, such as
    unemployment and health insurance, workers' compensation, and salary
    increases. Priority funding needs include additional rangers, field
    staff, investments in monitoring and restoration to sustain the
    System's unique resources, cultural and historical site protection,
    volunteer program support, recreation management and community
    educational programs.

    Funding Priority #1: Cultural Resources Research and Protection
        The Conservation System includes thousands of cultural sites--from
    entire settlements of ancient peoples to historic ranches; there is a
    tremendous need for rangers and outreach professionals to discourage
    vandals and prevent off-road vehicle incursions on sensitive sites.
    Most monuments lack a full time archaeologist to assess and monitor
    archaeological resources. Examples include:
      --Arizona's Vermilion Cliffs National Monument staff has identified
            the first evidence of interacting Puebloan cultures, which
            previously were not known to have co-existed, but do not have
            adequate staffing to inventory the resources, which are known
            to vandals and at a continuous risk of being looted. Two
            archeologists--at a total cost of $180,000--are needed to
            proactively inventory and protect these invaluable sites.
      --Arizona's Grand Canyon-Parashant National Monument spans over a
            million acres. Twelve of its historic and cultural sites,
            including old mines, ranches and homesteads, are in need of
            stabilization. $1.2 million would restore and prevent loss of
            these important sites.

    Funding Priority #2: Rangers for the Conservation System
        On average, each ranger in the Conservation System patrols 200,000
    acres. With that scant presence, irreparable damage results from
    vandals, pothunters and uninformed but well-meaning visitors who simply
    lack guidance from signs, maps, or staff on how and where to recreate
    safely and responsibly.
      --At Colorado's McInnis Canyons National Conservation Area, visitor
            use has increased nearly 90 percent in the last 5 years. The
            NCA needs a full time law enforcement officer and two seasonal
            rangers, but budget freezes have prevented filling the
            positions. $150,000 is needed.
      --Arizona's Ironwood Forest National Monument has an abundance of
            natural and archaeological resources in need of protection, but
            management is challenged by traffic from undocumented
            immigrants. A second ranger--at a cost of $70,000--is needed to
            ensure public and staff safety and to educate visitors.
      --The 15-million acre California Desert District, including the Santa
            Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains National Monument, parts of the
            California Desert Conservation Area, and 67 wilderness areas,
            has numerous vacant positions due to funding shortages, many in
            highly populated areas. Tens of thousands of weekly visitors
            pose extensive challenges for managing off-road vehicles and
            other recreation and some areas have been determined to be
            unsafe for family recreation due to high drug and alcohol use.
            BLM employees are also subjected to life-threatening
            situations, experience a high burnout rate and frequently seek
            reassignment. $1.5 million would fund twelve needed positions
            to ensure public safety and the protection of cultural and
            natural resources.

    Funding Priority #3: Sound Science, Monitoring, and Restoration
        The BLM must protect the natural and cultural resources for which
    its Conservation System units were designated--like threatened and
    endangered species, clean water, wetlands, and fragile deserts.
    Protection requires monitoring. Yet, the BLM does not have adequate
    resources to collect and assess high-quality data about the state of
    Conservation System ecosystems and resources, and to incorporate that
    data into management decisions. An investment in this area is also an
    opportunity to allow the Conservation System to function as an outdoor
    laboratory for science and best management practices across the BLM-
    managed lands--offering insights on geology, land and wildlife health,
    and invasives. Nearly every area would benefit from investments in
    monitoring programs and science-focused partnerships, including:
      --Arizona's Grand Canyon-Parashant National Monument requires
            $100,000 per year for needed staff to monitor cultural sites,
            wildlife and off-road vehicle use. An additional $100,000
            annually is needed to manage the restoration of native
            vegetation that is being lost as a result of fire. $250,000
            annually is needed for ecosystem restoration.
      --California's Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains National Monument
            is in need of $1 million for adaptive trails planning for
            research that will facilitate recreation while proactively
            protecting wildlife including bighorn sheep. $100,000 annually
            is also needed for the eradication of tamarisk, which depletes
            invaluable water resources and competes with native vegetation.
      --National Scenic and Historic Trails are in need of more accurate
            trails mapping. Of the nearly 5,500 miles of National Scenic
            and Historic Trails managed by BLM (more than any other
            agency), only 400 miles have been mapped to a reasonable
            standard of accuracy, complicating the location--and therefore
            protection--of natural and cultural resources, as well as BLM's
            ability to provide a safe and quality experience for
            recreational users.

    Funding Priority #4: Support for Volunteer Programs and Conservation
            Partnerships
        Like the National Parks, BLM's Conservation System relies heavily
    on volunteers to help educate visitors, restore areas damaged by off-
    road vehicle use, monitor cultural sites, remove invasive plants, and
    more. While volunteers donate their time and labor, 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 goodwill and free labor that
    volunteers supply. Examples of substantial benefits from volunteers
    through partnership funding are:
      --The WildCorps program establishes youth work crews at $200,000 each
            annually to assist with the management of National Monuments,
            Wilderness Areas and more. The program reconnects youth with
            America's natural treasures while training the next generation
            of land managers and efficiently using Federal dollars to
            perform needed restoration at a fraction of the cost.
      --In Utah's Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument, volunteers
            donate 6,000 to 10,000 hours annually to assist BLM staff and
            scientists with projects ranging from fence repair to prepping
            specimens for exhibits. Monument funding has dropped 26 percent
            over the last 5 years. Due to this decrease in budget, they are
            heavily dependent on interns and volunteers.
        Yet, many Conservation System units lack sufficient staff to
    coordinate willing volunteers and nourish partnerships. For example,
    the California Coastal National Monument, with more than 20,000 small
    islands and the full 1,100 miles of the California coast, has only one
    full-time staff, so is unable to focus resources on developing
    partnerships with key management partners such as the California Fish
    and Game. Six additional staff are needed at $100,000/person to perform
    outreach. BLM also needs funding to establish several ``Gateways''
    along the California coast. By coordinating with management partners,
    museums, marine labs and other local groups, Monument staff hopes to
    use the Monument as a way to develop stewardship partnerships through
    the State of California and enhance public education and development.

    Funding Priority #5: Ensuring Adequate Recreation Management
        The Conservation System receives about a third of all BLM visitors,
    yet lacks the resources to adequately manage recreational opportunities
    to protect valuable cultural and natural resources while ensuring
    unparalleled recreational opportunities such as river rafting, hiking,
    hunting and more.
      --$10 million is needed for the National Trails System: The BLM
            administers 5,454 miles of three National Historic Trails and
            manages 5,485 miles of thirteen National Scenic and Historic
            Trails. There are only two employees to fulfill BLM's
            administrative responsibilities for the 5,454 miles of Historic
            Trails. These three trails have no stable operating funding,
            greatly hindering planning and the ability to coordinate with
            Park Service co-administrators and non-profit partners that
            perform the bulk of trail maintenance and purchase basic
            administrative supplies. Funding is also lacking for the
            implementation of congressionally mandated Comprehensive
            Management Plans for these trails. $1.6 million is also needed
            for completing Trail Visitor Centers to complete exhibits
            interpreting the historical and recreational resources of the
            trails for visitors. $2.8 million is needed to fully operate
            four Trail Visitor Centers.
      --Alaska BLM's Eastern Interior Field Office has lost numerous staff
            over the last 5-6 years. With five Conservation System units to
            manage, the staff shortage makes it especially difficult to
            manage the world-renown rafting and other recreational
            opportunities there. For example, there is only one half of one
            position to monitor the entire 392 miles of the Fortymile Wild
            and Scenic River.
      --At Arizona's Grand Canyon-Parashant National Monument, BLM needs
            $50,000 annually to implement the Monument's Resource
            Management Plan (e.g., to manage roads, post signs and
            implement route designations).

    Funding Priority #6: Educational Outreach
        Increased attention has recently been placed on the important
    public health and conservation benefits of reconnecting America's youth
    with public lands. The House Interior Appropriations Committee noted in
    their fiscal year 2008 report that they ``recognize that the growing
    disconnection of America's children from the natural world impacts the
    children's health as well as the future of natural resource
    conservation. Within the . . . National Landscape Conservation System
    [budget], the Bureau should implement projects that help connect
    children and their families with nature.'' Conservation System lands
    offer a critical opportunity for public education of youth and other
    visitors, but programs are difficult or impossible to sustain or
    initiate without funding.
      --California's Headwaters Forest Reserve has active educational
            programs for youth in nearby schools, who comprise 8 percent of
            Headwaters visitation. BLM environmental education staff has
            developed programs in local schools to promote interest in land
            stewardship for the Reserve. Teachers have optional curriculum
            packets with lesson plans directly tied to State standards.
            Rangers teach at local schools, and then have children explore
            lessons in the Reserve.
      --Utah's Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument staff has an
            active community educational program building relationships
            with local schools in surrounding counties, but is increasingly
            unable to fulfill the schools' requests due to a 26 percent
            funding decrease over the last 5 years. Monument staff
            developed State-approved curricula for schools, but have lost
            their environmental education position due to funding cuts.
            $100,000 is needed to refill the position. Monument staff also
            seeks to build on a biology program through partnerships with
            local universities.
      --Colorado's Gunnison Gorge NCA receives far more requests for
            education programs than it can accommodate. Visitors and local
            residents would benefit from an interpretive/education
            specialist who would develop improved signs and educational
            materials, including school curricula.
        For more information, contact John Garder, The Wilderness Society,
    at 202-429-2641 or john_garder@tws.org, Denise Ryan, National Wildlife
    Federation at 202-797-6864 or ryand@nwf.org or Seth Levy, American
    Hiking Society, at 301-565-6704 Ext. 302 or slevy@americanhiking.org
                                     ______

     Prepared Statement of the Cooperative Alliance for Refuge Enhancement

        The Cooperative Alliance for Refuge Enhancement (CARE) represents
    over 14 million people that care deeply about America's National
    Wildlife Refuge System. This testimony is submitted on behalf of CARE's
    22 member organizations:
        American Birding Association, American Fisheries Society, American
    Sportfishing Association, Assateague Coastal Trust, Association of Fish
    and Wildlife Agencies, Congressional Sportsmen's Foundation, Defenders
    of Wildlife, Ducks Unlimited, Izaak Walton League of America, National
    Audubon Society, National Rifle Association of America, National
    Wildlife Federation, National Wildlife Refuge Association, Safari Club
    International, The Corps Network, The Nature Conservancy, The
    Wilderness Society, The Wildlife Society,Trout Unlimited, U.S.
    Sportsmen's Alliance, Wildlife Forever, and the Wildlife Management
    Institute.
        Chairwoman Feinstein, ranking member Allard, and members of the
    subcommittee: Thank you for the opportunity to offer comments on the
    fiscal year 2009 Interior Appropriations bill. The National Wildlife
    Refuge System stands alone as the only land system in the world with a
    mission that prioritizes wildlife conservation over all other
    activities. Since 1995, CARE has worked to showcase the needs of the
    remarkable Refuge System and to secure a strong congressional
    commitment for protecting America's shorelines, wetlands, deserts,
    tundra, and forests. CARE wishes to express our deep gratitude to the
    subcommittee for the funding increase in fiscal year 2008 and the
    dramatic turnaround it represented. To continue enacting the
    conservation vision that President Theodore Roosevelt first espoused
    more than a century ago, CARE respectfully requests a funding level of
    $514 million for the Operations and Maintenance accounts of the
    National Wildlife Refuge System in fiscal year 2009.
        A recent detailed analysis by CARE found that our National Wildlife
    Refuge System needs $765 million in annual Operations and Maintenance
    funding to properly administer its nearly 100 million acres,
    educational nature programs, habitat restoration projects, and much
    more. Reaching a level of $514 million in fiscal year 2009 is the next
    essential step along the pathway toward $765 million, and will enable
    wildlife refuges across the country to shelve the downsizing plans that
    call for a devastating 20 percent reduction in staff and return to what
    refuges do best: protecting America's wildlife and water quality,
    providing a haven for threatened and endangered species, and
    guaranteeing a positive experience for 40 million annual visitors,
    whether hunting, fishing, birding, or learning from educational
    programs.
        When refuges are short-staffed, it doesn't only affect activities
    inside refuge boundaries. Refuges are also unable to dedicate
    sufficient attention to threats beyond refuge boundaries, such as water
    rights disputes, upstream contamination, adjacent landfill sites, or
    planned developments. And as in recent years, when staff levels are
    reduced to only one or a few staff per refuge, opportunities to partner
    with other interested stakeholders are lost, dramatically and adversely
    affecting volunteer involvement and the leveraging of additional
    dollars. For example, consider that the reasonably well-staffed San
    Luis Refuge Complex in central California is often able to effectively
    triple its annual budget through creative partnerships. With this extra
    income, more trees are planted, invasive species are being eradicated,
    hunting programs are thriving, and staff can closely monitor outside
    threats. This situation demonstrates how much is possible with a
    critical mass of staff able to capitalize on funding and partnering
    opportunities, and how much is now being lost at other refuges.
        In addition to their integral role in American wildlife
    conservation, refuges are critically important on local and regional
    scales, as visitors in 2006 generated more than $1.7 billion in sales
    to local economies, creating over 27,000 U.S. jobs and $543 million in
    personal income. While these figures are undeniably significant, it is
    widely recognized that the Refuge System's potential remains largely
    untapped. In addition to being local economic engines, America's
    wildlife refuges also provide innumerable environmental benefits to
    communities. For example, many refuges in urban or suburban settings
    filter storm water before it runs downstream to municipal water
    supplies and, in many areas, reduce flooding by capturing excess
    rainwater and attenuating coastal storm surges. The native vegetation
    on many of America's refuges helps absorb pollution and captures carbon
    from the air, while natural filtration and sound water management
    promotes healthy fisheries within and beyond refuge boundaries. And
    importantly, refuges provide a way for children to connect with the
    natural world.
        There is a national wildlife refuge within an hour's drive of every
    metropolitan area in the United States. As children spend more and more
    time inside on computers, watching television or playing video games,
    the need for a place to bring our youth to experience and explore the
    outdoors has never been more important. Many refuges work with local
    volunteer organizations such as ``Friends'' to provide environmental
    education programs to local schools; but when budgets are tight, they
    are often the first programs to be curtailed.
        Prior to the generous fiscal year 2008 appropriation, many years of
    inadequate budgets rapidly ballooned the Operations and Maintenance
    backlog to $3.5 billion and forced many refuges to eliminate all staff.
    Today, over one-third of America's wildlife refuges have no staff;
    nobody to open the gates, teach the school children, repair the levees,
    pull the weeds, or even clean the bathrooms. While the increase in
    fiscal year 2008 helped immensely, many years of decline and
    degradation cannot be undone overnight. So refuge visitors still show
    up to find roads and visitor centers closed, viewing platforms and
    hiking trails in disrepair, and habitat restoration and school
    education programs eliminated. Non-native, invasive plants have
    degraded over 2.3 million acres and crime is on the rise as only 180
    full-time law enforcement officers are asked to do the job of over 840.
        Unfortunately, President Bush's fiscal year 2009 budget proposal
    for the National Wildlife Refuge System does not improve the situation.
    The administration's request does not consider rapidly rising
    inflationary costs. Each year, just to keep fuel in the trucks, pay for
    rising utilities and building rent, allow for salary adjustments and
    other fixed costs, the Refuge System needs a $15 million increase. With
    the current surge in fuel prices expected to continue through the year,
    that number is certain to climb dramatically. Therefore, to return the
    Refuge System to inflation-adjusted fiscal year 2004 levels and ensure
    a ``no net loss'' budget, the Refuge System needs a minimum of $466
    million in fiscal year 2009.
        In a Nation with ever-shrinking natural areas, we must act quickly
    to safeguard our unique natural heritage for the benefit of wildlife
    and millions of present and future Americans. It was Teddy Roosevelt
    who reminded America that ``our duty to the whole, including the unborn
    generations, bids us restrain an unprincipled present-day minority from
    wasting the heritage of these unborn generations.'' CARE agrees that 40
    million refuge visitors and all future Americans deserve the
    opportunity to see 100 million acres of the most visually stunning and
    biologically rich lands and waters in North America. Quite simply, the
    only way to ensure a future with clean water, thriving wildlife
    populations, and hunting and fishing opportunities is to increase the
    Refuge System's fiscal year 2009 appropriation to $514 million.
        On behalf of our over 14 million members and supporters, CARE
    thanks the subcommittee for the opportunity to offer comments on the
    fiscal year 2009 Interior Appropriations bill and extends our sincere
    appreciation for the Subcommittee's strong commitment to America's
    National Wildlife Refuge System.
                                     ______

                    Prepared Statement of the Corps Network

        The Corps Network urges you to fully fund the Public Lands Corps
    Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2005 (Public Law 109-154), which was
    signed into law in 2005. It authorizes $12 million for the Secretaries
    of Agriculture and Interior to contract with qualified youth and
    conservation Corps to carry out projects on public lands that are
    consistent with the goals of the Healthy Forests Act. It authorizes $8
    million for priority projects and $4 million for other appropriate
    conservation projects.
        When funded, the act will enable the Departments of Agriculture and
    Interior to engage Service and Conservation Corps in projects: ``(A) To
    reduce wildfire risk to a community, municipal water supply, or other
    at-risk Federal land; (B) To protect a watershed or address a threat to
    forest and rangeland health, including catastrophic wildfire; (C) To
    address the impact of insect or disease infestations or other damaging
    agents on forest and rangeland health'' and for other purposes. In
    addition, to these conservation and protection aims, The Act also seeks
    to provide opportunities for disadvantaged and the communities in which
    they reside by creating two preferences; one for projects and the other
    for Corps.
        The Public Lands Corps provides five important benefits:
      --Helps to Improve and Protect Public Lands and the Environment.--PLC
            Corpsmembers join the fight against wildfires, invasive
            species, other threats to our public lands and other disaster
            prevention and relief activities.
      --Helps to Reduce the Impacts of Climate Change.--By planting and
            managing vegetation to restore ecological processes and
            functions, including the recharging of streams and aquifers.
      --Engages Disadvantaged Young Adults.--The PLC engages young people,
            particularly those who are disadvantaged, in these efforts and
            connects young people with nature.
      --Is Cost-Effective.--Federal land managers will be able to deploy
            resources in a more cost-effective manner--to fight the effect
            of fires and invasive species as well as completing backlogged
            maintenance projects--because in the PLC, government cannot pay
            more than 75 percent of the cost of any project. The remaining
            25 percent must be provided in cash or in-kind from nonfederal
            sources.
      --Creates a new Generation of Diverse Environmental Stewards.--
            Because the statute contains language providing for non-
            competitive hiring status for PLC Corpsmembers, the PLC also
            creates a pipeline of skilled and diverse recruits; the next
            generation of environmental stewards that the National Park
            Service can hire non-competitively.
        The Public Lands Corps can, and should, play a key role in the
    implementation of the National Fire Plan, especially with regard to
    rehabilitation, hazardous fuels reduction, and community assistance.
    Corps can help to insure that the necessary resources are available to
    respond to fires. 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 or other
    desirable 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 Climactic Data Center of the Department of
    Commerce, in 2007 some 85,583 fires consumed 9.3 million acres; the
    second worst year for fires since mid 1990s and well above the 10 year
    average of 7.9 million acres burned. Federal agencies spent more than
    $2 billion on fire suppression in 2007. One factor that increases the
    wildfire threat 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 ``After a wildland fire .
    . . land management specialists and volunteers jumpstart 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.''
        Reducing the impacts of climate change, restoring balance to the
    ecology, and connecting young people to nature is the kind of work at
    which Corps excel and can play an even greater role. Corps are an
    experienced, cost-effective, and valuable resource in the fight against
    fires and infestation. Corps do fuels reduction work, create firescapes
    around new communities as cities spread into previously rural areas,
    provide logistical support to firefighters, and educate homeowners and
    others about how to prevent fires. They also partner with community-
    based organizations in disaster preparedness and relief activities.
    Examples of Corps service include:
      --Reducing Maintenance Backlogs.--The Northwest Youth Corps works
            with the Washington Trails Association to brush, clear, repair,
            and extend trails in Mount Rainier National Park and Mount
            Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest, among other sites. In August
            2007, park officials reported that they were still fixing
            damage caused by storms in October 2003.
      --Restoring the Environment.--The Nevada Conservation Corps works
            with The Nature Conservancy to return the Truckee River and
            wetlands to a more natural condition.
      --Disaster Relief.--Eleven Corps have sent more than 250 young people
            and staff to the Gulf Coast. Corps from across the country
            helped residents rebuild their homes and their lives by
            clearing debris, repairing roofs in Mississippi, managing a
            supply warehouse in Louisiana, serving displaced residents
            aboard ships in Alabama, and installing temporary ``hard
            roofs'' on historic buildings in New Orleans.
      --Wildfire Prevention.--In 2004, the Montana Conservation Corps (MCC)
            completed over 600 acres of wildfire fuels reduction projects
            in partnership with national parks, State agencies on private
            lands, and local conservation districts. Its priority has been
            to create defensible space around historic buildings in the
            national parks and around campgrounds. In West Yellowstone, MCC
            partnered with the Chamber of Commerce to remove 300 hazardous
            trees lining the popular Rendezvous Ski Trails, site of
            national ski races, and an important economic asset in a
            community trying to diversify from the traditional snowmobile-
            based economy.
      --Emergency Response And Prevention.--The Western Colorado
            Conservation Corps (WCCC) has done work in the urban interface
            in the Black Canyon of the Gunnison National Park housing area
            to insure safe passage for emergency response workers.
            Corpsmembers have been trained in firescaping around new
            suburban neighborhoods as cities spread into rural areas. They
            help to provide both visually aesthetic and fire resistant
            landscape around structures and along the avenues of emergency
            response.
      --Fire Prevention and Community Improvement.--The Coconino Rural
            Environment Corps located in Flagstaff, Arizona, thins hundreds
            of acres of Federal, State, county, city, and private lands
            every year. The Corps has created multiple partnerships in
            local communities to mitigate the hazards of catastrophic wild
            fires including one to provide local Native American
            communities with more than 400 cords of firewood.
        Invasive species are another large and growing threat to our public
    lands. Almost half of the plants and animals listed as endangered
    species by the Federal Government have been negatively affected by
    invasive species. Purple loosestrife, for example, diminishes waterfowl
    habitats, alters wetland structure and function, and chokes out native
    plants. The Asian long horned beetle destroys valuable city trees and
    could spread. Invasive plants are estimated to infest 100 million acres
    in the United States. A Bureau of Land Management study (1996)
    estimated that 4,600 acres of additional Federal public natural areas
    in the Western United States are negatively affected by invasive plant
    species every day. According to one study, in 1999 the United States
    spent an estimated $590 million to prevent and control invasive
    species.
        Corps have also been mobilized in a number of States including
    Washington, California, Montana, Colorado, New Mexico, and Utah to
    remove invasive species and to combat agricultural pests and insects.
    For example:
      --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
            eradicate tamarisk and Russian Olive from a 50 mile stretch of
            the Colorado River and from the Utah State line to Palisade,
            Colorado.
      --Working under the direction of the California Department of Food
            and Agriculture, Corpsmembers have fought the Mediterranean
            fruit fly, gypsy moth, white fly, red imported fire ants and
            the glassy-winged sharpshooter.
      --The Montana Conservation Corps is partnering with the National
            Forest Foundation, Gallatin National Forest, and Gallatin/Big
            Sky Weed Management Area Committee to undertake an extensive
            invasive weed mapping and removal project in the Lee Metcalf
            Wilderness.
        Established in 1985, The Corps Network is the voice of the nation's
    116 Service and Conservation Corps. Currently operating in 41 States
    and the District of Columbia, Corps annually enroll more than 21,000
    young men and women who contribute almost 17 million hours of service
    every year. Corps annually mobilize almost 300,000 community volunteers
    who contributed millions of additional hours of service.
        Our member 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
    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 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 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 Corpsmembers enrolled in
    2007, 57 percent had no High School diploma, 53 percent reported family
    income below the Federal poverty level, 30 percent had previous court
    involvement and, at least 5 percent had been in foster care. Corps
    provide thousands of young people the opportunity to earn a second
    chance in life.
        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.
        In return for their efforts to restore and strengthen their
    communities, Corpsmembers receive: (1) a living allowance, (2)
    classroom training to improve basic competencies and, if necessary, to
    secure a GED or high school diploma, (3) experiential and environmental
    service-learning based education, (4) generic and technical skills
    training, and (5) a wide range of supportive services. Research has
    shown that youth who complete Corps programs have higher rates of
    employment and earn more than their counterparts. Corpsmembers also
    score higher on measures of personal and social responsibility and are
    more likely to earn a college degree. Corps generate a positive return
    for every dollar invested.
        The Public Lands Corps will provide work experience to
    disadvantaged Corpsmembers between the ages of 16-24, giving them the
    chance to develop the skills and habits they will need to become
    employed and productive citizens. It offers them a pipeline into
    Federal service, a win-win situation for the Forest Service and for the
    Corpsmember. This experience will help Corpsmembers help themselves,
    their families, and their communities. It will also enable Federal land
    managers to cost-effectively complete critical backlogged maintenance
    projects.
        We urge you to provide $12 million to support this program and we
    appreciate your attention to this request.
                                     ______

          Prepared Statement of the Council of Energy Resource Tribes

        On behalf of the Council of Energy Resource Tribes (CERT), I am
    pleased to submit for the subcommittee's consideration the following
    statement on Indian energy funding needs as the subcommittee begins its
    work on its fiscal year 2009 spending bill. I appreciate the
    opportunity to provide testimony to the subcommittee on two programs of
    interest to CERT and its member tribes: (1) a $1.5 million programmatic
    increase for the Bureau of Indian Affairs' (BIA's) Indian energy
    programs; (2) funding the Indian Guaranteed Loan Program account at the
    $12,186,000 level; and (3) restoration of funding for the Office of
    Minerals Evaluation.
        By way of background, CERT was founded in 1975 by Indian Tribes to
    chart a new course for the prudent, tribally-driven development of
    tribal energy resources. CERT's mission is to support member Tribes as
    they develop their management capabilities and use their energy
    resources as the foundation for building stable, balanced, self-
    governed economies. CERT is governed by a Board of Directors comprised
    of the principal elected leadership of CERT's 57 member Indian tribes.
    The Board directs CERT's policy and the Board has made Federal
    appropriations CERT's top priority for this year. Against this
    backdrop, CERT has the following funding priorities for fiscal year
    2009 for the Interior and Related Agencies spending bill:
    $1.5 million programmatic increase for the bia's indian energy programs
        CERT respectfully requests that the subcommittee consider a $1.5
    million programmatic increase for the BIA's Indian energy programs. The
    BIA's Indian energy programs are administered by the Office of Indian
    Energy and Economic Development (IEED). These programs bring much
    needed technical assistance and capacity building to Indian country and
    enable Indian tribes to maximize, leverage, and develop energy
    resources on tribal lands in two critical ways:
      --Grants.--The IEED provides grants to Indian tribes to assess energy
            resources on tribal lands, build capacity, conduct feasibility
            studies, and for other purposes. Since fiscal year 2000, 70
            Indian tribes have received grants for energy related
            activities under this program. A programmatic increase for this
            activity would enable more Indian tribes to receive grants for
            energy development activities.
      --Tribal Energy Resource Agreements (TERAs).--Authorized under Title
            V of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, TERAs are agreements
            between Indian tribes and the Secretary of the Interior that
            are intended to maximize tribal oversight and management of
            energy resource development. Once the IEED determines that a
            tribe possesses the requisite management capacity and approves
            a TERA, the tribe can then engage in a variety of energy
            development activities under an entirely new, flexible
            mechanism for entering into energy-related business agreements
            with third parties. The BIA published its final rule
            implementing the TERA program on March 10, 2008, and numerous
            applications are expected. A programmatic increase would
            provide the IEED with sufficient resources to ensure that
            Indian tribes are able to take advantage of this new economic
            development tool.
        The tribal energy programs carried out by the IEED are administered
    in the Minerals and Mining account within the BIA's Trust-Natural
    Resources Management budget activity. Within that account, the
    President's budget includes a total of $2 million for tribal energy
    activities for fiscal year 2009. Of that $2 million, $1.4 million is
    for grants (encompassed within the $6.93 million requested in the
    Minerals and Mining Projects line item), and $600,000 is for the IEED
    to consult with Indian tribes and begin the TERA review process
    (encompassed within the $1.49 million requested in the Minerals and
    Mining Central Oversight line item). CERT seeks an increase of $1
    million for grants to Indian tribes and $500,000 for TERA
    implementation. To this end, CERT suggests the following report
    language: Changes to the Request include increases to Minerals and
    Mining of $1,000,000 for grants for tribal energy activities and
    $500,000 for implementation and approval of Tribal Energy Resource
    Agreements. Other Indian tribes support this programmatic increase,
    including, among others, the Confederated Tribes of the Colville
    Reservation and the Southern Ute Indian Tribe.

                         INDIAN GUARANTEED LOAN PROGRAM

        CERT also asks respectfully requests that the subcommittee fund the
    Indian Guaranteed Loan Program account at the $12,186,000 level, a $4
    million increase over the President's fiscal year 2009 Request. While
    CERT is pleased that the President's fiscal year 2009 Request includes
    a $2 million increase for this account over fiscal year 2008 enacted
    levels, more funding is needed to facilitate economic development in
    Indian country and encourage private investment on Indian lands.
        The Indian Guaranteed Loan Program is among the most flexible and
    efficient tools to encourage tribal economic development, including
    energy development. The BIA provides approximately 50 new loans
    annually under the program. Existing loans range from $250,000 to $18
    million. Every dollar appropriated to the program is leveraged at least
    16-fold, thereby maximizing the funding available to Indian country
    from private lenders. A $4 million increase would therefore result in
    at least $64 million in new loan funding being available to Indian
    country for energy development or other economic development projects.

                       THE OFFICE OF MINERALS EVALUATION

        The President's fiscal year 2009 request does not include funding
    for the Office of Minerals Evaluation (OME). CERT respectfully requests
    that the subcommittee fund this activity at at least the fiscal year
    2008 enacted level. OME performs subsurface economic evaluation to
    determine the value of the subsurface estate for Indian trust
    restricted property. For Indian tribes and individual Indian land
    owners, this is an important step to obtain Secretarial approval for
    mineral leases. Without this evaluation, it is impossible for the
    Secretary to determine that the Indian interest owner is obtaining fair
    value. CERT understands that the Department is considering outsourcing
    these appraisals, a move that CERT opposes. The OME is uniquely
    situated to utilize data from Indian tribes and within the Department
    to generate fair appraisals that the Indian landowners have confidence
    in. Any plan to outsource this function would erode this confidence.
        I appreciate the opportunity to provide this written testimony.
    Should the subcommittee have any questions, please feel free to contact
    me via e-mail at adlester@certredearth.com, via telephone at (303) 282-
    7576, or via facsimile at (303) 282-7584.
                                     ______

          Prepared Statement of the Council of Western State Foresters

        The Council of Western State Foresters (CWSF) is pleased to submit
    the following testimony on the proposed fiscal year 2009 U.S. Forest
    Service Budget related to the funding of the State Fire Assistance
    program. The State Fire Assistance Program is funded through both State
    and Private Forestry and Wildland Fire Management under the U.S. Forest
    Service. The CWSF and the National Association of State Foresters
    (NASF) recommend that the fiscal year 2009 budget for the State Fire
    Assistance Program be funded at a combined $145 million.
        The Council of Western State Foresters supports NASF's fiscal year
    2009 Appropriations recommendation testimony that has been submitted to
    the U.S. Senate Committee on Appropriations Subcommittee on Interior,
    Environment, and Related Agencies. The State Fire Assistance program is
    of primary importance to the West. For this reason, the CWSF submits
    the below text from a letter sent to Congress on April 9, 2008 that
    highlights the SFA program and the broad and diverse support that has
    rallied around this USDA Forest Service program. A complete list of the
    organizations that support increased funding for the SFA program is at
    the bottom of the letter.
        Chairman Byrd, ranking member Cochran, Chairman Feinstein, and
    ranking member Allard: The respective organizations identified in this
    letter represent a coalition with the shared goal of improved State and
    community wildfire protection. This coalition was formed in early 2007
    to advocate on behalf of the State Fire Assistance Program (SFA). The
    SFA budget is funded through the U.S. Forest Service's State and
    Private Forestry (S&PF) and Wildland Fire Management budget areas. The
    program provides critical cost-share grants to State forestry agencies
    to facilitate wildland fire preparedness, by integrating State and
    private lands into landscape-scale fuel mitigation and planning.
        In recent years SFA has been the subject of recurring reductions
    proposed by the administration. The administration proposed a 30
    percent reduction in SFA for fiscal year 2007, a 14 percent reduction
    for fiscal year 2008 and a 25.5 percent reduction for fiscal year 2009.
    We appreciate that your committee has consistently provided stable
    appropriations in response to on-the-ground needs. This coalition again
    requests your leadership to restore and enhance SFA funding. The
    National Association of State Foresters has estimated SFA funding needs
    at $145 million for fiscal year 2009 to reflect current and emerging
    community wildland fire preparedness and protection needs. Although the
    diverse undersigned groups individually support varying levels of
    funding for SFA, all agree that the SFA program is a vital component of
    effective community wildland fire preparedness and mitigation.
        The State Fire Assistance Program is the fundamental Federal
    assistance program that States use to develop preparedness and response
    capabilities for wildland fire. Improved response efficiency provided
    through State Fire Assistance funding is critical to reducing
    suppression costs, which have continued to skyrocket, reaching over $1
    billion in 5 of the last 7 years. In fiscal year 2007, 12,080
    communities increased their capacity through local fire department
    training, upgrades of equipment and formation of new departments, due
    in large part to SFA funding. This training and capacity building has
    enhanced interagency coordination for wildland fire management on
    State, Federal, and private lands. Moreover, wildland-urban interface
    hazardous fuel reduction is a major component of the SFA program and
    funds have been used by communities to mitigate high-priority hazard
    fuel loads on over 470,000 acres within the Wildland Urban Interface
    (WUI).
        Lastly, SFA is an essential funding source for the development of
    Community Wildfire Protection Plans (CWPPs). As of 2007, thanks in part
    to significant SFA funding, over 4,700 communities at risk have
    developed CWPPs, a 46 percent increase over 2006. Many of these
    communities also received funding through SFA to accomplish their fire
    plans and implement fuels reduction priorities on both private and
    federal lands, as shown by the 3,814 communities that reduced risk
    through fuel mitigation and firewise activities.
        However, current analyses such as the SFA-funded Southern Wildfire
    Risk Assessment and the NASF report on SFA and Volunteer Fire
    Assistance (VFA) estimate that more than 51,612 communities are still
    at risk. At current funding levels, that would mean each of these
    communities would receive only about $1,560. In addition, Western State
    Fire Managers were only able to fund 47 of the 171 applications for
    mitigation assistance provided by SFA in fiscal year 2008. These
    examples clearly indicate a need for enhanced SFA funding.
        As you know, in 2001 the Secretaries of Agriculture and the
    Interior, western Governors, counties, State foresters and diverse
    stakeholders developed a 10-year collaborative strategy for reducing
    wildfire risk and improving forest health nationwide. The Strategy was
    updated by these partners in December, 2006 and calls for increasing
    collaboration between all levels of government and interest groups,
    improving fire prevention and suppression, reducing hazardous fuels,
    restoring ecosystems and promoting community assistance. These
    important goals are only achievable through substantial and sustained
    levels of funding for the State Fire Assistance program.
        In these fiscally constrained times, effective wildland fire
    management requires partnerships between agencies and communities.
    Funding hazardous fuels reduction on Federal lands is critical,
    especially when these lands are in the WUI. However, an exclusive focus
    on Federal lands is an incomplete solution and will ultimately
    undermine success. State and private lands must be considered through a
    landscape-scale approach to reduce hazardous fuels if we are to
    effectively meet the highest priority of federal fire policy--
    protecting lives and communities threatened by wildland fire.
        The President's fiscal year 2009 budget proposes cutting the USFS'
    budget by 8 percent overall and includes a drastic 58 percent cut to
    the S&PF programs. Due to the reduced capability, effectiveness and
    size of the USDA Forest Service, a viable State Fire Assistance program
    is crucial to providing funding for necessary State and community
    wildfire protection. The very programs proposed for virtual elimination
    are the programs that can help reduce the wildland fire suppression
    costs straining the USFS' declining budget. Ever increasing emergency
    wildland fire suppression costs consume a larger portion of the USFS
    budget every year, and reduce investment in key S&PF programs, such as
    SFA. The USFS emergency wildland fire suppression budget problem needs
    to be solved in order to eliminate the drain on the S&PF programs, but
    a commitment to increased financial investment must also be part of the
    solution.
        We appreciate your continued leadership and support for the State
    Fire Assistance Program and respectfully request that you consider
    increased funding for State Fire Assistance in fiscal year 2009 in line
    with the needs outlined in the 10-Year Strategy.
        Allegheny Defense Project, Alliance of Forest Workers and
    Harvesters, American Forests, American Forest Foundation, American
    Lands Alliance, Applegate Partnership & Watershed Council, California
    Fire Safe Council, Center for Biological Diversity, Colorado Firecamp,
    Colorado Wild, Conservation Northwest, Denver Water, Environmental
    Protection Information Center, Firefighters United for Safety, Ethics,
    and Ecology, Flathead Economic Policy Center, Forest Landowners
    Association, Framing Our Community, Idaho Conservation League, Idaho
    Association of Counties, Idaho Fire Chiefs Association, International
    Association of Fire Chiefs, Klamath Forest Alliance, Klamath-Siskiyou
    Wildlands Center, Lomakatsi Restoration Project, National Association
    of Counties, National Association of Forest Service Retirees, National
    Association of State Foresters, National Woodland Owners, New Mexico
    Forest Industry Association, Republicans for Environmental Protection,
    Resource Innovations, Salmon Valley Stewardship, Siskiyou Project,
    Society of American Foresters, Sustainable Northwest, Swan Ecosystem
    Center, Taos Pueblo Department of Natural Resources, The Forest Guild,
    The Lands Council, The Nature Conservancy, The Wilderness Society,
    Watershed Research and Training Center, Western Governors' Association,
    WildEarth Guardians, and WildWest Institute.
                                     ______

                        Prepared Statement of Dance/USA

        Madame Chairman and distinguished members of the subcommittee,
    Dance/USA is grateful for this opportunity to submit testimony on
    behalf of our members across the United States. We urge the committee
    to designate a total of $176 million to the National Endowment for the
    Arts (NEA) for fiscal year 2009. This testimony is intended to
    highlight the importance of the Federal investment in the arts to
    sustaining a vibrant cultural community and to our national character.
        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 350 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 eight dollars from other
    sources. Government cultural funding plays a catalytic leadership role
    that is essential in generating private support for the arts.
    The 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 nonprofit arts industry generates $166.2 billion annually in
    economic activity, supports 5.7 million full-time equivalent jobs, and
    returns $12.6 billion to the Federal Government in income taxes.
    Measured against direct Federal cultural spending of about $1.4
    billion, that's a return of nearly nine to one. 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 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 are some examples of the impact of NEA funding on dance
    programs in 2008 from the NEA's 2008 Access to Artistic Excellence
    Program:
    Headlong Dance Theater
        Philadelphia, PA
        $10,000
        To support a choreographic lab with choreographer Tere O'Connor and
    the creation of a new work by Headlong Dance Theater's co-artistic
    directors. O'Connor will teach Headlong Dance Theater his strategies
    and language for composition, dance dramaturgy, and movement invention.
    Jacob's Pillow Dance Festival, Inc.
        Becket, MA
        $70,000
        To support residencies and performances of dance companies. The
    project will include a Creative Development Residency, presentation of
    national and international dance companies, and audience engagement and
    educational programs.
    NewArt New Mexico, Inc.
        Albuquerque, NM
        $10,000
        To support the Global DanceFest 2009, an annual festival of
    national and international contemporary dance. The 2009 festival,
    titled 60 North, will celebrate contemporary dance and dance theater
    from Scandinavia, Russia, and Canada.
    Pacific Northwest Ballet Association
        Seattle, WA
        $30,000
        To support the presentation of comedic works by established and
    emerging choreographers during the Comedy Festival. There will be a
    variety of outreach events including lectures, demonstrations, and
    question-and-answer sessions with dancers and artistic staff.
    The 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. In 2005, the State Department
    collaborated with Dance/USA to replicate on a smaller, targeted scale
    the National College Choreography Initiative in five Middle Eastern
    countries. It was a great success. There are now over 600 professional
    dance companies in America as well as over 1,000 pre-professional and
    semi-professional groups. Based on recent surveys, Dance/USA estimates
    that the 81 largest and most visible non-profit dance companies in the
    United States do the following:
      --Employed over 6,000 people in a mix of full-time and part-time
            positions;
      --Performed for total home audiences of nearly 2.9 million people;
      --Paid approximately $237.5 million in wages and benefits;
      --Had operating expense budgets totaling $452.2 million;
      --Earned $156.7 million, or 38 percent of their income, from
            performances;
      --Earned $76.2 million from sales, tuitions and activities other than
            performances;
      --Received $16.7 million, from state, local and government
            contributions;
      --Received $21.6 million from corporate contributions;
      --Received $46.2 million from private foundations;
      --Received $98.7 million from individual contributions through
            donations, benefit events, guilds, and United Arts drives; and
      --Had over 24,300 volunteers, including over 2,700 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.'' Last year, Congress began to lay the foundation for full
    restoration of the agency with a $20.3 million increase for the NEA.
    However, in order for there to be great art, organizations need
    stronger infrastructure and stability. Therefore, we urge you to
    increase the fiscal year 2009 NEA funding allocation to $176 million.
        On behalf of Dance/USA, thank you for considering this request.
                                     ______

                Prepared Statement of the Defenders of Wildlife

        Madam Chairman, ranking member and members of the subcommittee,
    thank you for the opportunity to submit this testimony for the record.
    I am Mary Beth Beetham, Director of Legislative Affairs for Defenders
    of Wildlife. Founded in 1947, Defenders of Wildlife has more than 1
    million members and activists across the Nation and is dedicated to the
    protection and restoration of wild animals and plants in their natural
    communities.
        Defenders continues to be greatly concerned that the U.S. Fish and
    Wildlife Service (FWS) and the wildlife related programs in other
    natural resource management agencies have reached a breaking point. The
    President's budget again cuts funding for lands and wildlife. Bright
    spots such as ``Safe Borderlands'' and ``Birds Forever'' are paid for
    by cuts in other programs, with the result a net conservation loss. We
    deeply appreciate increases provided by the subcommittee in S. 1696,
    the fiscal year 2008 Senate the Interior, Environment and Related
    Agencies appropriations bill and are also very grateful for the
    increases that were maintained in the final omnibus bill after
    negotiations with the administration reduced the subcommittee's
    allocation. Funding provided has begun to stabilize our land and
    wildlife programs. However, significant additional amounts will be
    needed in the coming years to reverse the damage to the FWS and other
    agencies, to make them once again whole and critically important, to
    equip them to deal with the growing crisis of climate change. 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
    again worked during the development of the fiscal year 2009
    congressional budget resolutions to support the environment and natural
    resources budget function, and we will continue to do so in the coming
    years.
        We urge the subcommittee to continue to rebuild the FWS workforce
    which has suffered substantial losses, nearly 800 staff from 2004-2007,
    an 8 percent reduction. We are particularly concerned about the loss of
    biological capability.
      --The endangered species program continues to experience a 30 percent
            overall vacancy rate, yet the president's fiscal year 2009
            budget cuts the program by $3.7 million, 2.5 percent.
      --The National Wildlife Refuge System has lost 300 staff and will
            eliminate at least another 250 if funding increases are not
            forthcoming. A comprehensive staffing model developed by the
            International Association of Chiefs of Police recommended 840
            law enforcement officers for the System which currently can
            afford only 180 full time officers.
      --The Office of Law Enforcement (OLE) is down to 191 special agents
            down from a high of 238 in 2002, far below the authorized level
            of 260, and is expected to lose another 20 to 25 through
            retirement in the next year. The OLE also is in desperate need
            of both scientists for its world renowned wildlife crime
            forensics laboratory and port inspectors.
      --In the International Wildlife Trade Program, under International
            Affairs, the Division of Scientific Authority's already small
            staff continues to be short by one third and the Division of
            Management Authority still suffers a 15-20 percent staffing
            shortfall. Still, the President's budget cuts International
            Affairs by $1.2 million, 10.3 percent. In addition, the
            important International affairs program is currently buried in
            the General Operations Activity--Defenders recommends that it
            be moved and given equal status with other programs such as
            Migratory Birds and OLE.
        We urge the subcommittee to continue its effort to fully fund
    agency fixed costs which typically increase by 3-5 percent yearly and
    to restore the integrity of the National Wildlife Refuge System, one of
    the crown jewels in our Nation's conservation heritage. The fiscal year
    2007 and 2008 bills took excellent first steps in correcting the damage
    done by years of funding below fixed costs that had forced severe
    erosion of programs. We deeply appreciate the nearly $40 million
    increase provided in the final fiscal year 2008 bill which has given
    the Refuge System breathing room to put on hold plans for massive staff
    downsizing; however, with the $434.1 million level in the request,
    refuges still would slide backward. The Refuge System needs $15 million
    each year just to keep pace with fixed costs, and the inflation
    adjusted level for the peak funding achieved in fiscal year 2004, now
    totals $466 million. Moreover, even if fixed costs were fully funded,
    the FWS still would not have the resources to ensure that the System
    envisioned in the landmark 1997 National Wildlife Refuge System
    Improvement Act would be realized. Defenders supports the
    recommendation of the Cooperative Alliance for Refuge Enhancement, a
    diverse coalition of 22 national conservation, sporting, and scientific
    organizations for a yearly level of $765 million for Refuge Operations
    and Maintenance by fiscal year 2013 and, to make progress toward this
    goal, $514 million for fiscal year 2009.
        To address the needs of our Nation's most vulnerable plants and
    animals, we urge the subcommittee to rebuild the FWS endangered species
    program. The budgets of this administration have further damaged this
    most important of programs that already was suffering from chronic
    funding shortfalls. Currently, 280 candidates await proposal for
    protection under the Endangered Species Act--many have been candidates
    for years. Further, the loss of staff has left the FWS without the
    needed biological capability to oversee recovery of listed species, to
    adequately address the workload of consultations, or to effectively
    monitor hundreds of Habitat Conservation Plans covering millions of
    acres.
        We urge the subcommittee to provide increases to important FWS
    grant programs where it will not take needed funding from core
    operations, and continue to provide direction that maximizes their
    efficiency. Our highest priorities among the grant programs are the
    State and Tribal Wildlife Grants (STWGP) and the Cooperative Endangered
    Species Fund. 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 appreciate the subcommittee's
    strong oversight of the implementation of the Action Plans created
    through STWGP and ask that it be continued.
        We urge the subcommittee to continue efforts to refocus the Bureau
    of Land Management (BLM) on its multiple use mission, and, in
    particular, halt the diversion of wildlife program resources to support
    energy and other programs. We appreciate language in the final fiscal
    year 2008 bill that attempts to limit the amount of appropriated
    dollars devoted to energy development on BLM lands and to address the
    diversion of resources from wildlife programs to pay for compliance
    activities of BLM's energy, grazing and other non-wildlife related
    programs, which should instead come from benefiting programs.
    Unfortunately, no information has emerged to suggest that the situation
    has been rectified. This practice significantly undermines the wildlife
    programs which already are grossly underfunded; for example, more than
    $60 million is needed annually just to implement actions assigned to
    BLM in recovery plans for listed species, and the recent court action
    overturning the FWS decision failing to list the sage grouse under the
    Endangered Species Act will likely lead to a need for substantially
    increased resources for its protection. Moreover, the diversion of
    resources has increased the importance of the Challenge Cost Share
    program, with reports that it is the primary means through which
    proactive wildlife conservation work is accomplished. In addition, we
    strongly support the Native Plant Materials Development program which
    will become more crucial in the face of the climate change threat and
    recommend that the subcommittee examine the need for a separate Plant
    Conservation Activity or Subactivity under Management of Lands and
    Resources.
        We urge the subcommittee to continue restoration of the Land and
    Water Conservation Fund (LWCF). Habitat loss is one of the main threats
    to wildlife and will be greatly exacerbated by climate change.
    According to a recent Forest Service report, ``Cooperating Across
    Boundaries--Partnerships to Conserve Open Space in Rural America,'' the
    United States loses 6,000 acres of open space a day. The administration
    has repeatedly cut LWCF funding by increasingly greater levels each
    year, and even though the unspent balance in the Fund on paper exceeds
    $16 billion, proposed just $50 million for fiscal year 2009, more than
    67 percent below fiscal year 2008.
        We urge the subcommittee to give attention to addressing impacts of
    illegal immigration and related enforcement on sensitive land and
    wildlife resources along the border. We support the administration's
    ``Safe Borderlands'' initiative; however we believe greater increases
    are needed to adequately address the situation. To date, there has been
    no assessment by the land management agencies of the costs to fully
    address the situation--we ask the subcommittee to include language in
    the bill requesting this information. In addition, the Department of
    Homeland Security (DHS) is expediting plans to start construction of
    border walls in Texas that will have devastating impacts on one of the
    most biologically diverse areas in America, including the Lower Rio
    Grande Valley National Wildlife Refuge, in which approximately $90
    million and three decades has been invested purchasing land and
    restoring habitat for ocelots, jaguarundi and other rare wildlife and
    plants. Recently, DHS has begun to pursue an even more damaging
    alternative formerly dismissed in a Draft Environmental Impact
    Statement (EIS) to build a wall into the existing levee without
    revising the EIS, doing hydrologic modeling, or formally consulting on
    impacts to refuges or endangered species. On April 3, 2008, DHS
    Secretary Chertoff issued a sweeping waiver of 36 Federal laws along
    470 miles of the SW border to expedite wall construction. We ask the
    subcommittee to do everything in its power to protect its investment in
    the refuge by working with the DHS appropriations subcommittee to
    ensure that a thorough assessment to select the least harmful
    alternative and full mitigation plan is completed before any
    construction proceeds.
        We urge the subcommittee to reject the proposed cut to Forest
    Service (FS) Wildlife and Fisheries Habitat Management. Although more
    than 425 listed species and 3,200 at-risk species occur on FS lands,
    the budget proposes a 10.6 percent cut ($14 million) and reduction of
    130 staff.
        We urge the subcommittee to restore the integrity of the U.S.
    Geological Survey (USGS) Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Units.
    One fifth of all CFWRU scientist positions 24 are vacant due to erosion
    of funding since fiscal year 2001. The Research Units provide critical
    scientific capability to the four land management agencies, yet the
    president's budget reverses the fiscal year 2008 $1 million increase
    provided by the subcommittee.
        We are deeply grateful for the establishment of the National Global
    Warming and Wildlife Science Center (Center). We ask that you maintain
    your support for this important new initiative. The new Center will be
    a critical front in the battle to help wildlife adapt to climate
    change, supporting research needs of both federal and state agencies in
    dealing with a threat in which we have no analogous experience. While
    the subcommittee allocated up to $2.5 million for fiscal year 2008 for
    the Center, we were disappointed to find that the administration has
    allocated only $1.5 million and has requested only that amount for
    fiscal year 2009. We urge $10 million for fiscal year 2009. In
    addition, comprehensive bills are moving forward that likely will
    dedicate significant sums to the natural resource agencies for climate
    change adaptation; the agencies need to start planning now to spend
    these sums strategically and effectively. We ask the subcommittee to
    include funding and specific direction for the development of a
    national strategy to ensure a coordinated interagency framework to
    address impacts of climate change on fish, wildlife, and habitat.

               RECOMMENDED FISCAL YEAR 2009 PROGRAM FUNDING LEVELS
                            [In millions of dollars]
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              President's      Recommended
                    Program                     request           level
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    FWS Endangered Species Total..........            146.8            185.2
    Candidate Conservation................              8.7             12
    Listing...............................             18.2             25.2
    Recovery..............................             68.4             84.8
    Consultation..........................             51.6             63.2
    FWS National Wildlife Refuge O&M......            434.1            514
    FWS Office of Law Enforcement.........             57.4             69.5
    FWS Migratory Bird Management.........             53.2             53
    FWS International Affairs.............             10.3             20.4
    FWS State and Tribal Wildlife Grants..             73.8            100
    FWS Cooperative Endangered Species                 75.5             96.2
     Fund.................................
    FWS Multinational Species Conservation              4.3             12
     Fund.................................
    FWS Neo-tropical Migratory Bird Cons.               4                6
     Fund.................................
    BLM Wildlife and Fisheries............             43.8             65.4
    BLM Threatened and Endangered Species.             20.6             29.9
    BLM Native Plants.....................              4.6             15.8
    BLM Challenge Cost Share..............              9.2             19.3
    FS Wildlife and Fisheries Habitat                 118              176.5
     Management...........................
    USGS Coop. Fish and Wildlife Research              15.4             19.4
     Units................................
    USGS National Global Warming Wildlife               1.5             10
     Ctr..................................
    Land and Water Conservation Fund......             50         \1\ 403
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ $278 Federal and $125 stateside.

                                     ______

            Prepared Statement of the Delaware Highlands Conservancy

        Madam Chairman and honorable members of the committee: I appreciate
    the opportunity to testify on behalf of an important Land and Water
    Conservation Fund request of $1.4 million to allow National Park
    Service acquisition of the 96-acre Santos Farm property within the
    legislated boundary of the Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area.
        As you know, Madam Chairman, this project is one of many worthy
    acquisition projects nationwide seeking LWCF funding. Unfortunately
    since fiscal year 2002, funding for LWCF has diminished by about 75
    percent, and the fiscal year 2009 Budget proposes further cuts. These
    reductions have left our national parks, refuges, and forests unable to
    acquire from willing sellers critical inholdings and adjacent lands
    that have been identified to protect and enhance recreational access,
    historic sites, wildlife habitats, scenic areas, water resources, and
    other important features. I urge the subcommittee to increase overall
    funding for this program in fiscal year 2009.
        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, NY. 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 over 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 park 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 US 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
    2009 the National Park Service has the opportunity to acquire the 96-
    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.
    If developed, the loss of scenic, recreational, and habitat resources
    would be significant.
        The Delaware Highlands Conservancy together with the Pike
    Conservation Partnership, a coalition of non-profit organizations and
    local and state agencies, and the Pike County Commissioners have
    identified the Santos Farm as a high priority property for
    conservation. And, 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.
        An appropriation of $1.4 million to the National Park Service for
    the acquisition of 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.
        Madam Chairman, 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 the Dzilth-Na-O-Dith-Hle Community Grant School

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Requested
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Indian School Equalization Formula..................       $382,783,800
    Administrative Cost Grants..........................         53,000,000
    Student Transportation..............................             ( \1\ )
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ $3.15 per mile.

        My name is Eugene Guerito. I am the President of the School Board
    which operates the Dzilth-Na-O-Dith-Hle Community Grant School on the
    Navajo Reservation in Bloomfield, New Mexico. I know that many non-
    Navajos have difficulty pronouncing our School's name, so if you wish,
    you may call us the ``DCGS School.'' With me is Faye BlueEyes, our
    School's Finance Director. I asked her to address the committee with me
    because of her extensive knowledge of the financial needs of the BIA
    school system for Indian children.
        Our School offers K-8 academic programs and residential programs
    for students in grades 1-12, but the residential students in grades 9-
    12 attend the local public school. Currently, 235 students are enrolled
    in our academic program, and 47 students are housed in the campus
    dormitories. Our all-Navajo Board operates the School through a Grant
    issued by the Bureau of Indian Education (BIE) under the Tribally
    Controlled Schools Act.
        Let me get right to the point. The administration's budget request
    for BIE school operations betrays us and our children. How can the
    Federal Government demand that our students make Adequate Yearly
    Progress under No Child Left Behind Act mandates yet withhold the
    financial resources we need to meet these goals? The United States also
    made a commitment to support tribal control of education through laws
    such as the Indian Self-Determination Act and the Tribally Controlled
    Schools Act. But BIA and BIE consistently violate this commitment by
    poorly funding the administrative costs we incur when we exercise the
    option to take over direct program operations under the Federal Indian
    self-determination policy.
        I urge the committee to take steps to meet the Federal Government's
    obligations to the Indian children in the school system it created for
    them. Ms. BlueEyes will describe specific parts of the BIE budget most
    in need of your attention.
        Administrative Cost Grants.--BIE seeks no increase for
    Administrative Cost Grants, the account that is supposed to provide
    funding for the administrative costs incurred in tribal operation of
    school programs. Five more schools will convert to tribal operation in
    SY 2009-2010 (the school year funded by this budget request). This
    means that instead of the 125 schools now being supported by the $43.4
    million AC Grant budget, 130 schools will have to be supported by that
    same amount. The budget request does not tell you that in the current
    school year, BIE was only able to supply 65.7 percent of the funding
    required by the formula for calculation of AC Grants set out in Federal
    law (25 USC 2008). With 5 more schools in the mix, the percentage paid
    will probably drop below 60 percent.
        Yet our administrative cost obligations continue to increase--in
    critical areas such as financial management, property management,
    insurance, grant management, auditing, legal and security. Right now we
    are only able to afford 2.25 employees for our Business Office, a
    situation which jeopardizes our internal controls system. A further cut
    could make compliance with minimum standards for internal control
    impossible.
        At the same time that BIE ignores its responsibility to supply
    proper administrative funding to tribally-operated schools, it asks you
    to provide an additional $1.5 million for its own administrative
    costs--to cover severance pay for the Federal employees who now work at
    the 5 schools that will convert to tribal operation. We think this
    additional $1.5 million should be used for AC Grants, and that BIE
    should have to do what schools have to do when they have insufficient
    funding: re-direct funds from other parts of its budget. Certainly it
    should be easier for the Department of the Interior, with its multi-
    billion dollar budget, to absorb these severance costs than it is for
    small tribally-operated schools who constantly have to make do with
    less. It is so discouraging that the agency responsible for educating
    Indian children thinks only about its own needs, not the needs of the
    our school system.
        Full funding of the BIE's AC Grant obligation would require at
    least $66 million. If this is impossible to achieve in this budget
    year, please consider supplying at least $53 million to get us close to
    the 80 percent level and then close the remaining gap next year.
        Student Transportation.--We thank Congress for supplying more funds
    for student transportation last year. That was the first meaningful
    increase we've had for many years. At our School, the transportation
    budget fell short by nearly $13,000 last year. We had no choice but to
    use education funds from the ISEF to make up the shortage. If we cannot
    get students to school, we cannot educate them.
        Here again our costs are ever increasing--for fuel, bus repairs and
    bus driver salaries. In our area of New Mexico, diesel fuel now costs
    over $4/gallon. A fill-up that a year ago cost $115 now runs $200. Our
    buses travel 100 miles round-trip per day. Much of their routes are
    over very rough dirt roads which enormously increases the cost of
    vehicle maintenance. Plus, we compete with the local oil field for
    drivers with the required CDL licenses. This means we must offer
    competitive bus driver salaries or we lose the ones with needed
    credentials.
        Please do not agree to cut Student Transportation by $1 million as
    the BIE suggests. BIE estimates its request would cut the per-mile
    funding to $2.87, but we have to question whether this estimate would
    still be valid in July, 2009, when SY 2009 begins. Who can really
    predict what fuel prices will be that far in advance? Instead, please
    increase funding to a level that enables us to receive $3.15 per mile
    so that we can better cover our ever-increasing costs.
        Indian School Equalization Formula (ISEF).--The ISEF is our biggest
    and most important account. It must supply funding for teachers,
    teacher aides and all other parts of our educational program as well as
    for a full complement of personnel to supervise and safeguard children
    who live in the dormitories. Sadly, ISEF funds must also be diverted to
    make up shortages in other areas such as in student transportation, as
    I mentioned.
        We are very disappointed that the BIE request seeks additional ISEF
    funds only for ``fixed costs'' and actually shows a cut for program
    costs. The request of $364.5 million is only 5.3 percent higher than
    the appropriation for fiscal year 2003--the first budget submitted
    after the No Child Left Behind Act was passed.
        Our School Board and staff are totally committed to the goals of
    NCLBA. We want to see all of our students perform at the ``proficient''
    level. But in the BIE system, this is merely a dream, not the reality.
    Students in the BIE-funded school system produce some of the lowest
    achievement scores in the nation. Last year, nearly 2/3 of them scored
    in the lowest achievement category--``basic''--in reading. In
    mathematics, 70 percent of BIE system students were categorized as
    ``basic''.
        Our School and other tribally-operated schools face many enormous
    roadblocks in our efforts to improve student achievement:
      --Low ISEF funding puts us at the bottom of teacher pay scales which
            means we can't effectively compete for qualified teachers with
            public schools, and certainly cannot compete with BIE-operated
            schools which have to pay at Federal wage rates.
      --We fund professional development opportunities for teachers, but
            often lose this investment when the additional skills they
            acquire qualify them for better-paying jobs at other schools.
            Then we have to start all over again with our professional
            development programs.
      --Teacher recruitment is also adversely impacted by the remoteness of
            and poor housing options in reservation communities. We have to
            supply on-campus housing for teachers, but these quarters units
            are old, unattractive and lacking in basic comforts.
      --Many school buildings are old, in disrepair, and incapable of
            supporting modern educational technology as they were not built
            with computer cabling in mind.
      --Our children face many impediments to learning such as poverty,
            poor housing, poor nutrition and long distances between home
            and school. Many Navajo children also face the challenges of
            learning english as a second language.
        I recite these conditions to help you understand why we need a
    significant increase in ISEF funding. We not only need better ISEF
    funding now, we need a commitment to recurring appropriate levels of
    support year after year. That's the only way we will have a chance to
    recruit high quality teachers and keep them. Student achievement occurs
    in the classroom. That means recruitment and retention of high quality
    teachers.
        Improving ISEF resources is also the only way we will be able to
    afford the professional staff needed to implement innovative teaching
    models, especially those with lower teacher-to-student ratios. For
    example, to increase focus on reading skills, our School recently
    adopted a Reading First program and incorporated components of
    ``Response to Intervention'' for special education and ``Walk to
    Read'', a strategy where students walk to another classroom for
    specialized reading instruction in small, performance-level groups. It
    is too early to evaluate the results of these strategies, but both
    staff and parents are encouraged by the program. We can only continue
    it, however, if we are able to supply the additional staffing,
    instructional materials and teacher training it requires.
        We ask the Committee to increase ISEF funding by at least 5
    percent--to $382,783,800.

             FOOD SERVICES AND FACILITIES OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE

        Our costs for food services were over-budget by $84,000 this year.
    While we receive student meal funding from USDA, it is not enough to
    cover the cost of 220 lunches per day for day students and the three
    meals per day for residential students. Thus we had to take money from
    the ISEF--both education and residential budgets--to cover the
    shortfall.
        We could devote our entire testimony to facilities issues. I will
    be brief, however, and just tell you that on a daily basis we deal with
    many problems in our 40-year-old school buildings: inadequate plumbing,
    heating and cooling systems; electrical systems that are not capable of
    supporting today's educational technology; and un-safe conditions on
    sidewalks, playground and bus loading areas. For many years, the
    facilities operations funding has been so low that it is routinely
    ``constrained''. This is BIE-speak for supplying only a percentage of
    the amount needed by each location. This year the budget is
    ``constrained'' to 51.87 percent. Most of our facilities operations
    budget is used to pay utility bills as we must pay those at 100
    percent, not 51.87 percent.

                                   CONCLUSION

        As long as woefully inadequate support for the BIE school system
    persists, the objective of NCLBA remains only a dream--and a broken
    promise. For our schools, Congress is the equivalent of the county
    government and state legislature, the two sources of basic financial
    support for public schools. We hope this Congress will produce a better
    school operations budget than the one proposed by the Bureau of Indian
    Affairs. Should you have any further questions, you may contact either
    of us via phone at 505.632.1697 or you can reach Ms. Blue Eyes via
    email at heywoman87417@yahoo.com. Thank you for helping our Indian
    children.
                                     ______

       Prepared Statement of the Emissions Control Technology Association

                                  INTRODUCTION

        Thank you for the opportunity to provide written testimony
    proposing fiscal year 2009 funding for EPA's Diesel Emission Reduction
    Act (DERA) program at $70 million and for the EPA's State and local
    quality grants program at $270 million.
        My name is Tim Regan. I'm the president of the Emissions Control
    Technology Association (ECTA) and an executive with Corning
    Incorporated. ECTA is a trade association that promotes public policies
    to improve air quality by reducing mobile source emissions through the
    use of advanced technologies.
        ECTA represents the companies that have been at the cutting edge of
    mobile source emissions control technology for three and a half
    decades. Our members invented and developed the core, specifically the
    substrate and the catalyst, of the catalytic converter. Our technology
    has had a profound impact on the environment both here and abroad,
    removing 1.5 billion tons of pollution from American skies and 3
    billion tons of pollution worldwide since 1975.\1\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ See Corning Press Release citing the Manufacturers of Emission
    Controls Association (MECA) (February 15, 2005), http://
    www.corning.con/environmentaltechnologies/media-center/press-releases/
    2005021501.aspx.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Thirty years ago, when the catalytic converter was first
    introduced, our industry was faced with the challenge of reducing
    nitrogen oxides from the transportation sector. Today, the challenge is
    to reduce the black smoke and smell from diesel exhaust. Once again,
    our industry has risen to the challenge by developing a full range of
    devices, commonly known as ``after-treatment'' technology that remove
    fine particulate matter and other pollutants in diesel exhaust.
        Our technology is required equipment on all new on-road heavy duty
    vehicles entered into service after January 1, 2007. This will make a
    significant contribution toward cleaner air and better health. In fact,
    EPA estimated at the time the so-called 2007 Heavy Duty Rule was
    promulgated that the technology would generate $66 billion in economic
    and health benefits annually when the new vehicles significantly
    penetrated the fleet after the year 2020.\2\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ See Environmental Protection Agency (July 7,2005), ``2007
    Heavy-Duty Highway Final Rule,'' i.e. http://www.epa.gov/OMSWWW/
    diesel.htm.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Obviously, there is a cost associated with installing this
    equipment on new vehicles, but the payoff is significant. EPA estimates
    that for every dollar spent on the technology $16 of economic benefit
    will be generated.\3\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \3\ Ibid.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 THE CHALLENGE

        The challenge before us now is how to retrofit this new technology
    onto existing vehicles and engines that are being used today. These
    vehicles and engines do not have the emissions control technology that
    is required for new vehicles. Consequently, they are the ``dirtiest''
    diesel devices in use, and there are a lot of them.
        EPA estimates there are currently 11 million heavy duty diesel
    engines in use today. This compares to about 500,000 new clean diesel
    engines that are normally put in to use annually. In other words, there
    are 22 existing engines in the fleet for every new clean diesel engine
    that is added each year.
        Because diesel engines are so durable, the existing equipment in
    the fleet will not be fully replaced until the year 2030.\4\ The best
    way to clean up these 11 million vehicles and engines is to retrofit
    them with the same kind of technology that is being installed in new
    ones. This retrofit equipment could include after-treatment devices,
    such as a diesel particulate filter or a diesel oxidization catalyst.
    It also could include vehicle replacement, engine replacement, engine
    rebuilds, and engine repair.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \4\ See Senator Voinovich Press Release (June 16, 2005), http://
    voinovich.senate.gov/news_center/record.cfm?id=238996&.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Unfortunately, the cost of purchasing and installing diesel
    retrofits oftentimes does not introduce enough operational efficiency
    to generate a return on the investment. So, equipment owners are
    understandably reluctant to invest in a retrofit unless they are given
    some form of financial assistance to help defray the cost. And, it
    makes sense for the public to help finance retrofits because they
    generate benefits in the form of cleaner air for all of society.

                              CONGRESSIONAL ACTION

        To the credit of Congress, it has acted to provide the necessary
    financial assistance to promote the deployment of diesel retrofits.
    Congress started to address this problem as far back as fiscal year
    2003. At the time, Congress appropriated $5 million to provide the
    original funding for the Clean School Bus USA program.
        This program was founded to improve the health conditions of the 25
    million children who ride diesel-powered school buses every day. EPA
    estimates that 40,000 school buses have been cleaned up during the
    lifetime of the Clean School Bus USA program, reducing the exposure of
    more than 1.5 million school children to the potential harmful effects
    of diesel exhaust. It marks a good beginning, but we still have a long
    way to go to clean up over 400,000 school buses that are currently on
    the road today.
        Based on the positive experience with the Clean School Bus USA
    program, Congress took another big step in 2005 to advance the
    deployment of diesel retrofits. Specifically, as part of the Energy
    Policy Act, Congress proposed and passed the Diesel Emissions Reduction
    Act (DERA). This provision of law authorized the expenditure of $1
    billion over 5 years to finance diesel retrofits through grants and
    revolving loans. The authorization calls for the appropriation of $200
    million per year for fiscal year 2007 through fiscal year 2011.
        This subcommittee has done a valiant job in trying to find the
    resources to fund DERA in fiscal year 2008. These are difficult
    financial times. All Federal accounts are under stress, especially
    those under the jurisdiction of this subcommittee. But under your
    leadership, your subcommittee approved $50 million in funding for this
    program last year, a 40 percent increase above the President's request.
    We appreciate the subcommittee's efforts.

                                  THE PROBLEM

        Unfortunately, the resources available to fund diesel retrofits far
    exceeds the demand. The best example of this is what has happened with
    the Clean School Bus USA program. During the first 3 years of the
    program, 292 grant applications for a total of $106 million were
    submitted to EPA. Because of funding constraints, only 72 awards were
    made from the 292 applications, a 25 percent grant rate. In terms of
    funding, only $17.3 million was awarded from the $106 million
    requested, a 16 percent success rate.
        This shortfall affected much of the country, and especially the
    States represented on this subcommittee. For example, applicants from
    the 17 States represented on the subcommittee filed 92 grant
    applications with EPA under the first 3 years of the school bus program
    and only 22 (or 24 percent) were funded. These grant requests amounted
    to a total of $32.1 million, of which $4.2 (or 13 percent) was funded.

                                  OUR REQUEST

        In light of this strong demand for funding, we respectfully request
    that the subcommittee increase the level of funding for DERA above the
    amount requested by the President. The President proposed $49.2
    million. We urge the subcommittee to increase funding for DERA by the
    same proportion that it did last year, that is, by 40 percent to a
    total of $70 million for fiscal year 2009. Last year, the President
    requested $35 million and the subcommittee appropriated $50 million, a
    40 percent increase.

                                   RATIONALE

        We believe that this proposed increased level of funding is
    reasonable and appropriate for several reasons. First, it is fully
    consistent with the action taken by the Subcommittee last year when you
    increased DERA funding by 40 percent above the President's request.
        Second, the demand for funding to purchase diesel retrofits far
    exceeds the supply of funds, as witnessed by our experience with the
    Clean School Bus USA program.
        Third, the money will be well spent because diesel retrofits have
    been proven to be one of the most cost-effective emission reduction
    strategies. Studies have shown that emission reduction strategies which
    involve the use of diesel retrofit technology can, in almost every case
    analyzed, achieve the lowest cost-per-ton of emissions reduced compared
    to a long list to other strategies for reducing emissions from the
    transportation sector.\5\ For example, installing a diesel particulate
    filter on a Class 7 heavy duty truck is 15 times more cost-effective
    than replacing a conventional bus and 46 times more cost-effective than
    building an HOV lane.\6\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \5\ See ECTA comments (February 20, 2007) in Federal Highway
    Addministration Docket No FHWA-2006-26383, http://dmses.dot.gov/
    docimages/p89/454896.pdf, http://dmses.dot.gov/docimages/p89/454899.pdf
        \6\ Ibid, Table 4, p.10, http://dmses.dot.gov/docimages/p89/
    454896.pdf
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Fourth, spending on diesel retrofits generates a substantial return
    on an investment of 13 to 1. When DERA was enacted, EPA estimated that,
    if fully implemented, the program would generate $20 billion of
    economic and health benefit for $1.5 billion of cost. This cost
    includes both the Federal funding of $1 billion and anticipated State
    and private sector matching of $500 million. In other words, for every
    dollar of government money spent $13 of economic and health benefit
    would be generated.\7\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \7\ See Supra, Note 4.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Fifth, because DERA sets aside 30 percent of its funds for a State
    Grant Program, it can be used to help States bring their air quality in
    to conformity with Federal standards for particulate matter. Moreover,
    by providing additional Federal monies to States that match the DERA
    funds, the DERA State Grant program provides incentives to States to
    more proactively address diesel emissions in their region.
        Finally, there is a very broad base of support for DERA and a level
    of funding for the program that far exceeds the President's request.
    From the beginning, DERA enjoyed strong support from both sides of the
    aisle in Congress and from the entire range of private interests and
    non-profit public interest groups. As evidence of this, more than 250
    businesses, associations, and environmental groups cosigned a letter
    asking the President to fully fund DERA in fiscal year 2009. Few
    environmental programs enjoy such widespread support.

                       STATE AND LOCAL AIR QUALITY GRANTS

        We would also like to endorse the request for increased funding to
    support State and local air quality grants that is being requested by
    the National Association of Clean Air Agencies (NACAA). State and local
    governments hold primary responsibility for preventing and controlling
    air pollution. They rely on grants to carry out their core obligations
    under the Clean Air Act, including monitoring air quality, assessing
    emissions impacts, permitting and inspecting sources, and enforcing
    environmental regulations.
        Unfortunately, because of funding constraints, the State and air
    quality agencies grants have been on the decline. Last year, the grants
    were funded at $216 million and the President has proposed reducing
    funding to $185.6 million in fiscal year 2009. We urge the subcommittee
    to increase funding for these grants to $270 million, the level being
    proposed by NACAA.

                                   CONCLUSION

        Thank you again for the opportunity to provide testimony to the
    subcommittee. We urge you to fund DERA at $70 million for fiscal year
    2009 because it consistent with the proportional increase adopted by
    the subcommittee last year and will result in the most cost-effective
    use of Federal funds to achieve emission reductions from the
    transportation sector.
                                     ______

             Prepared Statement of the Endangered Species Coalition

        On behalf of the undersigned organizations and the millions of
    members we represent nationwide, we urge you to fully fund programs of
    the Endangered Species Act at the levels outlined below during the
    fiscal year 2009 appropriations process.
        The Endangered Species Act is a safety net for wildlife, plants and
    fish that are on the brink of extinction. The act has been successful
    in preventing the extinction of many of our Nation's species, including
    Bald Eagles, Peregrine Falcons, wolves, grizzly bears and wild salmon.
    In today's era of global warming, it is needed more than ever. However,
    for years the Endangered Species Act has been under funded, making it
    increasingly difficult for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service experts
    to carry out their responsibilities under the Endangered Species Act.
    The funding levels outlined below are designed to be the first step in
    addressing this problem over the next 5 years.

                      CORE ENDANGERED SPECIES PROTECTIONS

        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 2013, an increase of $155 million over fiscal year 2008.
        Listing.--This account funds the protection of new plants and
    animals under the Endangered Species Act, as well as habitat critical
    to recovery. Currently, more than 280 species sit on the candidate
    waiting list for protection, creating an estimated backlog of more than
    $160 million. Candidate species wait an average of 19 years to be
    listed and since 1975, 64 have gone extinct while waiting--seven times
    the number that have disappeared under the full protection of the ESA.
    To eliminate this backlog over the next 5 years, we request a $7.2
    million increase this year for a fiscal year 2009 appropriation of
    $25.2 million.
        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. It is difficult to estimate the true needs for the
    recovery program--current estimates place it at approximately $100
    million. The conservation community would like to see the recovery
    program funded at no less than $121.6 million by 2013 (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 2009 as a first step, an increase of $13.8
    million.
        Consultation.--The consultation program is an important part of the
    checks and balances system to ensure that endangered fish, wildlife,
    and plants are protected on the ground. There has been a dramatic
    increase in demand for consultations recently, jumping from 40,000 in
    1999 to 67,000 in 2006. 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. To adequately implement the consultation
    program would require an overall program budget of $122.4 million by
    2013. We request $63.2 million for fiscal year 2009, an increase of
    $11.4 million.
        Candidate Conservation.--This program protects species before they
    are actually listed, thus in theory averting the need to ever list them
    at all. As mentioned above though, fish, plants and wildlife on the
    candidate list go extinct at a much higher rate than those with full
    protection--in part because of severe understaffing for this program. A
    doubling of this program's staff is justified to ensure adequate
    implementation. This would require $25.4 million. The conservation
    community again requests this increase be accomplished over the next 5
    years and, therefore, requests the program be funded at $12 million for
    fiscal year 2009, an increase of $2.3 million over fiscal year 2008
    levels.

                   ADDITIONAL ENDANGERED SPECIES PROTECTIONS

        Cooperative Endangered Species Fund.--This fund provides grants to
    States for wildlife and habitat conservation activities on non-Federal
    lands for listed and candidate species. At least 65 percent of
    federally listed species are found on non-Federal land. Without the
    proposed increases States will fall further behind in their ability to
    independently work to protect at risk 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. To adequately fund State endangered
    species conservation activities a total of at least $160 million is
    needed by 2013. We therefore request an increase of $22.4 million this
    year for a total appropriation of $96.2 million in fiscal year 2009.
        Landowner Incentive and Private Stewardship Grants.--These grants
    provide funding for voluntary conservation actions taken by landowners
    to conserve at-risk plants and animals on private lands, which benefits
    us all. 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 program
    provides funding directly to individuals and groups implementing
    private land conservation actions. In 2007, funding was awarded to
    efforts in 46 States. Regrettably, neither program was funded in the
    fiscal year 2008 Interior appropriations bill due to budget
    constraints; these important programs should be re-started in fiscal
    year 2009. The demonstrated need for these programs has far outstripped
    available funding in the past--the amount requested for worthy projects
    on average totaled two to three times the yearly available funding. To
    support private landowners in their voluntary conservation efforts, a
    gradual increase to $77 million is needed by fiscal year 2013 in these
    two incentive programs. We request that these programs be restored to
    their fiscal year 2007 levels of $23.7 million for the private
    landowner and tribal lands grants and $7.3 million for the stewardship
    grants. However, while these voluntary incentives 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.
        BLM Threatened and Endangered Species Management.--The Bureau of
    Land Management (BLM) controls habitat that supports more than 300
    federally listed or candidate species. This program, along with their
    Fisheries and Wildlife Management program, funds inventory and
    monitoring, habitat restoration, endangered species recovery, and other
    proactive conservation activities vital to maintaining healthy,
    functioning ecosystems and fish, wildlife, and plant populations.
    Recently, an average of 30 percent of these funds have been used to pay
    for the compliance activities of the BLM's energy, grazing, and other
    non-wildlife related programs. Traditionally, funding for compliance
    work has come from benefiting programs. In addition, the programs are
    substantially understaffed. For example, the BLM has only one biologist
    per 591,000 acres of land, and more than $60 million is needed annually
    just to implement actions assigned to BLM in recovery plans for listed
    species. In addition to restoring the funds diverted to benefit other
    program areas, we request an increase of $7.6 million in fiscal year
    2009 to begin meeting this program's needs, for a total appropriation
    of $29.9 million in fiscal year 2009.
        The Endangered Species Act is a broadly supported law and has been
    very successful in preventing extinctions. But without the necessary
    funding, the act's true goal of restoring endangered species to healthy
    populations will be much more difficult to accomplish. We ask you, as a
    member of the Appropriations Committee, to fully fund Endangered
    Species Act programs this year. Thank you.
        American Bird Conservancy, American Rivers, Center for Biological
    Diversity, Defenders of Wildlife, Endangered Species Coalition,
    National Wildlife Federation, Natural Resources Defense Council,
    Wildlife Alliance of Maine, and Xerces Society for Invertebrate
    Conservation.

                                   ENDANGERED SPECIES RELATED FUNDING FISCAL YEAR 2009
                                                [In thousands of dollars]
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       POTUS fiscal                    Green budget
                                                       Fiscal year      year 2009      Green budget     compared to
                                                      2008 enacted    recommendation   proposal \1\     fiscal year
                                                                      (vs. enacted)                    2008 enacted
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Candidate Conservation.........................          $9,731          $8,659          $12,000          $2,269
                                                                            (-1,072)
    Listing........................................          17,978          18,188           25,200           7,222
                                                                              (+210)
    Consultation...................................          51,758          51,577           63,200          11,442
                                                                              (-181)
    Recovery.......................................          71,041          68,417           84,800          13,759
                                                                            (-2,624)
                                                    ----------------------------------------------------------------
          Eco Services Total.......................         150,508         146,841          185,200          34,692
                                                                            (-3,667)
                                                    ================================================================
    Cooperative Endangered Species Fund............          73,831          75,501           96,200          22,369
                                                                            (+1,670)
    Landowner Incentive Grants.....................  ..............  ...............          23,700         ( \2\ )
    Private Stewardship Grants.....................  ..............  ...............           7,300         ( \2\ )
    BLM Threatened & Endangered Species Mgmt.......          22,302          20,582           29,900           7,598
                                                                            (-1,720)
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ The Green Budget is endorsed by 21 conservation and environmental organizations and designed to help assist
      appropriators with meeting America's most pressing environmental needs.
    \2\ Equal to fiscal year 2007 levels.

                                     ______

         Prepared Statement of the Environmental Council of the States

        In this document, the States respectfully submit their budget
    proposal for the portion of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's
    budget that supports States, tribes, and local governments, the State
    and Tribal Assistance Grants (STAG). States request $3.867 billion for
    these purposes. These funds are used for categorical grants and
    infrastructure support.
        The States request $1.219 billion for 24 categorical program grants
    for State and tribal governments.
        We request $2.648 billion for infrastructure support to be spent on
    wastewater, drinking water, Brownfields, and other environmental
    infrastructure needed to meet the goals of the core environmental
    statutes.
        The States are integral partners and co-regulators with the U.S.
    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in the implementation of the
    Nation's environmental laws. States in fact conduct most of the
    permitting, enforcement, inspections, monitoring, and data collection
    required by those laws on EPA's behalf. To assist the States, Congress
    provides a portion of the States' costs through EPA's budget in STAG.
        Additionally, Congress provides Federal funding to capitalize vital
    water and wastewater infrastructure needs.
        Unfortunately, EPA has once again proposed cuts for support of the
    States' work on its behalf. These cuts reduce STAG to the levels
    received in 1998--over 10 years ago. During the period 2000-2009 EPA
    has asked (or is asking) the States to implement about 400 new rules
    with a ``State or local impact.'' These are significant rules that are
    discussed in hearings before Congress, written about by the press, and
    for which the public is counting on States to do the job entrusted to
    them by Congress.
        EPA has asked States to participate in its budget development for
    the last 3 years, and ECOS did so in the development of the
    administration's budget as it was being worked on in 2007.
    Unfortunately, our recommendations, such as those presented herein,
    were not heeded.
        The proposed cuts threaten to undermine the States' ability to
    provide the environmental protection mandated by Congress. We ask
    Congress, on behalf of the citizens of our States, not to accept the
    President's recommendations for STAG, but instead to give consideration
    to this proposal.
        This year, we also ask Congress to prohibit EPA from the pernicious
    practice seen in recent EPA budget proposals in which the agency
    interferes with the States' ability to exercise its obligations by
    stipulating that funds must be spent on specific activities. Examples
    of this include the so-called ``Permit Fees Rule,'' the 106 set-asides
    for ``probabilistic monitoring'' and the proposal to prohibit States
    from using the ``State bond match'' for the revolving loan funds. Most
    of these EPA requests have been restricted by Congress in report
    language, which the agency then interprets to its liking and, in our
    opinion, thwarts the clear will of Congress in the process.
        The States' budget proposal is based on three primary principles:
        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.
        ECOS' budget does not propose cuts for the non-STAG portions of
    EPA's budget.
        1. EPA staffing can remain intact as presented in the President's
    2009 budget proposal.
        2. No non-STAG programs need be eliminated beyond those described
    in the President's 2009 budget proposal.
        3. No decrease in protection of human health or the environment
    will result--in fact, it will be improved.
        ECOS is prepared to present additional details and suggestions as
    requested, including in testimony on any hearings as might be held on
    the President's budget proposal.

                                           STATE AND TRIBAL ASSISTANCE GRANTS
                                                 [Dollars in thousands]
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          Fiscal year                                            Percent change
                                  --------------------------                               -------------------------
                                                                ECOS'                          (2008        (2004
               Programs                2004         2008       proposal    Brief rationale   enacted to   enacted to
                                     enacted      enacted        2009                           2009         2009
                                                                                             proposal)    proposal)
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Highest Priority

    State and Local Air Quality       $237,297     $216,825     $270,300  Increase for new         24.7         13.9
     Management.                                                           requirements
                                                                           and inflation.
    Public Water System                101,904       97,554      124,404  Increase for new         27.5         22.1
     Supervision (PWSS).                                                   requirements
                                                                           and inflation.
    Brownfields CG...............       50,000       48,723       50,000  Increase for              2.6  ...........
                                                                           inflation.
    Hazardous Waste Financial          103,689      101,734      103,768  Increase to meet          2.0          0.1
     Assistance.                                                           requirements
                                                                           and inflation.
    Underground Storage Tanks \1\       11,725        2,461        2,510  Increase for              2.0        -78.6
                                                                           inflation.
    Nonpoint Source (sec. 319)...      241,542      200,857      204,874  Increase for              2.0        -15.2
                                                                           inflation.
    Pollution Control (sec. 106).      202,937      218,206      270,300  Increase for new         23.9         33.2
                                                                           requirements
                                                                           and inflation.

          Moderate Priority

    Environmental Information....       19,474        9,844       10,000  Increase to meet          1.6        -48.7
                                                                           requirements
                                                                           and inflation.
    Beaches Protection...........        8,826        9,746        9,746  Same as previous  ...........         10.4
                                                                           year.
    Homeland Security............        4,051        4,873        7,000  Assists states           43.7         72.8
                                                                           in dealing with
                                                                           ``all hazards''
                                                                           approach, as
                                                                           opposed to past
                                                                           practice of
                                                                           ``biohazards''
                                                                           only, and new
                                                                           directives and
                                                                           EPA
                                                                           requirements.
    Lead.........................       14,100       13,352       13,352  Same as previous  ...........         -5.3
                                                                           year.
    Pesticides Enforcement.......       19,776       18,419       18,419  Same as previous  ...........         -6.9
                                                                           year.
    Toxics Substances Compliance.        5,036        5,019        5,019  Same as previous  ...........         -0.3
                                                                           year.
    Pesticides Program                  13,225       12,768       12,768  Same as previous  ...........         -3.5
     Implementation.                                                       year.
    Pollution Prevention.........        6,150        4,863        4,863  Same as previous  ...........        -20.9
                                                                           year.
    Radon........................        8,062        7,948        7,948  Same as previous  ...........         -1.4
                                                                           year.
    Tribal Air Quality Management       12,385       10,769       10,769  Same as previous  ...........        -13.0
                                                                           year.
    Tribal General Assistance           62,196       56,037       56,037  Same as previous  ...........         -9.9
     Program.                                                              year.
    Unnderground Injection              10,800       10,721       10,721  Same as previous  ...........         -0.7
     Control (UIC).                                                        year.
    Water Quality Cooperative           16,608  ...........        9,844  For program as            n/a         40.7
     Agreements.                                                           described in
                                                                           statute.
    Wetlands Program Development.       17,110       16,567       16,567  Same as previous  ...........         -3.2
                                                                           year.

             Low Priority

    Wastewater Operator Training.  ...........  ...........  ...........  Eliminated......  ...........  ...........
    Sector Program...............        1,838        1,209  ...........  Eliminated......       -100.0       -100.0
    Targeted Watersheds..........        7,472        9,844  ...........  Eliminated in          -100.0       -100.0
                                                                           favor of WQCA
                                                                           above.
                                  ---------------------------------------                  -------------------------
          Subtotal, Categorical      1,176,203    1,078,339    1,219,211                           13.1          3.7
           Grants.
                                  =======================================                  =========================
           Highest Priority

    Clean Water SRF..............    1,397,785      689,080    1,500,000  Increase to             117.7          7.3
                                                                           address gap
                                                                           issues.
    Drinking Water SRF...........      881,524      829,029    1,000,000  Increase to              20.6         13.4
                                                                           address gap
                                                                           issues.

          Moderate Priority

    Brownfields Projects.........       87,380       93,518       93,518  Same as last      ...........          7.0
                                                                           year.
    Diesel Emissions Reduction     ...........       49,220  ...........  ECOS suggests          -100.0  ...........
     Grant Program.                                                        this cost item
                                                                           be moved to the
                                                                           EPM account, as
                                                                           EPA controls
                                                                           the majority of
                                                                           these funds,
                                                                           not States.
                                                                           ECOS supports
                                                                           full funding of
                                                                           this program as
                                                                           part of the EPM
                                                                           budget.
    Congressional Priorities           263,524      132,894  ...........  ( \2\ )                -100.0       -100.0
     (STAG Infrastructure Grants)
     \2\.
    Infrastructure Assistance:          37,434       24,610       24,610  Previous year;    ...........        -34.3
     Alaska Native Villages.                                               no
                                                                           recommendation.
    Infrastructure Assistance:          64,846       19,688       19,688  Previous year;    ...........        -69.6
     Mexico Border.                                                        no
                                                                           recommendation.
    CA Reduction Project Grants..  ...........        9,844        9,844  Previous year;    ...........          n/a
                                                                           no
                                                                           recommendation.
                                  ---------------------------------------                  -------------------------
          Subtotal,                  2,732,493    1,847,883    2,647,660                           43.3          3.1
           Infrastructure.
                                  ---------------------------------------                  -------------------------
          Total, all items.......    3,908,696    2,926,223    3,866,871                           32.1        -1.1
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ In the 2008 budget, a substantial amount of the funding for this program was shifted to the LUST Trust Fund.
      We recommend retaining that approach with the same $31 million in the UST fund for UST Grants as last year.
    \2\ These are included here as part of the CW SRF funds. ECOS follows EPA's practice of not budgeting these, but
      we do not oppose the use of Congressional Priorities. 2004 data is presented as a comparison because it was
      the most recent peak year of funding. All figures are post-rescission, including 2008. These are actual-year
      dollars, not adjusted.

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

        I am Karen R. Diver, Chairwoman of the Fond du Lac Band of Lake
    Superior Chippewa. Thank you for considering our testimony on fiscal
    year 2009 Appropriations. Our Tribe occupies a 100,000 acre reservation
    in northeastern Minnesota. It is part of our aboriginal homeland and
    was established by Treaty in 1854. We provide health, education, social
    and other governmental services to 6,500 Indian people living on or
    near our Reservation. We are deeply concerned that the President's
    budget would cut funding for programs that are essential to our ability
    to educate our children, care for our elderly and infirm, prevent
    crime, and protect and manage natural resources. We urge Congress to
    restore or increase the funding for these critical programs.
        BIE: Education.--The Fond du Lac Band depends on BIE funding for
    the operation of the Band's Ojibwe School. We oppose the President's
    proposed $25.6 million reduction to funding for BIE programs as they
    are contrary to the government's trust responsibilities for the
    education of Indian people. The proposed cuts simply cannot be
    reconciled with the President's stated goal of closing the education
    achievement gap for Indian students. Nor can those cuts be reconciled
    with the BIE's own findings that for the past 3 years, 60 percent of
    BIE-funded schools have failed to achieve Adequate Yearly Progress
    (AYP) under the No Child Left Behind Act and that student performance
    at BIE-funded schools is lower than that for students at public
    schools. As Indian students are the most at-risk group of students in
    our Nation, funding for Indian education must not be further reduced.
    These programs should be funded at no less than fiscal year 2008
    levels.
        The proposed cuts include a drastic reduction in Education Program
    Enhancements even though, as BIE points out, this funding is used for
    teacher training, strengthening math and reading skills, tutoring and
    mentoring, which BIE-funded schools need if they are to achieve AYP.
    The proposed cuts also include a reduction in Early Childhood
    Development, even though, as BIE again recognizes, early childhood
    education continues to be a very effective investment providing
    comprehensive reading skills that prepare our American Indian students
    to become successful learners. The proposed cuts also include the
    complete elimination of the Johnson O'Malley program. Restoration of
    this funding is essential as JOM is critical to sustaining Native
    language and cultural education in public schools serving Indian
    students. With the demands of achieving the goals of the No Child Left
    Behind Act, it becomes more important to integrate our native culture
    and teachings into the school curriculum. Not funding JOM will
    jeopardize the public schools' ability to do this.
        The President's proposal would also reduce funds for student
    transportation, even though steadily increasing fuel costs and an
    already inadequate funding level have severely handicapped our ability
    to provide safe and reliable transportation to our students. In
    addition, the President would cut Education Construction from the
    fiscal year 2008 enacted level. We urge Congress to appropriate funds
    to support the new construction projects currently being funded, and
    ask that the proposed reduction ($27.6 million) be restored and
    allocated to facilities improvement and repair so that we can extend
    the lives of the buildings and ensure that that they are safe.
        BIA: Public Safety and Justice.--While we support the
    administration's Safe Indian Communities Initiative, the funding
    proposed for this still falls very far short of what is needed and
    should be increased. We also ask that Congress increase the Band's base
    funding by $1.5 million for court operations and law enforcement, and
    provide 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 is inadequate for those purposes.
        The Fond du Lac Band faces massive unmet needs for law enforcement.
    We had to assume responsibility for law enforcement after the 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). We have 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. But
    because of the insurgence of methamphetamine, alcohol, illegal
    prescription drug use, and gang-related activities on our Reservation
    our law enforcement responsibilities continue to grow. In 2007, our
    police responded to over 4,000 calls, more than any prior year.
    Prescription drug abuse is becoming an epidemic, with increasing
    numbers of our elders and others the victims of more frequent assaults,
    burglaries and robberies that are prescription drug related. We also
    face increasing numbers of juvenile offenses involving drugs, alcohol,
    thefts, assaults and burglaries.
        To address these problems, we need to increase our law enforcement
    staff so that we can station police officers in specific locations,
    such as near elderly housing, and ensure effective law enforcement
    coverage 24/7. But we do not have the funds to do this. We currently
    employ 13 officers and 3 administrative staff. Two officers are
    assigned to needed day shift duties, a School Resource Officer (to try
    and stem the tide of juvenile crime), and an investigator. Officers
    work 12-hour shifts. We try to maintain at least two officers for each
    night shift and two on the weekend day and night shifts. Ultimately,
    for officer safety and timely responses, we should schedule three
    officers per shift around the clock. However, lack of funding prevents
    us from meeting this goal. As such, there are times when only one
    officer is on duty to cover the entire Reservation. With officer backup
    from other agencies as far as a 20-30 minute drive, this becomes a
    serious safety issue for both officers and the people we need to
    protect. 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. We need 15 to
    20 officers, but this requires funding which we do not have.
        Federal funding is also vital for law enforcement equipment. Our
    ability to effectively address crime requires that we periodically
    upgrade patrol cars including SUV 44 vehicles to respond to
    remote areas within our Reservation. 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 each
    way to the St. Louis County Jail for DWI processing--pulling our
    limited number of officers away from other responsibilities for long
    periods of time. In addition, while we recently accessed the on-line
    law enforcement reporting system (NEMISIS SHEILDS) which serves seven
    area counties, it will cost us $400 per year per officer to use that
    system--a cost not previously budgeted. Further, to make effective use
    of this system, we should have a secure T-1 line (rather than the
    current key-fob system), but we do not have the funds ($20,000) for
    this. We also need substantial additional funds to buy new digital car
    radios and software to integrate the Band's dispatching system with the
    more advanced system being adopted by the counties.
        Finally, we need a new facility for our law enforcement department.
    The department is now housed in a 6-room building which has no room for
    investigative interviews, nor office space for specialty positions such
    as investigators and school resource officers. The evidence room,
    reception area, and parking lot are all inadequate, and because of the
    building's age, staff must double-up phone lines. A new building is
    essential.
        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. While the President, in his budget, recognizes that
    Tribal Courts are unable to meet needs, his proposed cut to Tribal
    Court funding will only make matters worse. Modest increases for Law
    Enforcement Programs should not come at the expense of a reduction in
    funds for historically under-funded Tribal Courts.
        BIA: Natural Resources.--We urge Congress to reject the President's
    proposal to cut funding for Natural Resources Management but to instead
    increase funds for these programs. Related 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 within and outside
    the Reservation pursuant to rights reserved under Treaties with the
    United States. The Band is responsible for enforcing regulations over
    approximately 8,000,000 acres in northern and central Minnesota.
    Funding is essential for that work, as well as for the Band's
    management of natural resources both on and off-reservation. These
    resources provide the foundation for our culture, subsistence,
    employment and recreation. We request that $1.5 million to be added to
    our base budget for Resource Management programs, as 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 to
    at least fiscal year 2008 levels and to consider providing $1,000,000
    to cover actual program needs. Circle of Flight has been one of
    Interior's top trust resource programs since its inception. Through
    this program, Great Lakes Tribes have restored or enhanced more than
    66,000 wetland, grassland and native prairie acres. Circle of Flight
    has invested more than $9.7 million in habitat projects, and has
    leveraged these dollars for an additional $27 million in Federal,
    State, private, and tribal funding, yielding an impressive match ratio
    of nearly 3 to 1. Because of the importance of wild rice to our members
    and to the wildlife of the area, Fond du Lac has used these funds to
    restore over 200 acres of wild rice habitat and has identified another
    550 acres of wild rice habitat that is restorable given adequate
    funding.
        BIA: Human Services.--We urge Congress to reject the
    administration's proposal to decrease Human Services funding. Although
    the President, in the proposed budget recognizes the need to increase
    funding for social services to address the impact that the
    methamphetamine epidemic has on not only public health and safety, but
    also child protection, child welfare and foster care services, his
    proposed modest increase for social service funding is far too little,
    and most certainly should not be offset by reductions in funding for
    the BIA's welfare assistance, Indian Child Welfare Act, and Housing
    Improvement programs. If Tribes are to have any realistic hope of
    protecting Indian children, preventing domestic violence, and fostering
    Indian families in the face of this crisis, funding for Social Services
    and ICWA programs must be increased.
        Indian Health Service.--We oppose the President's proposal to
    decrease total funding for Indian Health Services by $21 million from
    the fiscal year 2008 enacted level. While the proposed budget includes
    small increases for clinical health services, contract health care,
    preventive care and contract support costs, those only bring funding to
    pre-rescission fiscal year 2008 levels and still fail to address the
    high rates of medical inflation and the substantial unmet need for
    health care among Indian people. Indians at Fond du Lac, like Indians
    throughout the Nation, continue to 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. As found by Minnesota Department of Health, in its Populations
    of Color Health Status Report for 2007, diabetes among Indians is 5
    times that for Caucasians; infant mortality among Indians is more than
    twice that for Caucasians and higher than that for any ethnic group;
    and Indians are more likely than any ethnic group to die from cancer,
    cirrhosis, diabetes, and suicide. 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. All Indian tribes should
    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.
        EPA: Tribal Air Quality Management.--We support the President's
    proposal to increase funding for Tribal air quality management, and
    urge Congress not to offset this by cuts to other environmental
    programs. We operate an air quality monitoring program, and the demands
    on our program are increasing as industrial activity continues to grow.
    There are a number of major facilities within 60 miles of our
    Reservation that affect our air quality and which we must monitor--
    including Excelsior Energy (a coal-gasification plant), Minnesota Steel
    (new taconite plant), Polymet (Cu-Ni mine), Enbridge pipeline
    expansion, Mittal Steel (taconite plant issues), and U.S. Steel-Keetac
    (taconite mine expansion)--as well as smaller local facilities which
    also impact regional haze. We collect wet deposition samples to test
    for mercury and operate ambient monitors for nitrous oxides, ozone, and
    fine particulate matter. And Fond du Lac is only one Tribe. Many other
    tribes face the same issues. Because of the critical need to protect
    reservation air quality, increased funding for tribal air quality
    programs is essential.
        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
    improve the delivery of services to Band members. Miigwech. Thank you.
                                     ______

       Prepared Statement of the Friends of Virgin Islands National Park

        Madam Chairman 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
    (LWCF) is requested in fiscal year 2009 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 Virgin Islands National Park and to
    promoting the responsible enjoyment of this unique 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 Virgin
    Islands 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.
        Available within the Virgin Islands National Park boundaries in
    fiscal year 2009 is the first phase of a 207-acre acquisition at Maho
    Bay. This Maho Bay property offers spectacular views of the bay and
    includes some beachfront. It is extremely important because of their
    relationship to the whole undeveloped area and its cultural resources.
    What most people do not know about this property is that it is not
    owned by the park, even though it has every appearance of being so.
        Though the park boundaries cover a broad area of St. John, the
    National Park Service actually owns two separated blocks of land. A
    smaller block covers the northeastern shore of the island, and a
    larger, more contiguous block extends from the southern to northwestern
    side. The Maho Bay property is what divides these two section of the
    park and its acquisition would be the first step in linking these two
    blocks, ensuring future access, resource connectivity, and seaside
    protection.
        Wetlands in the lower portion of the watershed provide adequate
    sediment retention for the undeveloped nature of this area. As a result
    of long-term geological processes, the topography created by these
    processes and the historical rise of sea level during the past 5,000
    years, a large, rare and complicated freshwater dominated wetland
    developed throughout the basin. It represents a natural stage wetland
    typical of large watersheds with relatively flat basin topography. The
    Maho Bay wetland is the largest of this type on St. John and along with
    the Magens Bay wetland on St. Thomas, one of only a few of this type in
    the Territory. These wetlands provide habitat to numerous species of
    shorebirds, water fowl and other wildlife, several listed as endangered
    under the V.I. Endangered and Indigenous Species Act. Others are
    protected under various federal laws and treaties.
        To the people who live on St. John--both native St. Johnians and
    those who have chosen to make St. John their home, and the millions of
    visitors who come annually to experience and enjoy this remarkable
    place, Maho beach is the most accessible beach on the island and one of
    the most popular. Due to its close proximity to the road, the nearly
    flat beach and the shallow water it is particularly popular with
    families with small children, people with mobility concerns, non-
    swimmers and, of course, those who just love a beautiful beach.
        The land was historically used during the plantation era for
    agricultural activities such as sugar cane, coconut, and cotton
    cultivation. The lands included in the Phase I area include portions of
    several historic plantation era sugar estates. The Maho Bay area
    contains the highest density of plantation era estates on St. John.
    Preservation of these sites is important in reconstructing the history
    and heritage of St. John. With increasing growth and investment
    throughout the Caribbean--including places not far from the unspoiled
    beauty of St. John--this vulnerable land has been the focus of intense
    development threats. In recent years, more than one investor envisioned
    private development along these shores, which would have jeopardized
    the natural and cultural resources of the Maho Bay area and access to
    the beach.
        The total estimated fair market value of the 207 acres is $18.6
    million. This property is being made available to the National Park
    Service for a total of $9 million over 2 years, with the balance 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.
        As you know, Madam Chairman, this project is one of many worthy
    acquisition projects nationwide seeking LWCF funding. Unfortunately
    since fiscal year 2002, funding for LWCF has diminished by about 75
    percent, and the fiscal year 2009 Budget proposes further cuts. These
    reductions have left our national parks, refuges, and forests unable to
    acquire from willing sellers critical inholdings and adjacent lands
    that have been identified to protect and enhance recreational access,
    historic sites, wildlife habitats, scenic areas, water resources, and
    other important features. I urge the subcommittee to increase overall
    funding for this program in fiscal year 2009.
        Madam Chairman 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. The
    protection of Maho Bay has spurred great interest on St. John and in
    the Virgin Islands because of the multiple scenic, cultural, historic,
    and ecologic values it holds. On behalf of the Friends of Virgin
    Islands National Park and the over one million visitors to the Park
    each year, I appreciate your consideration of this funding request.
                                     ______

                Prepared Statement of the Fort River Partnership

        Madame Chairman and honorable members of the subcommittee: Thank
    you for the opportunity to present this testimony in support of an
    appropriation of $2.5 million from the Land and Water Conservation Fund
    to acquire the 66-acre Zuckerman property at Silvio Conte National Fish
    and Wildlife Refuge in Massachusetts.
        The Fort River Partnership coordinates the work of Federal, State,
    and nonprofit partners to protect wildlife habitat, working farms, and
    water quality in the Fort River region of the Connecticut River valley
    in Massachusetts. As president of the Kestrel Trust, a nine town
    regional land 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.
        This project is one of many worthy acquisition projects nationwide
    seeking LWCF funding. Unfortunately since fiscal year 2002, funding for
    LWCF has diminished by about 75 percent, and the fiscal year 2009
    Budget proposes further cuts. These reductions have left our national
    parks, refuges, and forests unable to acquire from willing sellers
    critical inholdings and adjacent lands that have been identified as
    necessary to the protection and enhancement of recreational access,
    historic sites, wildlife habitats, scenic areas, water resources, and
    other important features. I urge the subcommittee to increase overall
    funding for this program in fiscal year 2009.
        Silvio O. Conte was a conservationist, fisherman, and champion of
    the Connecticut River. From 1959 until his death in 1991, he served as
    a U.S. Representative for Massachusetts' 1st District. Just before he
    died, Congressman Conte introduced legislation to establish a unique
    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 (USFWS) to establish the
    Silvio O. Conte National Fish and Wildlife Refuge in 1991.
        The refuge protects native and endangered fish, wildlife, and plant
    species and their habitats throughout the 7.2 million-acre Connecticut
    River watershed, providing opportunities for scientific research,
    environmental education, recreation, and access. In its 1995 Refuge
    Action Plan, the USFWS identified 48 special focus areas in
    Massachusetts, Connecticut, Vermont, and New Hampshire. Nearly 80,000
    acres were targeted for protection through refuge acquisition and
    partnership, including over 16,000 acres in Massachusetts. Thus far,
    over 32,000 acres have been acquired, but fewer than 400 acres are in
    Massachusetts. There is a concerted effort underway to enhance refuge
    protection efforts in critical parts of western Massachusetts where
    development pressures are increasing.
        Available for acquisition in Massachusetts in fiscal year 2009 is
    the 66-acre Zuckerman tract in Hadley, Massachusetts. This parcel is
    part of the Grasslands Complex Special Focus Area in Hadley, now
    established as the Fort River Division. The focus area is prized for
    its habitat potential for grassland bird species such as the
    grasshopper sparrow, bobolink, and upland sandpiper and its frontage on
    the Fort River. The Fort River is the longest free-flowing tributary of
    the Connecticut River in Massachusetts, and is one of the top seven
    rivers in the entire four-State watershed for freshwater mussel
    diversity, a key indicator of river habitat value. A viable population
    of the federally endangered dwarf wedgemussel was identified in the
    Fort River system in 2007, making conservation efforts all the more
    compelling. In addition to mussels, the Fort River and its riparian
    zone are home to many other rare species, including the bridle shiner
    dragonfly and several species of state-protected turtles.
        The FWS conserved 82 acres adjacent to the Zuckerman property this
    month, with funds made available by Congress in fiscal year 2008.
    Members of the Fort River Partnership are extremely grateful for this
    critical investment, as well as for an earlier purchase of 22 acres in
    2005. Unfortunately, many other properties in the area remain
    threatened by conversion to non-conservation purposes and additional
    funds are needed to ensure the success of the Fort River Division of
    the Refuge. The Zuckerman parcel has been identified by our partnership
    as the most urgent acquisition to pursue. The addition of this parcel
    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. Failure to protect it will
    inevitably lead to housing developments in this sensitive area thereby
    diminishing both the historic and natural resource values of the
    region. There have been active efforts to permit construction of 44
    homes on this parcel.
        Hadley, a traditional farming town rich in prime soils, is
    increasingly facing the challenge of losing its rural character to
    residential development. The USFWS and its partners are working closely
    with local land trusts to ensure that the refuge addition is 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 Hadley Board of Selectmen has stated
    its support for refuge acquisitions in this focus area.
        The estimated value of the Zuckerman tract is $2.5 million, and is
    part of a larger fiscal year 2009 need for the entire four-State
    refuge. Acquisition of this parcel will allow the Conte NFWR to
    continue to provide valuable resource protection within the Connecticut
    River Valley in Massachusetts. This amount is part of a larger $5.065
    million request to fund other conservation opportunities throughout the
    four Conte NFWR states in fiscal year 2009, including the Salmon River
    in Connecticut, the Pondicherry Division in New Hampshire, and the
    Nulhegan Division in Vermont.
        I respectfully request that you include an appropriation of $2.5
    million for the Silvio O. Conte NFWR in Massachusetts in the fiscal
    year 2009 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 $5.065 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. With roughly 2.3 million people in the
    Connecticut River watershed and ongoing exurbanization of the
    landscape, the threat from development poses a challenge to the mission
    of the refuge and the protection of the valley's resources.
        Thank you again for the opportunity to present this testimony in
    support of this important conservation project at Silvio Conte National
    Fish and Wildlife Refuge.
                                     ______

       Prepared Statement of Friends of Back Bay National Wildlife Refuge

        I am Molly Brown from Virginia Beach, Virginia. I am the President
    of Friends of Back Bay, a group of over 400 dedicated volunteers who
    are committed to the protection of the Back Bay National Wildlife
    Refuge. Located in southeastern Virginia Beach, Back Bay National
    Wildlife Refuge (Refuge) was established on February 29, 1938, as a
    4,589-acre refuge and breeding ground for migratory birds. We thank
    Congress for their continued support of this project. The Director of
    the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service approved a Refuge boundary expansion
    on May 7, 1990. The expansion area includes 6,340 acres of important
    wildlife habitat. To date the Fish and Wildlife Service has been able
    to acquire 4,980 acres.
        In order to continue the Back Bay Refuge expansion project, we
    respectfully request $1.5 million for fiscal year 2009. This money will
    help to fill in the mosaic pattern of small land parcels from willing
    sellers who have been waiting patiently to sell their land to the
    Refuge.
        The enclosed map gives a visual description of the Acquisitions
    through 2007 and the remaining parcels by priority to be purchased from
    willing sellers within the Back Bay National Wildlife Refuge proposed
    acquisition boundary. Here is a brief description of each parcel.
        Priority 1--Sanford.--26 acres, much of which is valuable riparian/
    wetland habitat on the northern bank of Nanney's Creek This Creek has
    been identified as one of Virginia Beach's ``impaired waterways'' by
    the State DEQ. Cooperative efforts by private landowners (mostly
    farmers), the City of Virginia Beach, the State of Virginia and Back
    Bay NWR are ongoing to restore the water quality of this tributary of
    Back Bay. Existing Refuge property is immediately adjacent to this
    tract on its east and west boundaries.
        Priority 2--Griffith.--105 acres of emergent marsh habitat on the
    east side of Back Bay This property already supports a wide variety of
    nesting and wintering migratory birds, especially waterfowl.
        Because this parcel is located on the bay side of the highly
    developed Sandbridge area of Virginia Beach, failure to acquire this
    piece could result in increased private recreational boating facilities
    by individuals who own lots/houses adjacent to this property.
        Priority 3--Van Nostrand.--15 acres of timbered wetlands on the
    west side of Back Bay This property has been cleared, and is ready for
    farming and/or development. Although the current habitat has little
    wildlife value, reforestation of this parcel, as Back Bay NWR has done
    with so many other parcels, will serve as quality habitat for a variety
    migratory birds, especially neotropical migrants. This property has an
    approved appraisal, and the landowner has been presented with an option
    to buy.
        Priority 4--Rice.--8 acres, much of which is valuable riparian/
    wetland habitat on the southern bank of Nanney's Creek This Creek has
    been identified as one of Virginia Beach's ``impaired waterways'' by
    the State DEQ. Cooperative efforts by private landowners (mostly
    farmers), the City of Virginia Beach, the State of Virginia and Back
    Bay NWR are ongoing to restore the water quality of this tributary of
    Back Bay. This property is adjacent to existing Refuge property on its
    north and east boundaries.
        Good things continue to happen at Back Bay! A new educational
    project to enhance the wildlife viewing opportunities of the public is
    the ``windows on wildlife.'' This one-way glass will allow the public
    to watch migratory birds without being seen by and thus disturbing the
    waterfowl. This project opened this winter. On a recent January day,
    the pond featured a visual smorgasbord of tundra swans, Canada geese,
    black sucks, snow geese, mallards and pied-billed grebes. A red-tail
    hawk flew close to the building and landed on the branch of a near by
    tree.
        This March the Back Bay Restoration Foundation is conducting ``Back
    Bay Forum 2008''. There will be presentations on research and data
    collected within the Back Bay watershed, followed by an opportunity for
    participants to identify future research and action needed for the
    health of the bay system.
        I wish to extend my appreciation for the funding that you
    appropriated through fiscal year 2008. The $505,000 that was
    appropriated in fiscal year 2008 has purchased 47 acres of a key parcel
    along Nanney's Creek. To date we have purchased 4,980-acres of the
    proposed 6,340-acre expansion. This means that this project is over 78
    percent completed in seventeen years. Thank you for the opportunity to
    comment on this important project. Bravo to Back Bay!
                                     ______

      Prepared Statement of Friends of Blackwater National Wildlife Refuge

        Madam Chairman and members of the subcommittee: On behalf of the
    Friends of Blackwater National Wildlife Refuge located near Cambridge,
    Maryland, I am submitting testimony for the Senate Appropriations
    Subcommittee on the Interior and Related Agencies concerning the fiscal
    year 2009 budget for the National Wildlife Refuge System. We
    respectfully request that the subcommittee support the following
    funding levels:
      --$514 million in fiscal year 2009 for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
            Service's (FWS) National Wildlife Refuge System Operations and
            Maintenance (O&M) account;
      --$55.1 million for the Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program, of
            which $2 million be allocated to conduct strategic habitat
            conservation around national wildlife refuges in strategic
            partnerships among the FWS, refuge Friends and other national,
            regional and local interests;
      --$1 million for the Volunteer Invasive Monitoring Program and grants
            for invasive species work with Friends;
      --$100 million for the FWS land acquisition budget to acquire habitat
            and marshlands from willing sellers across the country;
      --$10 million for the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation (NFWF) in
            the FWS's Resource Management General Administration budget.
        It is necessary that the National Wildlife Refuge System budget by
    $15 to $20 million each year in order to maintain services and programs
    from the previous year. The $15 to $20 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
    $514 million would allow the Refuge System to avoid further employee
    layoffs and reductions in services that are important at the Blackwater
    NWR, and the over 150,000 who visit the Blackwater NWR each year, while
    also preventing the approximately $3.5 billion National Wildlife Refuge
    System O&M backlog from growing larger. While refuges received a $39
    million increase for fiscal year 2008, the National Wildlife Refuge
    System is still not funded at the level it was in fiscal year 2003 when
    adjusted for inflation. Because of this, refuges such as ours, the
    Blackwater NWR, struggle to meet their most basic wildlife conservation
    objectives.
        Refuges are also vital economic engines in the local economy,
    fueling hotel stays, restaurant patronage and much, much more.
    According to Banking on Nature, a 2007 report by the U.S. Fish and
    Wildlife Service, recreational visits to national wildlife refuges
    generate substantial economic activity. Nearly 35 million people
    visited national wildlife refuges in 2006, generated over $1.7 billion
    for local economies--including 27,000 jobs and $185 million in tax
    revenues. Eighty-seven percent of all economic activity generated by
    refuges is from non-resident visitation. These visitors contribute to
    the local economy through patronage of local hotels, restaurants,
    outfitters and gas stations to name just a few examples. We simply
    cannot afford to lose these local economic engines. Supporting our
    refuges with adequate funding is an effective method of resisting the
    possible recession with which the nation is currently struggling.
        While providing adequate funding to operate and maintain the Refuge
    System is of vital importance, 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. Accordingly, for fiscal year 2009 we
    respectfully ask that the Subcommittee appropriate $55.1 million for
    the Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program, of which $2 million be
    allocated specifically to conduct strategic habitat conservation around
    national wildlife refuges that engages 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. These local
    initiatives will result in strategic visions which will serve as
    blueprints for use of State, Federal, and private conservation dollars,
    and will expedite implementation of State Wildlife Action Plans.
        The Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on the 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 Committee to continue their support by again providing
    $1 million ``for cooperative projects with Friends groups and
    volunteers on invasive species control''. This funding supports worthy
    programs like competitive grants for Friends groups and the Volunteer
    Invasives 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.
        We encourage the subcommittee to allocate sufficient funding to
    assess and purchase high-priority water rights and high-priority lands
    and conservation easements through the Land and Water Conservation Fund
    (LWCF), $100 million. Inadequate water quantity and quality represent
    some of the biggest obstacles for refuges to overcome and
    unfortunately, many refuges do not own the water rights on the refuge
    or they are not guaranteed an allocation of water from a river or
    stream. The FWS is currently compiling a needs-based priority database
    of where water rights need to be secured, and we urge the subcommittee
    to allocate sufficient funding to allow the FWS to acquire these
    essential rights while they are available and affordable. Also, The
    Refuge System land acquisition backlog is estimated at more than $4
    billion, with over 15 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.
        We encourage the subcommittee to allocate $10 million for the
    National Fish and Wildlife Foundation through the FWS' Resource
    Management General Administration appropriation. 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 species in, around and
    outside of national wildlife refuges across the country.
        In this era of uncertainty related to climate change, we urge the
    Subcommittee to allocate $30 million in dedicated funding to allow the
    FWS to create a plan for how to manage refuges in such a way that would
    allow them to adapt to anticipated changes. Work currently conducted by
    scientists including Dr. Michael Scott, Senior Scientist with the U.S.
    Geological Survey and Professor of Wildlife Biology at the University
    of Idaho, show how models for individual refuges can be made that
    simulate rising water levels, increased temperatures, and how species
    are expected to react. While these innovative tools are now readily
    available, without dedicated funding, refuge staff is simply unable to
    take full advantage of it. Refuges are perhaps our best natural
    laboratories on a national level to assess impacts to wildlife and
    habitat as a result of global climate change; a small investment could
    yield valuable insights that will guide wildlife management and land
    use planning well into the future.
        Again, on behalf of the Friends of Blackwater National Wildlife
    Refuge Association, Inc., 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 Friends of the Boundary Waters Wilderness

        Madam Chairman and honorable members of the committee: I appreciate
    the opportunity to present this testimony in support of a $2.25 million
    appropriation from the Land and Water Conservation Fund for the
    acquisition of two parcels in the Superior National Forest in
    northeastern Minnesota. The tracts are the 30-acre Chainsaw Sisters
    property and the 60-acre Wolf Island property.
        As you know, Mr. Chairman, this is one among many worthy proposals
    nationwide for land acquisition funded from the LWCF. Unfortunately,
    funding of the LWCF has diminished by about 75 percent since fiscal
    year 2002, and the fiscal year 2009 Budget proposes further cuts. These
    reductions have left the agencies responsible for our national parks,
    forests and wildlife refuges unable to acquire--from willing sellers--
    key parcels, within and adjoining public lands, that have been
    identified as critical to protecting these national treasures and
    enhancing their recreational, historic and conservation values. So I
    also urge the subcommittee to increase overall funding for the LWCF .
        Friends of the Boundary Waters Wilderness is devoted to protecting,
    preserving and restoring the wilderness character of the Boundary
    Waters Canoe Area Wilderness and the surrounding Quetico-Superior
    ecosystem. We are a nonprofit, membership organization formed in 1976
    to advocate for full wilderness protection of the Boundary Waters,
    which the Congress established in 1978. We have more than 2,500 members
    and a large cohort of additional supporters and allies nationwide.
        The Superior National Forest spans 150 miles along the U.S.-
    Canadian border in northeastern Minnesota and features boreal forests,
    lakes, streams, bogs and rocky outcrops. Within the national forest
    lies the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness (BWCAW), a million-acre
    maze of unrivaled opportunity for seekers of solitude and wild places.
    Established by Congress in 1978, the Boundary Waters Wilderness is the
    Nation's only large lake-land wilderness outside Alaska.
        Outdoor enthusiasts can enjoy camping, canoeing, fishing, hiking,
    cross-country skiing and dog-sledding in the wilderness. The deep
    foliage and plentiful water also make homes for a wide variety of
    wildlife, including bald eagles, loons, moose, timber wolves, black
    bears, lynx and myriad migratory birds. The BWCAW draws some 250,000
    overnight visitors annually, making it the most visited of the
    wilderness areas established by Congress.
        Through the U.S. Forest Service's Minnesota Wilderness acquisition
    program, two properties are available for acquisition in fiscal year
    2009 in the Superior National Forest. Both are important to the future
    of the wilderness.
        The 30-acre Chainsaw Sisters property is on Picket Lake and Mudro
    Creek, within the Superior National Forest and at an entry point into
    the BWCAW. Such properties are in high demand for second homes and
    recreational properties; in this case, development could threaten
    public access at an especially popular entrance to the Wilderness.
        Since 1988, the Chainsaw Sisters Saloon--so named for its owners,
    two sisters who had worked on a Forest Service crew--has been a
    pilgrimage site for canoeists, snowmobilers, hunters and others. The
    Chainsaw Sisters property, where the saloon sits, has long been a
    priority acquisition for the Superior National Forest and the Friends
    of the Boundary Waters Wilderness. Maintaining public access at this
    BWCAW entryway will ensure access for up to 72 overnight campers and
    canoeists each day and an unlimited number of day-use visitors.
        The 60-acre Wolf Island property is located in Lake Vermilion, and
    is also a high priority for protection this year by the U.S. Forest
    Service. Twenty-four miles long, Lake Vermilion is one of Minnesota's
    largest vacation destination lakes. It is home to healthy populations
    of walleye, northern pike, muskie, bass and bluegill, and was once
    named by National Geographic as one of the Nation's 10 most scenic
    lakes.
        Wolf Island's location affords beautiful views of the beloved lake
    as well as the national forest. Its 60 acres are mostly high, rolling
    land that is densely forested with mature aspen, pine and maple. Its
    rich history was well documented by John Jaeger, a prominent
    Minneapolis architect who homesteaded the island after first visiting
    in 1906. Jaeger's drawings identified cultural resources, including
    burial mounds and a canoe-building workshop plaza.
        The Bois Forte Band of Chippewa and the Superior National Forest
    plan to conduct a formal cultural resource inventory of the island. The
    acquisition of the island by the Superior National Forest will bring
    into public ownership an outstanding scenic resource and access for
    paddlers, boaters and other recreational users who follow in the
    footprints of both Native Americans and the fur-trading French
    voyageurs of years gone by.
        Public acquisition of the Chainsaw Sisters property and Wolf Island
    will ensure that the attributes of the northwoods region so treasured
    by its many visitors--the solitary sound of the common loon, the
    serenity of an evening paddle, the call of the wolf--will be better
    protected in perpetuity. It will also maintain key access for thousands
    of visitors each month to the waterways of the BWCAW.
        Thank you, Madam Chairman, for the opportunity to present this
    testimony.
                                     ______

     Prepared Statement of Friends of Buenos Aires National Wildlife Refuge

        Madame Chairwoman and members of the subcommittee: On behalf of the
    Friends of Buenos Aires National Wildlife Refuge (Friends of BANWR) and
    its membership composed of individuals who are concerned about our
    Nation's wildlife and public lands, we want to thank you for your
    leadership and strong support for the National Wildlife Refuge System
    (NWRS) including the enacted $39 million increase for fiscal year 2008.
        Thank you for the opportunity to offer comments on the fiscal year
    2009 Interior Appropriations bill.
        We strongly support the detailed testimony that was submitted by
    the National Wildlife Refuge Association (NWRA).
        Our refuge is located in Arizona on the Mexican border.
        We are aware that you cannot consider allocations to specific
    refuges. However, we wish to give specific examples on our refuge to
    corroborate a few of the comments made in the NWRA request.
      --Border issues are a particular problem here, but funding for Law
            Enforcement has been adequate, for which we thank you.
      --Operations and Maintenance.--We have no adequate housing for staff.
            Given the remoteness of our refuge, this causes problems in the
            recruitment and maintenance of staff. Personnel must either
            live in trailers or commute long distances, which takes time
            and more and more money as the price of gasoline goes up.
        Our administration and visitor centers are inadequate.
      --Land Acquisition.--The drought in the Southwest is causing nearby
            ranchers to begin to sell their private land. We recently
            missed an opportunity to obtain a ranch near an important
            wetland. Development, with its attendant polluted runoff and
            human traffic now threatens this sensitive habitat. More such
            sales are sure to come and we have no acquisition funds.
        These are just a few specific examples to illustrate the need for
    protecting our wonderful natural heritage. We truly appreciate the
    opportunity to offer testimony and thank you for your consideration.
                                     ______

                Prepared Statement of Friends of Congaree Swamp

        On behalf of: American Rivers, Archaeological Society of South
    Carolina, Audubon South Carolina, Carolina Bird Club, Carolinas' Nature
    Photographers Association, Columbia Audubon Society, Congaree Land
    Trust, Friends of Congaree Swamp, League of Women Voters of the
    Columbia Area, League of Women Voters of South Carolina, National
    Audubon Society, National Parks Conservation Association, Palmetto
    Conservation Foundation, Palmetto Paddlers, Inc., Richland County
    Conservation Commission, Sierra Club--John Bachman Group, South
    Carolina Coastal Conservation League, South Carolina Native Plant
    Society, South Carolina Nature-Based Tourism Association, South
    Carolina Wildlife Federation, The Sierra Club of South Carolina, The
    Trust for Public Land, and The Wilderness Society.
        Madam Chairman and honorable members of the subcommittee: We
    appreciate this opportunity to present testimony in support of an
    appropriation of $5.38 million from the Land and Water Conservation
    Fund--to enable the National Park Service to purchase the 1,840-acre
    Riverstone tract for Congaree National Park in South Carolina.
        Congaree Swamp National Monument was authorized as a National Park
    Service unit in 1976. In 2003, Public Law 108-108 elevated Congaree to
    a National Park--South Carolina's first and only National Park--and
    authorized a boundary expansion of 4,576 acres.
        Congaree National Park--on the floodplains of the Congaree and
    Wateree rivers--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 is designated Outstanding National Resource Waters.
        With more than 75 species of trees, Congaree hosts the Nation's
    largest tract of old-growth bottomland hardwood forest. The trees
    growing in this floodplain forest are some of the tallest in the
    eastern United States, forming one of the tallest temperate deciduous
    forest canopies in the world--taller than old-growth forests found in
    Japan, the Himalayas, southern South America, and eastern Europe.
        More than 195 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
    coordinates research within Congaree National Park.
        Congaree National Park also offers excellent opportunities for
    recreation. A 2.5-mile boardwalk loop provides easy access into
    Congaree's forest, and more than 20 miles of trails are available for
    hiking. Visitors enjoy canoeing and kayaking on Cedar Creek, 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 2009 presents the opportunity to purchase 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 21,786 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 a conservation corridor of more
    than 42,000 acres along the Congaree, Wateree, and upper Santee rivers.
        In addition to its biological resources, the Riverstone tract has
    significant geological and hydrological resources, including Running
    Lake, Little Lake, Big Lake, Running Creek, and Bates Old River. Bates
    Old River is a 4-mile-long oxbow lake, the former channel of the
    Congaree River. This oxbow is flanked by the best-defined ridge and
    swale topography in the Congaree floodplain. No other oxbow lake in the
    Congaree floodplain can compare to Bates Old River in size,
    hydrological dynamics, accessibility, or as a recreational resource.
        The Riverstone tract also has significant cultural and historical
    resources, including a prehistoric mound from the Woodland Period (1000
    B.C. to A.D. 1000). The history of McCord's Ferry (established before
    1750 as Joyner's Ferry) is intertwined with the Riverstone tract.
    Patriot and British forces used McCord's Ferry during the American
    Revolution.
        Accordingly, acquisition of the Riverstone tract will add to
    Congaree National Park's opportunities for visitor access, education,
    recreation, and research.
        The Trust for Public Land (TPL) has committed to acquire Phase I of
    the Riverstone tract this spring 2008, and has signed an option
    agreement with the private landowner to secure the remainder of the
    tract until March 31, 2009 for Park Service acquisition. The price of
    the Riverstone property is $5.88 million, based on a federally-approved
    appraisal. Recognizing this tract as a key priority for acquisition,
    the Park Service has identified and dedicated $500,000 in existing
    funds toward Phase I.
        For the first time ever, the Park Service has the authorization and
    the opportunity--and the urgent necessity--to acquire the entire
    Riverstone tract from a single willing seller. Prompt funding is the
    key. If this opportunity is missed, the Riverstone tract would be sold
    to another buyer, or subdivided and sold to multiple buyers. The Park
    Service would have to acquire multiple parcels, thereby increasing
    total purchase cost and reducing the probability of acquiring all
    parcels.
        The 23 organizations which join in this testimony urge you to
    provide full funding this year to protect this critical tract at
    Congaree National Park. A fiscal year 2009 appropriation of $5.38
    million from the Land and Water Conservation Fund will enable the Park
    Service to complete acquisition of the 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 Hyde Farm

        Madam Chairman and honorable members of the committee: I appreciate
    the opportunity to provide testimony on behalf of a request for a
    $3.031 million Land and Water Conservation Fund appropriation in fiscal
    year 2009 to permit the National Park Service to acquire the 95-acre
    Hyde Farm property at the Chattahoochee River National Recreation Area
    in Georgia.
        Flowing in a southwesterly direction from the Appalachian Mountains
    in northeastern Georgia, the Chattahoochee River is a significant
    recreational and ecological corridor in the Atlanta metropolitan area.
    Between Atlanta and Chattanooga a series of mountain ridges separated
    by river valleys cross the landscape. The Chattahoochee River valley is
    the southernmost in this chain. The river's length and breadth provides
    an excellent corridor for river recreation and open space for wildlife
    habitat. With substantial headwaters in the forested mountains of
    northern Georgia, the protection of the river's water quality for
    drinking water and recreation is an important regional and national
    objective.
        The Chattahoochee River National Recreation Area provides much
    needed recreational opportunities in the Atlanta metropolitan area for
    all Georgians. The park was created in 1978 to protect the watershed,
    provide opportunities for river and land recreation, and to conserve
    important tracts in the river's floodplain. The park extends along the
    river for nearly 50 miles from Buford Dam at Lake Sidney Lanier to the
    entrance of Peachtree Creek tributary by Marietta Boulevard in Atlanta.
    Annually the park averages about 2.75 million visitors; many are from
    the burgeoning Atlanta metropolitan area. In recent years, the
    population in the State of Georgia has grown rapidly to about 9 million
    residents and half of these residents live in the Atlanta area. The
    population growth has placed tremendous pressure on lands important to
    the region's water quality, recreation, and historical and agricultural
    heritage. In 1999 Congress passed Public Law 106-154 expanding the
    boundaries of the park to protect additional lands in this ``nationally
    significant'' river corridor.
        In fiscal year 2009 the National Park Service has the opportunity
    to acquire the 95-acre Hyde Farm property in Cobb County. The farm has
    been in agricultural use since the 1830s when a log cabin was built on
    the site downstream from a Cherokee village. As the Chattahoochee River
    is the last natural barrier to entering Atlanta from the northwest, the
    Confederate army established its last defensive line in front of the
    Atlanta fortifications along the river southwest of the farm before the
    advancing Union armies of General Sherman in 1864. The Hyde Family
    first became involved in the farm in the 1870s and has owned the
    property since 1919. Until his death in 2004 in his early nineties, the
    farm was cultivated for family use by J.C. Hyde and his older brother,
    Buck. J.C. Hyde had a deep attachment to his land and its cultivation,
    and he wished to see the farmland forever protected. In 1993 the Hyde
    family sold approximately 35 acres of the property directly on the
    banks of the Chattahoochee River to the National Park Service for
    inclusion into the park. The entire Hyde Farm property is within the
    authorized boundaries of the park and is located between the Gold
    Branch and Johnson Ferry units.
        If acquired for the national recreation area, Hyde Farm would
    provide visitors with a window into the traditional farming culture
    that has largely disappeared in Cobb County and the Atlanta area. The
    property is adjacent to the northern end of the Johnson Ferry unit,
    which hosts seasonal visitor services, 2.5 miles of trails, and a boat
    launching site. In the 1999 legislation, Congress stated its intention
    to ``increase the level of protection of the open spaces . . . along
    the Chattahoochee River.'' The acquisition of the Hyde Farm represents
    one of the ``dwindling opportunities to protect the scenic,
    recreational, natural, and historic values'' of the Chattahoochee River
    corridor referred to by Congress in the act.
        Private contributions will enable the National Park Service to
    acquire Hyde Farm for less than half of its estimated fair market
    value. Already, the National Park Service has $900,000 available from
    previous fiscal years and just under $2 million from a fiscal year 2008
    appropriation. Thank you for your support last year to secure this
    initial funding; it was critical to the project. In fiscal year 2009,
    the final appropriation needed from the Land and Water Conservation
    Fund is $3.031 million.
        As you know, Madam Chairman, this project is one of many worthy
    acquisition projects nationwide seeking LWCF funding. Unfortunately
    since fiscal year 2002, funding for LWCF has diminished by about 75
    percent, and the fiscal year 2009 Budget proposes further cuts. These
    reductions have left our national parks, refuges, and forests unable to
    acquire from willing sellers critical inholdings and adjacent lands
    that have been identified to protect and enhance recreational access,
    historic sites, wildlife habitats, scenic areas, water resources, and
    other important features. I urge the subcommittee to increase overall
    funding for this program in fiscal year 2009.
        Madam Chairman, thank you for this opportunity to provide testimony
    on this important land acquisition opportunity in Georgia.
                                     ______

           Prepared Statement of Friends of the Potomac River Refuges

        Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee: On behalf of the
    Friends of the Potomac River Refuges, we are submitting testimony for
    the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on the Interior, Environment and
    Related Agencies. We support a funding level of $514 million in fiscal
    year 2009 for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's (FWS) National
    Wildlife Refuge System Operations and Maintenance (O&M) account and an
    add to FWS' construction budget of $750,000 for the design and
    engineering of an administrative/visitor contact building at Occoquan
    Bay National Wildlife Refuge (NWR).
        Currently, the National Wildlife Refuge System suffers from a $3.5
    billion operations and maintenance stewardship funding backlog, which
    will only grow larger if current funding levels continue. While refuges
    received a substantial $39 million increase for fiscal year 2008, the
    National Wildlife Refuge System is still NOT funded at the level it was
    in 2003, adjusted for inflation. Because of this, refuges such as ours,
    the Potomac River Complex of which Occoquan is a part, struggle to meet
    even their most basic wildlife conservation objectives. In fact,
    funding shortfalls have led to the decline of refuge habitats and
    wildlife populations, aging facilities and infrastructure, the
    cancellation of many refuge public use programs and even increased
    crime on our public lands.
        The National Wildlife Refuge System budget must increase by $15
    million each year just to maintain the same level of services and
    programs as in 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
    $514 million would allow the Refuge System to avoid additional employee
    layoffs and reductions in services that are important to our refuge,
    our members and the over 40,000 people who visit the refuges that make
    up the Potomac Complex each year, while also preventing the current
    $3.5 billion O&M backlog from growing larger.
        Budget reductions over the last 3 years have severely impacted the
    Potomac River Refuges in Northern Virginia. The complex is comprised of
    Elizabeth Hartwell Mason Neck NWR, Occoquan Bay NWR, and Featherstone
    NWR. This complex is approximately 20 miles from Capitol Hill. Each
    refuge was established through strong public support and effort in
    recognition of their importance as representative pieces of this
    region's distinctive, but fast disappearing, natural environment. Mason
    Neck's woodlands and Potomac shoreline has been instrumental in the
    recovery of the bald eagle, Featherstone provides sanctuary for native
    flora and fauna dependent on tidal wetlands, and Occoquan Bay includes
    unique habitats of great importance to migratory waterfowl and
    songbirds and other wildlife. Each refuge and the complex plays an
    indispensable role in preserving the natural character of Northern
    Virginia.
        As part of FWS Region 5's workforce plan the 71 national wildlife
    refuges in the Northeast region have been classified as ``stay
    strong'', targeted, or de-staffed. The region has chosen to direct
    resources to ``stay strong'' refuges to avoid ``across-the-board
    mediocrity that would result from proportionately equal budget cuts at
    each refuge.'' To our dismay the Potomac River NWR Complex is
    classified as a targeted reduction refuge.
        The Potomac River Complex was de-staffed in fiscal year 2006. The
    Complex lost its only biologist and one of the two maintenance workers.
    Staff cuts resulted in program elimination therefore impacting FWS'
    ability to manage wildlife and their habitat. Wildlife surveys,
    research and investigations, biological monitoring, and invasive
    species control have been curtailed or eliminated. The lack of a
    biological program leave invasive species unchecked adversely impacting
    native plant and animal species. In addition, maintenance and support
    of public use facilities/activities including trails, roads, and
    programs have been reduced. At this point, even if additional
    maintenance funds were made available the current staffing level
    impedes the completion of additional work projects.
        Our local refuges are also threaten by illegal activities occurring
    on them. Documented activities are: trespass, gangs including MS-13,
    drugs, felonies, and undocumented aliens establishing camps. We believe
    some of these activities can be curtailed if refuge staff had an
    increased presence on the refuges. As mothers we are concerned about
    the safety of children and other visitors. Currently, the staff is
    housed miles away from any of the refuges in a strip mall along Route 1
    in Woodbridge. Vehicles and other equipment are stored at a rented
    garage a mile away from the office. Response to habitat, wildlife or
    visitor needs can take hours given the notorious Northern Virginia
    traffic. This situation creates numerous inefficiencies and safety
    issues.
        USFWS Region 5 has acknowledged the need for an administrative/
    visitor contact station at Occoquan Bay NWR by listing it as their
    number one priority for building construction funds. However, even with
    this acknowledgment there is no funding in the President's fiscal year
    2009 budget for construction of this facility. We are urging this
    subcommittee to provide $750,000 for the design and engineering of this
    facility. Locating an administrative/visitor facility on the Occoquan
    NWR is estimated to improve the efficiency of daily refuge operations
    by twenty percent. For preservation of the habitat and wildlife, safety
    of the visitors and enhancing the efficiencies of the staff, planning
    of this facility needs to occur now.
        According to Banking on Nature, a 2007 report by the USFWS,
    recreational visits to national wildlife refuges generate substantial
    economic activity. Nearly 35 million people visited national wildlife
    refuges in 2006, generated over $1.7 billion for local economies--
    including 27,000 jobs and $185 million in tax revenues. Eighty-seven
    percent of all economic activity generated by refuges is from non-
    resident visitation. These visitors contribute to the local economy
    through patronage of local hotels, restaurants, outfitters and gas
    stations to name just a few examples. We simply cannot afford to lose
    these local economic engines.
        In conclusion, the Potomac River Refuges provide a wonder
    environment for plants and animals that we must treat with care and
    vigilance. The flora and fauna utilizing these refuges and the entire
    Refuge System are fundamental to our Nation. When Teddy Roosevelt
    established the Refuge System in 1903, he recognized these lands and
    the creatures dependent upon them were essential to our nation's
    development and would continue to be a vital part of our children's
    futures. The Friends of the Potomac River Refuges ask you to provide
    adequate funding for this refuge complex and the entire Refuge System
    to conserve our children's natural heritage.
        Friends of the Potomac River Refuges respectfully request the
    Interior Appropriations Subcommittee to add $750,000 to USFWS's
    construction budget for the design and engineering of an
    administration/visitor facility on Occoquan River NRW and increase
    funding for the National Wildlife Refuge System in fiscal year 2009 to
    $514 million. We hope you will support the Potomac River Refuges and
    others across the country by securing strong funding for the National
    Wildlife Refuge System. On behalf of the Friends of the Potomac River
    Refuges we thank you for your consideration of our requests. If you
    have any questions, we would certainly be happy to help in any way. If
    you have any questions regarding this request please call Joan
    Patterson at 703-791-3458 or send an email to
    joan@thepattersonfamily.us.
                                     ______

    Prepared Statement of Friends of Rachel Carson National Wildlife Refuge

        Madam Chairman and honorable members of the subcommittee: I thank
    you for the opportunity to present to the subcommittee written
    testimony in support of the acquisition of the 110-acre Timber Point
    property at the Rachel Carson National Wildlife Refuge in
    Kennebunkport, Maine. An appropriation of $3.5 million from the Land
    and Water Conservation Fund, to be matched by an equal amount of
    private funds, is needed to protect this exceptional coastal property.
        As you know, Madam Chairman, this project is one of many worthy
    acquisition projects nationwide seeking LWCF funding. Unfortunately
    since fiscal year 2002, funding for LWCF has diminished by about 75
    percent, and the fiscal year 2009 budget proposes further cuts. These
    reductions have left our national parks, refuges, and forests unable to
    acquire from willing sellers critical inholdings and adjacent lands
    that have been identified to protect and enhance recreational access,
    historic sites, wildlife habitats, scenic areas, water resources, and
    other important features. I urge the subcommittee to increase overall
    funding for this program in fiscal year 2009.
        The Rachel Carson National Wildlife Refuge is named in honor of one
    of the nation's foremost and forward-thinking biologists. After
    arriving in Maine in 1946 as an aquatic biologist for the U.S. Fish and
    Wildlife Service, Rachel Carson became entranced with Maine's coastal
    habitat, leading her to write the international best-seller The Sea
    Around Us. This landmark study, in combination with her other writings,
    The Edge of the Sea and Silent Spring, led Rachel Carson to become an
    advocate on behalf of this Nation's vast coastal habitat and the
    wildlife that depends on it. With the celebration of the 100th
    anniversary of Rachel Carson's birth in 2007, her legacy lives on today
    at the refuge that bears her name and is dedicated to the permanent
    protection of the salt marshes and estuaries of the southern Maine
    coast.
        Consisting of meandering tidal creeks, coastal upland, sandy dunes,
    salt ponds, marsh, and productive wetlands, the Rachel Carson NWR
    provides critical nesting and feeding habitat for the threatened piping
    plover and a variety of migratory waterfowl, and serves as a nursery
    for many shellfish and finfish. The salt marsh habitat found at Rachel
    Carson NWR is relatively rare in Maine, which is better known for its
    dramatic, rocky coastline. Upland portions of the landscape in and
    around the refuge host a unique, unusually dense concentration of
    vernal pools that provide habitat for several rare plant and animal
    species. Located along the Atlantic flyway, the refuge serves as an
    important stopover point for migratory birds, highlighted by shorebird
    migration in the spring and summer, waterfowl concentrations in the
    winter and early spring, and raptor migrations in the early fall. In
    fact, southern Maine contains a greater diversity of terrestrial
    vertebrates, threatened and endangered species, and woody plants than
    any other part of the State.
        Previous years' appropriations have allowed the USFWS to conserve
    several properties within the refuge at Biddeford Pool and Parson's
    Beach, providing an important buffer between the intense development
    pressure along the southern Maine coast and its fragile coastal
    estuaries. With towns in the area growing rapidly--at rates ranging
    between 11 percent and 32 percent over the next 10 years--development
    pressures continue to spiral upwards and additional coastal properties
    are under threat.
        This year, an opportunity exists to significantly enhance the
    mission of the Rachel Carson NWR and its role in protecting coastal
    natural resources. Available for immediate acquisition from a single
    willing landowner in fiscal year 2009 is the 110-acre Timber Point
    property, one of the last large undeveloped properties along the 50
    miles of coastline from Kittery to Cape Elizabeth and a longstanding
    priority for the refuge. It is being offered to the USFWS at a
    significant discount through the generosity of the landowner and the
    support of the local community.
        Located in the Little River Division of the refuge near
    Kennebunkport, Timber Point is comprised of a large peninsula and a
    small island that is effectively connected to the peninsula at low
    tide. All told, the property includes over 2.25 miles of undeveloped
    coastline, an enormous amount for southern Maine. Unlike much of the
    State's southern coastal areas, Timber Point's coastline is mostly
    rocky, making it an ideal location for eider nesting and wintering
    purple sandpipers. The Timber Point peninsula hugs the mainland,
    offering both rocky oceanfront shoreline and a sheltered, sandy cove.
    Wintering black ducks, assorted sea ducks, and migratory shorebirds
    feed and roost along the shoreline while sanderlings frequent the sandy
    cove during migration. In addition, the rocky offshore habitat serves
    as a productive lobster nursery.
        In addition to the abundant wildlife which benefits from this
    virtually undeveloped coastline, upland habitats harbor many species of
    conservation concern as well. Habitats represented on Timber Point are
    diverse and include shrubby wetlands, early successional thickets and
    grassy openings, forested wetlands, and mature white pine forests.
    Early successional habitats are home to breeding American woodcock,
    willow flycatcher, eastern towhee, chestnut-sided warblers, gray
    catbirds, and bobolink. Upland forests and forested wetland habitats
    are likely to be used by breeding scarlet tanagers, northern flickers,
    and Baltimore orioles.
        Refuge-owned lands already protect the headwaters of the Little
    River, which empties into the Atlantic at Goose Rocks Beach--a popular
    public swimming area adjacent to Timber Point. Once acquired, the
    Timber Point parcel will enhance the refuge's ability to protect water
    quality in the estuary and important wildlife habitat by linking it to
    already conserved refuge lands in the Little River Division of the
    refuge. Currently, the USFWS holds an easement on just 35 of the 110
    acres at Timber Point, this proposed acquisition would recombine the
    easement with full fee ownership and permanently protect the entire
    property--save 11 acres, which members of the family would retain with
    a conservation easement preventing any further development of the
    parcel. Located in a rapidly developing part of Maine, this acquisition
    offers the refuge an outstanding opportunity to conserve southern
    Maine's coastal landscape and further consolidate the fragile habitat
    that exists on the marshes, uplands, creeks, and the estuaries of the
    coast.
        Given the development pressures in this part of the State, the
    opportunity to permanently protect this unique coastal property exists
    only for a limited time. An appropriation of $35 million for the Rachel
    Carson NWR in fiscal year 2009 will be matched by an equal amount of
    private philanthropy, offering a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity that
    will yield enormous public benefits for generations to come.
        Thank you again, Madam Chairman, for the opportunity to present
    this testimony in support of this important project.
                                     ______

       Prepared Statement of the Friends of Virgin Islands National Park

        Madam Chairman 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
    (LWCF) is requested in fiscal year 2009 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 Virgin Islands National Park and to
    promoting the responsible enjoyment of this unique 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 Virgin
    Islands 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.
        Available within the Virgin Islands National Park boundaries in
    fiscal year 2009 is the first phase of a 207-acre acquisition at Maho
    Bay. This Maho Bay property offers spectacular views of the bay and
    includes some beachfront. It is extremely important because of their
    relationship to the whole undeveloped area and its cultural resources.
    What most people do not know about this property is that it is not
    owned by the park, even though it has every appearance of being so.
        Though the park boundaries cover a broad area of St. John, the
    National Park Service actually owns two separated blocks of land. A
    smaller block covers the northeastern shore of the island, and a
    larger, more contiguous block extends from the southern to northwestern
    side. The Maho Bay property is what divides these two section of the
    park and its acquisition would be the first step in linking these two
    blocks, ensuring future access, resource connectivity, and seaside
    protection.
        Wetlands in the lower portion of the watershed provide adequate
    sediment retention for the undeveloped nature of this area. As a result
    of long-term geological processes, the topography created by these
    processes and the historical rise of sea level during the past 5,000
    years, a large, rare and complicated freshwater dominated wetland
    developed throughout the basin. It represents a natural stage wetland
    typical of large watersheds with relatively flat basin topography. The
    Maho Bay wetland is the largest of this type on St. John and along with
    the Magens Bay wetland on St. Thomas, one of only a few of this type in
    the Territory. These wetlands provide habitat to numerous species of
    shorebirds, water fowl and other wildlife, several listed as endangered
    under the V.I. Endangered and Indigenous Species Act. Others are
    protected under various federal laws and treaties.
        To the people who live on St. John--both native St. Johnians and
    those who have chosen to make St. John their home, and the millions of
    visitors who come annually to experience and enjoy this remarkable
    place, Maho beach is the most accessible beach on the island and one of
    the most popular. Due to its close proximity to the road, the nearly
    flat beach and the shallow water it is particularly popular with
    families with small children, people with mobility concerns, non-
    swimmers and, of course, those who just love a beautiful beach.
        The land was historically used during the plantation era for
    agricultural activities such as sugar cane, coconut, and cotton
    cultivation. The lands included in the Phase I area include portions of
    several historic plantation era sugar estates. The Maho Bay area
    contains the highest density of plantation era estates on St. John.
    Preservation of these sites is important in reconstructing the history
    and heritage of St. John. With increasing growth and investment
    throughout the Caribbean--including places not far from the unspoiled
    beauty of St. John--this vulnerable land has been the focus of intense
    development threats. In recent years, more than one investor envisioned
    private development along these shores, which would have jeopardized
    the natural and cultural resources of the Maho Bay area and access to
    the beach.
        The total estimated fair market value of the 207 acres is $18.6
    million. This property is being made available to the National Park
    Service for a total of $9 million over 2 years, with the balance 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.
        As you know, Madam Chairman, this project is one of many worthy
    acquisition projects nationwide seeking LWCF funding. Unfortunately
    since fiscal year 2002, funding for LWCF has diminished by about 75
    percent, and the fiscal year 2009 Budget proposes further cuts. These
    reductions have left our national parks, refuges, and forests unable to
    acquire from willing sellers critical inholdings and adjacent lands
    that have been identified to protect and enhance recreational access,
    historic sites, wildlife habitats, scenic areas, water resources, and
    other important features. I urge the subcommittee to increase overall
    funding for this program in fiscal year 2009.
        Madam Chairman 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. The
    protection of Maho Bay has spurred great interest on St. John and in
    the Virgin Islands because of the multiple scenic, cultural, historic,
    and ecologic values it holds. On behalf of the Friends of Virgin
    Islands National Park and the over one million visitors to the Park
    each year, I appreciate your consideration of this funding request.
                                     ______

       Prepared Statement of Friends of Wallkill River National Wildlife
                                    Refuges

        Madam Chairman and honorable members of the committee: I am
    grateful to have the opportunity to submit testimony. I request that
    you approve $514,000,000 for the United States Fish and Wildlife
    Operations and Maintenance budget. In the final budget, our National
    Wildlife Refuge System received $39 million above the Presidents
    budget, and it was stated: ``Increased Funding for the refuge
    operations should be used to re-establish basic operating capacity and
    staffing shortfalls at all refuges nationwide. In addition, these funds
    should be distributed outside the Refuge Operations Needs System and
    other traditional allocation formulas.'', (page 7 of the fiscal year
    2008 budget, passed on December 27, 2007). Thank you, that increase has
    made a difference by increasing available funds throughout the refuge
    system. Unfortunately, this amount remains inadequate for the U.S. Fish
    and Wildlife Service to implement the requirements of the 1997 Refuge
    Improvement Act. My testimony will highlight a few examples of how
    underfunding the system results in the National Wildlife Refuge System
    falling short in both fulfilling the will of Congress and the needs of
    the American people. It is imperative to remember that the refuge
    system is a system and that Every Refuge Matters.

                               DE-STAFFED REFUGES

        Now, I want to share with you what has happened in a year's time,
    and provide you a reality check of how those funds are being used to
    carry out the National Wildlife Refuge System's mission. This situation
    represents only the Northeast Region; other regions have more refuges
    that have been, or will soon be, de-staffed. I cannot imagine the
    purpose of the Refuge Improvement Act was to de-staff and close
    refuges. While Service management may not call these refuge closed, in
    terms of their accessibility to the American people, they are closed;
    let's call a spade, a spade. All the refuges I stated above have been
    de-staffed, except the two whose Friends Groups I represent--Wallkill
    River, and its satellite, Shawangunk Grasslands--refuges whose staff
    have been collectively cut from six to one. The manager of that refuge
    has been told to look for another job for more than 2 years now, all
    while being charged to write the refuge's master plan and a plan to
    more than double the size of the Wallkill River refuge.
        Great Bay NWR, in New Hampshire, was de-staffed on January 31 of
    this year. It does not have a Friends organization to advocate for it.
    It is a classic case of when the System gives up on the refuge much of
    the community gives up as well. Indeed, it had a Friends group but
    there was little they could do with out a building to hold functions in
    and without the leadership of management, they disbanded.
        Sunkhaze Meadows in Maine, was also de-staffed January 31 of this
    year, it is in better shape; it still has a Friends group to advocate
    for it.
        Supawna Meadows in southwestern New Jersey, was de-staffed and its
    doors were closed 2 years ago. It has a Friends group on the struggling
    with the idea of giving up. They were told their refuge, supported by
    their tax dollars and their volunteer hours, would be the last refuge
    to be re-staffed in the region; how can a community have hope and
    continue to spend their weekends working on a refuge when they see no
    future? Volunteer hours for the nation last year were 1,489,890 hours,
    that equates to $27,785,418.00, the equivalent to 716 full time
    employees, that's some serious numbers. We Friends love our refuges and
    we can do great work but we really have to have USFWS staff to
    supervise what we do, we cannot, and should not, run these refuges
    ourselves.
        For the past several weeks, I have studied the eight Strategic
    Workforce Plans of each region of National Wildlife Refuge System.
    Rising personnel and operational costs combined with several years of
    flat budgets have triggered a nationwide 20 percent reduction in the
    workforce. As cost of living raises, energy inflation, and non-mission
    administrative workloads continue to increase, the ability to staff
    refuges to do on-the-ground work diminishes.

                                   COMPLEXING

        In many cases Regional offices chose to ``Complex,'' meaning they
    combine refuges that are geographically and ecologically similar, but
    they share a staff. In most cases the ``Parent Refuge'' is hours away
    from the ``Satellite Refuges.'' Some refuges have always been Complexed
    because they were many small areas or islands. In many more recent
    cases, these Satellite Refuges have buildings that no longer have
    staff. They no long have visitor centers and community services are cut
    with no one there to administer programs. In the words of USFWS Region
    3 Workforce Plan:
        ``Experience with Complex offices in the Midwest has shown that
    staffs in complex offices are often higher graded than staffs of the
    prior stand alone refuges. Instead of Reducing costs, the complex
    office may actually be more expensive. Span of control and
    responsibility for managers can grow beyond an individual's capability,
    with a resulting loss of attention to employee and resource issues. In
    addition, as refuges are reformed into a complex, individual refuge
    units lose identity and individual recognition. And, as refuges lose
    identity, they may lose the support from local community. Volunteer and
    Friends groups, who have a loyalty and pride in their refuge, find it
    harder to support geographically anonymous complex offices.''
        Region 3 clearly recognizes the futile nature of Complexing. This
    is exactly what happens when refuges are de-staffed, and this is
    happening across the country. The community cannot reach staff on the
    phone or in person and they give up. The knowledge of local issues is
    minimal at best. Often more harm than good comes of these contacts. The
    worst thing that could happen to a refuge is when it is de-staffed and
    its community abandons hope, and let me assure you this is happening.

                          NATIONWIDE STAFF REDUCTIONS

        Region 1, The Pacific Region, will have a staff reduction of 49
    positions, 64 refuges.
        Region 2, Southwest Region, will be reduced by 38 positions, 45
    refuges.
        Region 3, Midwest Region, will be reduced by 71 positions, 54
    refuges.
        Region 4, Southeast Region, will be reduced by 79 positions, 128
    refuges.
        Region 5, Northeast Region, will be reduced by 24 field positions,
    71 refuges.
        Region 6, Rocky Mountain Prairie Region, 44. positions, 117
    refuges.
        Region 7, Alaska, 21 positions, 16 refuges, 76,774,229 acres.
        Region 8, California and Nevada, no cuts, 51 refuges, 11 complexes
    and 3 individual refuges.
        Many reductions were made in the years preceding these plans simply
    not refilling positions as staff were transferred or retired. Some were
    buy outs and early retirements.
        Some regions are more remote and there is no need to have a large
    staff. In the Northeast and Southeast there are more refuges and more
    people and a greater need for staff at these refuges. Alaska is remote
    and has a great quantity of land but the costs of maintaining there are
    higher so the need is for less manpower and more on-the-ground
    resources.
        California and Nevada, Region 8, were a newly created region and
    already at a desired ratio of staff and maintenance, reflecting its
    creation in this austere budget climate. The Southeast has many areas
    that are vulnerable to hurricanes, and as we all learned from Katrina
    and Rita sometimes extra resources are needed to address the damage
    from hurricanes.

                                LAW ENFORCEMENT

        There are 400 total Law enforcement officers nationally for 548
    refuges and 37 wetland management districts. There are 234 full time
    Law Enforcement officers and 164 dual-function, officers meaning some
    have a regular position such as biologist or refuge manager and they
    are also performing the duties of law enforcement. These officers have
    the responsibility to prevent destruction of habitat, maintain safe
    conditions for visitors and personnel. At my local refuges, we have one
    law enforcement officer for 3 refuges, each an hour apart from one
    another. Many working hours are lost on all Complexed refuges because
    staff have to drive to distant refuges that they would normally spend
    working, but now spend driving and adding to the nation's carbon
    emissions. And then there is the cost of gas. Without law enforcement
    presence there are big problems with ATV and Snowmobile damage all over
    the Nation. There is vandalism and poaching. When refuges are also
    without on site staff management there is not even anyone to report
    damage to. The public can try but the nearest staff person, might be
    reached by phone, who is hours away. Our National Wildlife Refuges are
    our National Treasures; it is quite an embarrassment to us all when a
    family goes to a refuge to see nature and instead they see beer
    bottles, condoms and drug paraphernalia. It takes dedicated on site
    staff--literally and figuratively--to display a presence, and give out
    a few tickets here and there. Simply stated, we need more law
    enforcement officers.

                                  MAINTENANCE

        There is a backlog on maintenance of $3.5 billion. Specifically,
    this is for repairing buildings, other facilities, keeping vehicles
    maintained, keeping refuge assets in good condition, maintaining trials
    and other public use areas safe, maintained, and accessible. When there
    is no one to maintain equipment, it sits there unusable and decaying.
    But that doesn't really matter when there is no one to use the
    equipment does it? . . . except that these are taxpayer vehicles and
    taxpayers are losing out. Volunteers have to try and pick up the slack
    for maintenance. But again, if there are no staff to guide, supervise
    or allow access to maintenance equipment, the maintenance can't get
    done by volunteers either. All government facilities are required to be
    handicap accessible. This requires staff to regularly maintain these
    places for handicapped people's use. With out people on refuges that
    option can be totally lost, no one to open gates for parking, no one to
    make sure facilities are functioning and safe, no one to respond when
    problems arise.

                                  PARTNERSHIPS

        When refuges lose management, many partnerships dissolve such as
    those with other Federal agencies, such as NASA, the Army Corps of
    Engineers, as well as state fish and wildlife and environmental
    agencies. There have been years and many manpower hours into building
    these programs. Relationships simply fall apart when the management
    positions are eliminated.
        There are hunting organizations that volunteer their manpower to do
    invasive species maintenance on refuges. In some cases, it is Ducks
    Unlimited, Audubon, Trout Unlimited, and the Ruffed Grouse society
    biologists who do biological research. Refuges need staff biologists
    who are familiar with the local area to supervise and keep data
    centralized and uniform for the research to be credible and meaningful,
    and to provide context for the biological research performed by interns
    and bio-technicians. Without a biologist on site, little, if any,
    research gets done. These are the people monitoring invasive and
    endangered species. It is much more financially prudent to keep
    invasive species under control than to have to come in later after the
    invasives have taken over and eliminated native species.
        We can not keep expecting the volunteers to pick up more and more
    of the work staff used to do. As I have stated before, when there is no
    staff to supervise the volunteers the work can not get done by them
    either. USFWS staff need to be around to make decisions about Refuge
    property; those decisions cannot and should not be made by volunteers.
        When offices are closed, the community no longer has access, and
    the only interpretive and educational programs are provided by
    volunteers if any are available and willing. This decreases services to
    hunters and other wildlife recreationalists. Un-maintained trails mean
    less birdwatching. Americans paid for these refuges, but are they
    losing more and more of their ability to participate in hunting
    fishing, wildlife observation, photography, environmental education and
    interpretation. Under these conditions, it is very easy for these
    support groups to lose hope and give up. When a refuge's community
    gives up it is the worst thing that can happen to a refuge.
        Although too dedicated and willing to admit it, many refuge staff
    know the maintenance, biological research and community services are so
    far beyond what they can do they are overwhelmed. Realistically, they
    can not begin to accomplish all the work that needs to be done. Right
    now, only a select few can see a light at the end of the tunnel.

                        LAST YEAR'S $39 MILLION ADDITION

        Last year there was $39 million added to the President's budget,
    with the statement that it was to be used to address staffing
    shortages. In the Southwest Region, they were able to stop eliminating
    positions. California and Nevada were able to meet their inflationary
    costs. The Southeast will still have to cut positions, but not nearly
    so many. In the Northeast, we had already cut many of the positions,
    and the fate for those still in delete positions remains tenuous at
    best. Included among those is the refuge manager at my local refuges. I
    was also told that two Law Enforcement officers were being added in
    Maine, a State that never had any Law Enforcement officers. Midwest was
    able to achieve 75-25 and to freeze further staff reductions. Some of
    the other regions were able to stop eliminating positions altogether,
    others were simply able to meet the ratio of 75-25. This ratio means 75
    percent salary and benefits to 25 percent management capabilities,
    considered ideal for most of the country. (Alaska is 70-30 because
    their expenses are so high, meaning they get even less staff.) the $39
    million was significant in stopping the hemorrhaging caused by previous
    years stagnant funding and increased costs. It has made big difference.
    Perhaps the system will not tread water for a year or two, whereas
    before we were in danger of drowning.
        Please support increased funding of $514 million, for the National
    Wildlife Refuge System, so that all its refuges may be adequately
    staffed and cared for, and that the American people get a fair return
    on their investment in America's natural treasures. I also ask that you
    follow up with the USFWS to ensure that Congress's desire to have lost
    positions funded not be ignored or discounted. Clearly, Congress
    intended for our Nation to have a first-class refuge system when it
    passed the Refuge Improvement Act. Now we all need to do our part,
    whether we be a Congressional Representative, Senator, Friends Group
    member, Service staff, or American citizen to visit, support, and take
    care of our National Wildlife Refuge System. Remember, Every Refuge
    Matters.

                        LAND AND WATER CONSERVATION FUND

        The Wallkill River NWR has focused its land acquisition on
    protection of the river and its major tributaries through consolidation
    of forested wetland, wetland and upland properties. In fiscal year
    2009, the Wallkill Refuge is working to acquire an 86 acre property
    contiguous to existing refuge lands. The parcel includes a small
    canyon,stream and excellent forest interior for migratory birds and
    other species. This site protects area water quality and adds
    additional recreation opportunities. An appropriation of $630,000 from
    the Land and Conservation Fund in fiscal year 2009 is needed to protect
    this important property.
        Thank you for your time and consideration.
                                     ______

       Prepared Statement of Friends of Wertheim National Wildlife Refuge

        On behalf of Friends of Wertheim National Wildlife Refuge, I am
    submitting testimony for the Senate Subcommittee on Interior and
    Related Agencies. We support a funding level of $514 million in fiscal
    year 2009 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 and $1,135,300 for phase I (total
    cost is $7.9 million) for the Long Island NWR Complex's Visitor
    Learning Center/Administrative Headquarters to be located at its
    headquarters, Wertheim NWR. The $514 million accounts for cost-of-
    living increases for FWS personnel, while maintaining current levels of
    visitor services and wildlife management. Funding the O&M account at
    $514 million would allow the Refuge System to do its job of protecting
    habitat and wildlife in a much more responsible way. It is of the
    utmost importance that our Nation protects and enhances our National
    Wildlife refuge System for future generations.
        The Senate Subcommittee on the 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 committee to continue their support ``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 $7.9 million for the Visitor .Learning Center/Administrative
    Headquarters for the Long Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex to be
    located at Wertheim NWR is a key focal point of LINWR Complex's 15 year
    Comprehensive Conservation Plan. It is important to note that
    $1,135,300 for Phase I: Planning and design would enable us to start
    this project. Phase I includes: Site work, A/E Services and Regional
    Engineering Services. The Visitor Learning Center would serve as a
    catalyst for educational opportunities, wildlife conservation
    partnerships and collaborative efforts. In an effort to reduce cost,
    time and energy consumption, the service has developed a standard
    conceptual design for the building. 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 $7.9
    million includes all phases of the project: planning, site design,
    construction, and interpretive exhibits.
        Friends of Wertheim NWR feels this project deserves Federal funding
    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.
        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 2009 and
    beyond there is increased funding that will do more than maintain what
    we had last year; we need your help to address the $2.7 billion O&M
    backlog. Only by being ``faithful stewards'' of all of the National
    Wildlife Refuges in the United States will we ensure that they 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 4 science classes on field trips to
    Wertheim each year. One year one of the boys was standing on the trail
    just looking up and he stayed this way for some time. Since the rest of
    the students were eager to move on 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 the reason why we must
    give our Refuge System adequate funding (fiscal year 2009--$514
    million) and why the Long Island NWR Complex needs a Visitor Learning
    Center/Administrative Headquarters (fiscal year 2009--Phase 1
    $1,135,300).
        On behalf of Friends of Wertheim NWR we thank you for your
    consideration of our requests.
                                     ______

      Prepared Statement of the Friends of the Willamette Valley National
                            Wildlife Refuge Complex

        Madame Chairwoman and members of the subcommittee: We are the
    Friends of the Willamette Valley National Wildlife Refuge Complex, a
    non-profit of local volunteers who care for the habitat and wildlife on
    the 10,625 acres within the William L. Finley, Ankeny, and Baskett
    Slough National refuges, as well as 50-acre Snag Boat Bend, operated as
    a unit of William L. Finley. The refuges of the WVNWRC are not as
    understaffed as many of the refuges, yet the limited staffing is still
    an issue during critical periods created by drought, flooding, and
    intense waterfowl use during winter. W.L. Finley NWR has attempted to
    stem small occurrences of false brome, which is widespread in native
    habitats in Benton County. Current levels of surveillance are
    inadequate to detect newly arrived species before they become firmly
    established. The impacts of nonnative species are often not well--
    understood, and appropriate and cost-effective control is often by
    trial and error. Although a volunteer team is being recruited to battle
    invasive plants, no Refuge staff positions are dedicated to this major
    problem. It is a problem also for the private commercial farms
    surrounding all three refuges. A shortage of fuel and staff time to use
    and maintain existing heavy equipment owned by the Refuge is also a
    serious limitation.
        The Willamette Valley refuges are the critical wintering area for
    the Dusky Canada goose, and during winter, our refuges provide the
    major habitat areas that support their survival until the spring flight
    back to Alaska. Refuge habitat is limited, and the refuge staff have
    been pursuing a partners program with local landowners, to provide
    private lands as the additional winter habitat required by the Duskies.
    Additional staff support for this program would be a win-win for both
    the Duskies, and local agriculture, as it would prevent some of the
    depradations of wintering geese on neighboring agricultural lands.
        Road maintenance is another serious issue where funding and staff
    limitations result in deterioration of Refuge facilities. Finley Road,
    for one example, is in a state of bad disrepair and is eroding at every
    significant rain event. The runoff enters the aptly-named Muddy Creek,
    the main body of water through the refuge, causing sedimentation and
    pollution. There are also safety issues concerning the roads, including
    the lack of safe entry lanes off US 99W for entry to the Finley Refuge.
    Increased warning signs would provide a short-term solution, but
    construction of an exit lane is the only safe option.
        More signage would help also in the way of interpretation. There
    are trails on the complex that could use interpretive signage, but
    little progress has been made, largely due to lack of funding. Although
    environmental education is one of the dedicated uses of the refuge
    system, limited staff time has prevented Refuge staff from providing
    refuge tours requested by local teachers. As the Friends, we are
    organizing to develop such a program, but we need the leadership and
    expertise that only a dedicated staff member can provide, at least part
    time. Similarly, local teachers have requested tours for class groups,
    but staff workload has prevented the development of an environmental
    education program to properly handle these requests.
        In summary, the Refuge System is facing a tremendous task in
    carrying on at the funding levels being provided today. We ask that the
    subcommittee increase O&M funding for the National Wildlife Refuge
    System to $514 million in fiscal year 2009. In addition, we ask that
    the subcommittee allocate additional funds from the Land and Water
    Conservation Fund in fiscal year 2009 to allow acquisition of critical
    areas beneficial to the protection of wildlife within the Refuge
    system.
                                     ______

             Prepared Statement of the Gathering Waters Conservancy

        Madam Chairman and honorable members of the subcommittee: Thank you
    for the opportunity to present testimony in support of an appropriation
    of $3.5 million to acquire more than 1,400 acres of forest inholdings
    within the Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forest in Wisconsin. The Forest
    Service has prioritized these acquisitions through its Wisconsin Wild
    Waterways program.
        As you know, this project is one of many worthy acquisition
    projects nationwide seeking LWCF funding. Unfortunately since fiscal
    year 2002, funding for LWCF has diminished by about 75 percent, and the
    fiscal year 2009 Budget proposes further cuts. These reductions have
    left our national parks, refuges, and forests unable to acquire from
    willing sellers critical inholdings and adjacent lands that have been
    identified to protect and enhance recreational access, historic sites,
    wildlife habitats, scenic areas, water resources, and other important
    features. I urge the subcommittee to increase overall funding for this
    program in fiscal year 2009.
        The Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forest, located in northern
    Wisconsin, covers more than 1.5 million acres of northern forests and
    lakes. The variety of forest types is virtually unmatched anywhere else
    in the United States, and the combination of this feature with the
    abundance of lakes, rivers, and streams ensures that the forest boasts
    some of the best recreational opportunities in the country. With its
    1,200 lakes, the national forest offers plenty of paddling, prize
    fishing, canoeing, boating, and swimming, in addition to opportunities
    afforded by its 800 miles of trails.
        The Forest Service has recognized the unique attributes of the
    Wisconsin forests by undertaking a land protection program that is
    focused on the protection of undeveloped lakefront properties and
    consolidation of publicly owned land for the benefit of recreation and
    natural resources. The Wisconsin Wild Waterways program has been
    supported through annual funding from the Land and Water Conservation
    Fund. In the past few years, over 10,000 acres of undeveloped shoreline
    along several critical lakes and streams have been protected through
    this program.
        This year, there are numerous key inholdings available for
    acquisition.
        First, in Bayfield County, there is an 881-acre assemblage of
    inholding parcels consisting of nine tracts ranging in size from 33 to
    240 acres. These inholdings are nearly surrounded by national forest
    land and share a 12.25-mile boundary with the forest. They include one
    quarter mile of creek frontage, a tributary to Trapper Lake, 40 acres
    of wetland, an entire small lake, and the remaining private ownership
    on three other small lakes. The tracts also include the territory of a
    wolf pack and are within the planned habitat range of the released
    Wisconsin elk herd. The mixture of forest and riparian areas makes
    these properties a haven for recreation as well as for wildlife,
    including important habitat for the bald eagle, goshawk, and pine
    martin.
        Ideal for multi season recreation, visitors to this area can enjoy
    hiking, camping, birding, hunting, fishing, cross-country skiing, and
    snowshoeing. Two of these inholdings are located in the Big Brook and
    Marengo semi-primitive non-motorized areas, and their protection will
    help consolidate these protected lands. Protecting these nine
    properties are critically important to maintaining the natural
    character of the area, while insuring long-term elk habitat for
    Wisconsin's growing elk herd. If these properties are not protected,
    habitat loss is imminent, as easy road access to these areas makes them
    particularly susceptible to second home development.
        Also available for acquisition are 548 acres of multiple small
    inholdings throughout the forest. Since many of these inholdings have
    good quality water frontage, the properties are highly threatened by
    development. The properties include the last privately owned parcel on
    Zarling Lake. Completely surrounded by national forest land, this 40-
    acre property includes one-third mile of frontage on the 38-acre lake.
    One historic and three prehistoric archeological sites have been
    identified on adjoining Forest Service land, and it is likely that this
    parcel will also contain significant archeological resources. Another
    parcel consists of 31 acres on the western shore of Wabikon Lake and
    has 1,000 feet of shoreline, important wetland habitat, and numerous
    springs that feed the lake. Conserving these threatened inholdings
    within the boundaries of the national forest help meet Forest Service
    goals to consolidate land for better management, enhance public access
    to these resources, and protect water quality and recreational values.
        There is strong public support for public ownership of these tracts
    as part of the Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forest. An appropriation of
    $3.5 million from the Land and Water Conservation Fund in fiscal year
    2009 will continue the success of the Wisconsin Wild Waterways program
    in protecting these important properties from development while
    enhancing diversity of habitat and recreational opportunities in the
    Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forest.
        Thank you, again, for the opportunity to present this testimony in
    support of the funding needed to acquire these forest inholdings.
                                     ______

                Prepared Statement of the Georgia River Network

        Madam Chairman and honorable members of the subcommittee: I
    appreciate the opportunity to provide testimony on behalf of an
    important land acquisition funding need in the Oconee National Forest
    in Georgia. I am supporting an appropriation of $4 million from the
    Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) in fiscal year 2009 for the
    Chattahoochee/Oconee Riparian Project.
        Georgia River Network is a statewide organization working to
    protect and restore rivers across Georgia. We represent over 500
    Georgia citizens and 30+ river protection organizations. Land
    conservation is vital to our watershed conservation efforts. One of the
    organizations we work with, the Central Georgia Rivers Partnership,
    places middle Georgia land conservation as its cornerstone. A
    University of Georgia study found an area of middle Georgia
    encompassing Oconee National Forest areas to be the third wildest place
    in Georgia, behind the Okefenokee Swamp and the Chattahoochee National
    Forest. The area is also under unprecedented development pressures.
    Conserving Central Georgia rural and natural areas are important to our
    quality of life, our cultural and historic heritage and community
    economic wellbeing. From the headwaters to where they join to form the
    Altamaha, the Ocmulgee and Oconee river corridors possess natural,
    historic and prehistoric treasures and has many citizens, agency
    personnel, and businesses interested in conserving land throughout the
    area. A variety of management plans and conservation areas already
    exist in Central Georgia, and the CGRP strives to connect these areas
    and plans together in order to conserve this special place.
        As you know, Madam Chairman, these projects included in the program
    are some of many worthy acquisition projects nationwide seeking LWCF
    funding. Unfortunately since fiscal year 2002, funding for LWCF has
    diminished by about 75 percent, and the fiscal year 2009 Budget
    proposes further cuts. These reductions have left our national parks,
    refuges, and forests unable to acquire from willing sellers critical
    inholdings and adjacent lands that have been identified to protect and
    enhance recreational access, historic sites, wildlife habitats, scenic
    areas, water resources, and other important features. I urge the
    subcommittee to increase overall funding for this program in fiscal
    year 2009.
        The Chattahoochee-Oconee National Forests encompass the ridges and
    valleys of the southern Appalachians in north Georgia as well as
    significant recreational, historical, and natural resources in the
    Georgia Piedmont. These forests provide important habitat for over 500
    wildlife species, including many unique mountain species of plants, and
    contain over 1,000 miles of primary trout and warm-water streams.
        The watersheds within the Chattahoochee and Oconee National Forests
    supply the drinking water for the largest urban areas in the State of
    Georgia. These watersheds not only provide recreational opportunities,
    but also critical habitat for dozens of threatened, endangered, and
    sensitive aquatic species. The Chattachoochee-Oconee National Forests
    are featured in the 2007 Forest Service publication, National Forests
    on the Edge, a report that examines the challenges faced by the
    national forest system due to the high growth in housing density
    projected to occur on adjacent private land between 2000 and 2030. This
    area in Georgia is at very high risk for development due to its close
    location to Atlanta, Athens, and Macon. Already, the building of second
    homes threatens the forests by fragmenting wildlife habitat,
    complicating wildfire management, and increasing the amount of nonpoint
    source pollution in the area.
        Within the Oconee National Forest, the Ocmulgee River watershed is
    threatened by such growth. The Ocmulgee is one of the most productive
    and diverse fisheries in the Georgia Piedmont. There are a variety of
    microhabitats throughout its wide channel, including shoals, riffles,
    and pools. This riparian corridor provides many water-based
    recreational opportunities, which include some of the best shoal bass
    fishing in the state as well as excellent canoeing, camping, hiking,
    hunting, swimming, and horseback riding.
        Among the priorities of the Chattahoochee/Oconee Riparian Project
    is the Cedar Creek parcel. Its acquisition will further the
    consolidation of Oconee National Forest lands and protect the water
    quality of Cedar Creek and the Ocmulgee River. The Forest Service
    designated Cedar Creek as an ``outstandingly remarkable stream'' within
    the Chattahoochee-Oconee NF. Preventing the development of this land
    will also protect more habitat for wildlife such as the red-cockaded
    woodpecker, wood stork, and gray bat--all federally listed endangered
    species. The current owner of the Cedar Creek property is a timber
    company seeking to sell off its inholdings. Unless the Forest Service
    is able to acquire and protect this land, it will very likely be
    developed in the near future. In fiscal year 2009, $4 million is
    required from the Forest Service through the Land and Water
    Conservation Fund to acquire and conserve the Cedar Creek property, as
    well as other worthy land acquisition projects within the Chattahoochee
    and Oconee national forests. This acquisition will protect important
    cultural, recreational and wildlife areas, protect clean drinking
    water, and facilitate improved management of national forest lands in
    Georgia.
        Thank you, Madam Chairman, for the opportunity to present testimony
    in support of these important acquisition projects.
                                     ______

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

     AGENCIES--BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

        1. BIA TREATY RIGHTS PROTECTION/IMPLEMENTATION: $4,327,000
    ($452,000 above fiscal year 2008 appropriation).
        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 Treaty Authority.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Funding Authorizations: Snyder Act, 25 U.S.C. Sec. 13; Indian Self-
    Determination and Educational Assistance Act, 25 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 450f
    and 450h; and the treaties between the United States and GLIFWC's
    member Ojibwe Tribes, specifically Treaty of 1836, 7 Stat. 491, Treaty
    of 1837, 7 Stat. 536, Treaty of 1842, 7 Stat. 591, and Treaty of 1854,
    10 Stat. 1109.\2\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ The rights guaranteed by these treaties, and the associated
    tribal regulatory and management responsibilities, have been affirmed
    by various court decisions, including a 1999 U.S. Supreme Court case.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        2. EPA ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAMS AND MANAGEMENT: $300,000 (fiscal year
    2004 enacted).
        Agency/Program Line Item: Environmental Protection Agency,
    Environmental Programs and Management (funneled through the EPA's Great
    Lakes National Program Office).
        Funding Authorizations: Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. Sec. 1268(c);
    and treaties cited above.
        glifwc's goal--a secure funding base to fulfill treaty purposes
        As Congress has recognized for almost 25 years, funding for
    GLIFWC's conservation, natural resource protection, and law enforcement
    programs honors Federal treaty obligations to 11 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: $4,327,000. As its
    primary Indian Self-Determination and Educational Assistance Act
    funding base, GLIFWC seeks to:
        a. restore $227,000 \3\ in program operational costs lost to
    continually decreasing base funding over the last four years;
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \3\ This amount includes $151,000 in fixed pay costs that the
    Bureau has been providing but that needs to be preserved in future
    appropriations.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        b. provide $150,000 to sustain enhancements in conservation
    enforcement and emergency services capabilities; and
        c. 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 eleven member Ojibwe Tribes regarding their ceded
    territory (off-reservation) hunting, fishing and gathering treaty
    rights. Its mission is to: (i) ensure that its member Tribes are able
    to exercise their rights for the purposes of meeting subsistence,
    economic, cultural, medicinal, and spiritual needs; and (ii) 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 almost 25 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 four years; \4\ (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; \5\ and (iv) sustain cultural infusion programs designed to
    sustain and foster inter-generational transfer of Chippewa language,
    lifeways and traditional ecological knowledge.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \4\ 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.
        \5\GLIFWC has: (i) upgraded its patrol capabilities with new
    vehicles, boats, snowmobiles, and off-road vehicles; (ii) increased
    officer medical training and upgraded first aid equipment; (iii)
    upgraded its radio systems to be compatible with surrounding agencies;
    and (iv) established ongoing joint training with federal, state, and
    local agencies.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        2. REMAIN A TRUSTED ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PARTNER AND SCIENTIFIC
    CONTRIBUTOR IN THE GREAT LAKES REGION: With the requested EPA funding
    base, GLIFWC would maintain its ability to bring a tribal perspective
    to the interjurisdictional mix of Great Lakes managers.\6\ It also
    would use its scientific expertise to study issues and geographic areas
    that are important to its member Tribes but that others may not be
    examining.\7\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \6\ GLIFWC currently participates on a regular basis in the
    Binational Program to Restore and Protect Lake Superior, International
    Joint Commission and SOLEC forums, the Great Lakes Regional
    Collaboration, and the implementation of agreements to regulate water
    diversions and withdrawals under the Great Lakes Charter, Annex 2001.
        \7\ With the requested fiscal year 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 that:
    (i) provide accurate information and data to counter social
    misconceptions about tribal treaty harvests and the status of ceded
    territory natural resources; (ii) maximize each partner's financial
    resources; (iii) avoid duplication of effort and costs; (iv) engender
    cooperation rather than competition; and (v) undertake projects and
    achieve public benefits that no one partner could accomplish alone.
                     other related appropriations concerns
        1. Fully Funded BIA Contract Support Costs.--GLIFWC seeks full
    funding of its contract support costs. In 2007, for the first time
    ever, GLIFWC received full funding of its indirect costs and a portion
    of its direct contract support costs. GLIFWC strives to maintain a low
    indirect cost rate, thereby enabling the majority of federally
    contracted funds to go directly toward program services, not
    administrative costs. In fiscal year 2008, GLIFWC's fixed-carry forward
    indirect cost rate is 17.59 percent.
        2. BIA Circle of Flight Tribal Wetland & Waterfowl Initiative.--
    Once again, Congress should fully fund this long-standing tribal
    contribution to the North American Waterfowl Management Plan that the
    administration again proposes to eliminate.
                                     ______

                 Prepared Statement of the Green Mountain Club

        Madam Chairman and honorable members of the subcommittee: Thank you
    for the opportunity to present this testimony in support of an
    appropriation of $4 million from the Forest Legacy Program to protect
    the 5,727-acre Eden Forest property in Eden, Vermont.
        I also urge your support for a significant increase in funding for
    the Forest Legacy Program in fiscal year 2009 to enable the protection
    of more forest resources than are included in the President's Budget.
    The Budget for this year proposes a cut of 75 percent and sets aside
    funds for only three Forest Legacy projects nationwide out of 87
    submitted by the States. Without additional funds, the program will not
    be able to continue its successful partnerships with States, local
    communities, and landowners to protect valuable forestlands, while
    retaining, in many cases, private ownership.
        The Forest Legacy Program in Vermont seeks to achieve significant
    conservation goals for the State by protecting the following types of
    land: large contiguous and productive forest blocks, wildlife habitat
    dependent on 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 2009
    is the 5,727-acre Eden Forest. Situated on the spine of the northern
    Green Mountains in Eden and Johnson. This large contiguous timber tract
    is truly a high-quality forest, which contains two unique natural
    communities known as red spruce hardwood swamp and semi-rich northern
    hardwood forest. The property has been managed for timber for over 50
    years and, given the excellent condition of the forest and forest
    roads, is well positioned to continue providing forest products far
    into the future.
        Eden Forest is adjacent to 24,188 acres of conserved land and
    shares a common boundary with the Long Trail State Forest and the Long
    Trail corridor itself for approximately four miles. The Long Trail is
    the Nation's oldest long-distance hiking trail and one of Vermont's
    most cherished cultural resources. The property also contains portions
    of both Bowen and Butternut Mountain summits. Its protection would
    create a 30,000-acre block of protected land, a significant
    unfragmented ``core'' forest in Vermont's northern woods.
        Eden Forest's close proximity to such ecological hotspots as the
    Babcock Nature Preserve, the Atlas Timberlands, and Green River
    Reservoir State Park coupled with the large unfragmented nature of the
    property will provide a haven for many wildlife species such as black
    bear, bobcat, gray and red fox, moose, and deer. Over 5,000 acres of
    the property is considered ``core'' habitat and has received a high
    wildlife-linkage-value rating by the Vermont Department of Fish and
    Wildlife due in part to it being a ``black bear production habitat''
    area. These areas support a relatively high density of cub-producing
    females. This property also has 120 acres of beaver wetlands that
    provide habitat for wood ducks, wood turtles, and many species of
    warblers. A rookery for great blue herons, a rare species in Vermont,
    was found at one of the property's wetland complexes.
        The Eden Forest property encapsulates almost the entire watersheds
    of two Gihon River headwater streams, Stony Brook and Wild Brook. It
    also contains approximately one-half mile of frontage on both sides of
    the Gihon River itself, which is a tributary of the Lamoille River, and
    abuts Vermont's scenic Route 100. The property includes more than 46
    miles of streams and rivers that make up part of the Gihon River
    headwaters. The Lamoille County watershed plan recognizes the
    importance of protecting the Gihon River headwaters area for its near-
    pristine natural condition, wildlife and fish habitat value, timber
    value, and location adjacent to a core of protected land. Numerous
    wetlands dot the extensive property, including the six-acre Lanpher
    Meadow.
        Historically, the Eden Forest property has also provided numerous
    recreational activities such as hiking, hunting, and cross-country
    skiing. Snowmobiling is also allowed, and the property hosts trails
    that are managed by the Vermont Association of Snow Travelers (VAST).
    Lamoille County also has the largest connected network of cross-county
    ski trails in the world, and this project could help expand that
    network in the future. These activities all make up an important part
    of the local tourist economy.
        Eden Forest is under immediate pressure from development. According
    to 2000 census data, the town of Eden has the second highest percentage
    of population growth in Lamoille County, and its projected population
    growth through 2015 is expected to continue at a higher rate than
    almost any other town in the county. Eden also had a 25 percent
    increase in the number of housing units from 1990 to 2000, indicating a
    high demand for new homes in the area. This type of sprawl is largely
    to blame for the fragmentation of Vermont's forests and farms. With its
    first-rate access to Route 100, low-elevation open meadows, well-
    developed road network, southern exposure, scenic views, and proximity
    to the major cities in Vermont, Eden Forest is a prime spot for
    development.
        Thank you again, Madam Chairman for the opportunity to present this
    testimony in support of an appropriation of $4 million from the Forest
    Legacy Program in fiscal year 2009 to protect the vast 5,727-acre Eden
    Forest property.
                                     ______

    Prepared Statement of the Hanover County Board of Supervisors, Hanover
                                County, Virginia

        On behalf of the Hanover County, Virginia Board of Supervisors, I
    thank you Senator Feinstein and Senator Allard for the opportunity to
    submit testimony regarding Hanover County's efforts to protect the
    Chesapeake Bay. To further our efforts to protect the Bay, Hanover
    County respectfully requests $1.884 million through the Environmental
    Protection Agency (EPA), State and Tribal Assistance Grants (STAG) for
    the Sharon Park Septic Tank Elimination and Public Sewer Extension
    Project. Failing septic systems have been shown to be a contributor to
    the current impaired status of the Bay. Completion of this project will
    not only protect the health of Hanover County residents, but will also
    further Hanover County's efforts to protect the Chesapeake Bay.
        Hanover County, located in the east-central Piedmont and Coastal
    Plain areas of Virginia between the Chickahominy and Pamunkey Rivers,
    is part of the greater Richmond metropolitan area. The County land area
    is 471 square miles bordered by the Counties of Caroline, King William,
    New Kent, Henrico, Goochland, Spotsylvania and Louisa. Hanover County
    is a vibrant rural and suburban locality. The County has two interstate
    highways, I-95 and I-295, which are among the busiest in the eastern
    United States. The County has a population of approximately 100,000,
    and is an excellent environment in which to live, for it offers a taste
    of rural America (it is the home of the internationally renowned
    Hanover Tomato) in the greater Richmond area. Hanover County is great
    horse country and boasts some of the finest livestock farms in central
    Virginia. The County, one of the fastest growing in the state,
    continues to be an exciting community where history is preserved for
    the future.
        Hanover County is dedicated to protecting the Chesapeake Bay. The
    County was the first jurisdiction in the metro Richmond region to adopt
    the revised Chesapeake Bay Regulations, and voluntarily included
    Biological Nutrient Removal in the design of the new wastewater
    treatment plant. The County also implemented a growth management
    program (Smart Growth) well before such programs became popular. Under
    Hanover's Smart Growth program, 78 percent of the County's 471 square
    miles will remain rural in nature (agricultural, forestall and low
    density residential). The remaining 22 percent will be suburban style
    development. Hanover is managing its Smart Growth program through
    funding incentives and the construction of public water and wastewater
    facilities. Hanover's water and sewer rates are among the highest in
    the region due in part to the investment in infrastructure to support
    the growth management program.
        Hanover County requests Federal assistance in order to complete
    another important step in the County's plan to protect the Chesapeake
    Bay watershed by extending public sewer to the Sharon Park subdivision
    which currently relies on a septic system. The Sharon Park subdivision
    is located in the Chesapeake Bay watershed. Point source discharges
    such as industrial and wastewater treatment plan discharges are
    currently regulated, and managers of these entities are working to
    reduce pollutant discharges. However, septic systems are unregulated.
    To fully achieve the goals of the Chesapeake Bay 2000 Agreement,
    programs to eliminate failing septic systems, like Sharon Park, are
    necessary. The Sharon Park project provides an approach to advance the
    goals of the 2000 agreement by eliminating failing septic systems.
        Sharon Park is a mature subdivision dating back to 1950.
    Approximately 85 of the subdivision's 120 lots, which range in size
    from half an acre to one acre, are developed. Under normal conditions
    the life expectancy for a septic system is between 20 and 30 years and
    the older septic systems in Sharon Park are now failing--creating both
    health and environmental hazards. Because of the lot sizes, the Sharon
    Park residents are precluded from rectifying the problem through
    replacement of the septic systems. Because many in Sharon Park rely on
    individual wells for drinking water, the septic tank failures and their
    impact on the surrounding soil present a significant public health
    threat.
        Providing wastewater service to Sharon Park Subdivision involves
    the construction of approximately 10,500 linear feet of 8-inch gravity
    sewer, a new pump station, and an approximately 3,300 foot long force
    main. The estimated cost to retrofit Sharon Park is approximately
    $3.425 million or $28,500 per household (approximately $119 per month
    for 20 years assuming 0 percent interest loan--total sewer bill would
    be approximately 2.1 percent of median household income). Hanover
    County is requesting $1,884,000 in Federal funding, 55 percent of the
    project cost.
        The Chesapeake Bay Program has determined that nitrogen and
    phosphorous are the major contributors to the impaired status of the
    Chesapeake Bay, and septic systems are significant contributors to the
    nitrogen load. According to the 1990 Bureau of the Census data, 24.7
    percent of housing units in the Chesapeake Bay watershed rely on septic
    tanks or cesspools to treat their household wastewater. Population is
    expected to increase by 18 percent between 1997 and the year 2020 (from
    15.1 million to nearly 17.8 million). Nitrogen loads from septic
    systems are expected to increase as population increases. Because
    increase in nitrogen loads from septic systems is generally attributed
    to growth, the increase in load due to the failing systems may be even
    greater. The York River Tributary Strategy data shows nitrogen
    discharges from septic systems into the York River Basin will increase
    by 38 percent between 1985 and 2010 due to growth. This assumes all
    other septic systems are in good working order and being maintained
    properly.
        Hanover County proposes to support reduced nitrogen loads by
    eliminating the failing septic systems in the Sharon Park subdivision.
    A resident hooked to an advanced wastewater treatment plant sends about
    two pounds of nitrogen into the Chesapeake Bay waterways annually,
    whereas a septic tank produces about nine pounds annually. With
    previous support from this subcommittee, Hanover County has nearly
    completed a similar project in the Atlee Manor subdivision, a
    neighborhood very similar to Sharon Park that also lies in the
    Chesapeake Bay watershed. The completion of these projects will have a
    profound and recognizable impact on the health of the Chesapeake Bay.
        On behalf of Hanover County, I would like to thank the subcommittee
    for its commitment to protecting the Chesapeake Bay. Hanover County
    requests that this subcommittee again support the County's efforts to
    protect the Bay by providing additional support to eliminate the septic
    tanks in the Sharon Park subdivision. Thank you again for the
    opportunity to submit testimony on behalf of Hanover County. We look
    forward to continuing to work with the subcommittee to achieve our
    mutual goal of enhancing and protecting the health and beauty of the
    complex ecosystem of the Chesapeake Bay.
                                     ______

                Prepared Statement of the Hawaii Audubon Society

        Madam Chairman and honorable members of the subcommittee: Thank
    you, Madam Chairman for the opportunity to present this testimony in
    behalf of the Hawaii Audubon Society in support of an appropriation of
    $6 million for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) to continue
    the protection of an 850-acre tract at the James Campbell National
    Wildlife Refuge on O`ahu in Hawai`i.
        Founded in 1939, the Hawai`i Audubon Society is the State's oldest
    conservation organization, and it has played a proactive role in
    furthering its primary mission of fostering community values that
    result in the protection and restoration of native ecosystems and
    conservation of natural resources through education, science and
    advocacy in Hawai`i and the Pacific.
        The James Campbell National Wildlife Refuge is a strategic landfall
    for migratory birds coming from as far away as Alaska, Siberia, and
    Asia. It is also the largest of O`ahu's national wildlife refuges,
    providing both research and educational opportunities. Established in
    1976, the refuge serves as one of the last reservoirs for Hawai`i's
    four endangered waterbird species--Hawaiian coot, Hawaiian duck,
    Hawaiian moorhen, and Hawaiian stilt--and as winter haven for migratory
    waterfowl and shorebirds. A total of 117 bird species have been
    documented on the refuge since its inception. The refuge currently
    includes 260 acres in two units--Ki`i and Punamano, separated by nearly
    a mile. The Punamano unit includes a natural spring-fed pond, whereas
    the Ki`i unit, a remnant of a formerly larger marsh, has been
    drastically modified by agriculture. Due to the sensitivity and small
    acreage, access to the refuge is restricted, but guided tours
    periodically are offered to the general public and environmental
    education groups. In addition, school groups are accommodated on a
    regular basis during the non-nesting season.
        As the members of this committee know, in May 2006, Congress passed
    the James Campbell National Wildlife Refuge Expansion Act in response
    to longstanding public concerns about protecting O`ahu's natural
    resources and open space on the Kahuku coastal plain.
        This authorization allows the USFWS to acquire lands within the
    expanded refuge boundary from the Estate of James Campbell. The refuge
    expansion will protect the natural coastal wetlands and natural dune
    habitats of the Kahuku coastal area and ensure a protected haven for
    all four species of endangered Hawaiian waterbirds and a variety of
    migratory shorebirds and waterfowl that use coastal wetlands and
    surrounding lands. Protection of the dune and strand vegetation near
    the coast will conserve resting areas for the endangered Hawaiian monk
    seal, and nesting habitat for the threatened green sea turtles that use
    Kahuku beaches.
        As one of the few scattered remnants of wetland habitat that still
    exist on O`ahu, the James Campbell National Wildlife Refuge is one of
    the most productive waterbird wetlands for resident and migratory
    species. The expansion of the refuge will also provide visitors
    increased opportunities to view native Hawaiian wildlife and some of
    the last remaining pristine coastal habitat on O`ahu. Expansion will
    offer year-round wildlife viewing opportunities as well as the eventual
    establishment of an outdoor education center for students. Activities
    would focus on the importance of wetlands, their cultural significance,
    the plight of native plants and birds, and efforts to conserve and
    restore essential wetland habitat to save these species from
    extinction. Further, acquisition of this coastal site will aid in
    cultural resource protection, as it is believed the land encompasses
    ancient Hawaiian burial grounds.
        In previous fiscal years, $8 million has been appropriated to help
    implement the expansion. An appropriation of $6 million from the Land
    and Water Conservation Fund in fiscal year 2009 will bring closer to
    completion the permanent protection of 850 acres of diverse habitat
    lands within the expanded refuge boundary. This project will provide
    habitat for some of Hawai`i's most endangered species and will expand
    on existing wildlife viewing opportunities to the multitude of visitors
    who are expected to come to the James Campbell National Wildlife Refuge
    annually.
        Madam Chairwoman, I'm sure that you are well aware that this
    project is one of many worthy acquisition projects nationwide seeking
    LWCF funding. Unfortunately since fiscal year 2002, funding for LWCF
    has diminished by about 75 percent, and the fiscal year 2009 Budget
    proposes further cuts. These reductions have left our national parks,
    refuges, and forests unable to acquire from willing sellers critical
    holdings in adjacent lands that have been identified to protect and
    enhance recreational access, historic sites, wildlife habitats, scenic
    areas, water resources, and other important features. On behalf of the
    Hawai`i Audubon Society and its members I urge the subcommittee to
    increase overall funding for this program in fiscal year 2009.
        Mahalo for the opportunity to present this testimony in support of
    this important conservation project in Hawai`i.
                                     ______

                 Prepared Statement of the Highlands Coalition

        On behalf of the regional Board of the Highlands Coalition, which
    includes over 180 organizations working together to conserve nationally
    important natural resources in the Highlands region of Connecticut, New
    York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania, we would like to thank you for the
    opportunity to comment on the fiscal year 2009 Department of the
    Interior, Environment and Related Agencies Appropriations bill.
        Our top priorities for fiscal year 2009 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
      --$120 million in land acquisition funding for the Forest Legacy
            program
      --$403 million for the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act Federal
            and stateside land acquisition program.

                           HIGHLANDS CONSERVATION ACT

    Priority Land Acquisition
        Just over 3 years ago, Congress enacted and President Bush signed
    the Highlands Conservation Act, recognizing the national significance
    of the 3.5 million acre Highlands region as a source of drinking water,
    productive forests and working farms, wildlife habitat and recreational
    opportunities for the 25 million people who live within an hour of its
    resources. The Highlands shadows the major metropolitan areas of the
    east coast from Harrisburg, Philadelphia, Allentown, New York City and
    Hartford. The act authorized $100 million over 10 years to assist the
    Highlands States in conserving priority lands from willing landowners,
    and $10 million over 10 years to continue vital USDA Forest Service
    research and assistance to private landowners in the Highlands. Under
    the act, the four States acquire the lands with Federal assistance and
    are required to match those Federal funds for land conservation
    partnership projects on an equal basis to greater leverage these funds.
    These lands are evaluated and identified in three separate Forest
    Service studies of the Highlands in 1992, 2002, and 2008.
        As happened in the President's budget for fiscal year 2008, no
    funding has been provided for the Highlands Conservation Act (HCA) in
    the fiscal year 2009 budget. This means that none of the analytically
    selected and prioritized land conservation partnership projects in the
    four Highland States can be accomplished in fiscal year 2009 without
    action by Congress. We strongly urge the committee to provide full
    funding for the HCA at a total of $11 million with $10 million in land
    acquisition funding for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and $1
    million for the USDA Forest Service's technical assistance program in
    the Highlands. 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 provide increased technical assistance to State agencies,
    private landowners and local communities to advance sound stewardship
    and management of important resources in the region.
        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 2009, including:
    Cooks Creek Watershed & South Mountain (PA)
        Funding for the Highlands Conservation Act program in fiscal year
    2009 would fund land acquisition efforts on 567 acres in the Cooks
    Creek area of Pennsylvania (Durham Township, Bucks County). Cooks Creek
    originates in the diabase and quartzite hills of Springfield Township
    and flows through the limestone valley at Springtown to empty into the
    Delaware River. The area's steep forested hills, unique to Bucks
    County, are due to this geology. Cooks Creek Watershed has a long
    colonial history, dating to 1698, when British settlers sought the
    area's iron deposits. Pioneer families settled by the 1730's and many
    of their historic structures along Cooks Creek, including mills,
    bridges, homes, churches and schools, still stand. Durham Mine, now
    abandoned, is the State's second largest bat hibernaculum, an Important
    Mammal Area home to six bat species. The surrounding forest is
    important bat and rare bird habitat. Cooks Creek is Bucks County's only
    viable coldwater fishery, supports naturally reproducing trout and is a
    PA DEP Exceptional Value waterway. The watershed's rural valley has
    working prime farmland and numerous rare and endangered species. The
    1999 Bucks County Natural Areas Inventory rates the area Priority 1,
    Heritage Conservancy includes Cooks Creek Watershed as part of its
    Lasting Landscapes Program, and the Highlands Coalition has designated
    it an area of special concern.
        Wildlands Conservancy, the City of Allentown, the County of Lehigh,
    Salisbury Township and Emmaus established Lehigh County's South
    Mountain-Robert Rodale Reserve, comprised mostly of Allentown's South
    Mountain Park and Wildland Conservancy's South Mountain Preserve, to
    protect the Lehigh Valley's scenic viewshed and important wildlife
    habitat, and to provide residents with nearby recreational
    opportunities. The reserve contains maturing second-growth forest, rare
    and threatened species, including two plant species of special concern,
    and nesting habitat for more than 59 bird species. Vernal pools here
    are thought to be the State's most active for salamanders, and are
    surrounded by intact forest, which is critical for amphibians. Lehigh
    County has designated the Robert Rodale Reserve site a top-priority
    natural area, and South Mountain preservation efforts have been ongoing
    for more than a decade. South Mountain is a prominent landscape within
    the Highlands of Lehigh and Northampton counties.

    Wyanokie/Farny Highlands & Ramapo Mountains (NJ)
        The Wyanokie and Farny Highlands were identified as a Conservation
    Focal Area in the USDA Forest Service NY-NJ Highlands Regional Study:
    2002 Update. The Wyanokie and Farny Highlands contain 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 addition, preservation will help complete a missing
    greenway link between Norvin Green State Forest and Long Pond Ironworks
    State Park, and extend a direct connection to New York's Sterling
    Forest State Park along the route of the Highlands Millennium Trail,
    which travels 150 miles between the Hudson and Delaware Rivers. The
    Wyanokie Highlands boast an extensive network of historic hiking trails
    and dramatic scenic overlooks, as well as significant ecological
    values. The Wyanokie Highlands Project consists of 855 acres in Passaic
    County in three parcels: 400 acres on Saddle Mountain in Ringwood
    Borough and West Milford Township, 155 acres on Westbrook Mountain and
    300 acres on Buck Mountain, both in West Milford.
        The Ramapo Mountains were identified as a Conservation Focal Area
    in the USDA Forest Service NY-NJ Highlands Regional Study: 2002 Update.
    Located in Bergen and Passaic counties, the Ramapo Mountains contain
    important watersheds and outstanding parklands that protect the
    easternmost ridge of the Highlands, with its breathtaking views of
    Manhattan, for significant public recreational use Acquisition of the
    Camp Yaw Paw property will finally close a critical gap in existing
    protected lands and assure the preservation of significant unfragmented
    forest that is home to threatened and endangered species including
    barred owl, Cooper's hawk, northern goshawk, red-shouldered hawk,
    timber rattlesnake and wood turtle. Preservation of 209-acre camp Yaw
    Paw in Mahwah Township, Bergen County and Ringwood Borough, Passaic
    County will enlarge Ramapo Mountain State Forest and adjoining Ringwood
    State Park, which total 8,300+ acres, by acquiring an inholding which
    also connects to over 2,000 acres of County parklands.

    Ethel Walker (CT)
        The State of Connecticut requests Highlands Conservation Act funds
    to protect Phase II of the Ethel Walker Property--91 acres of
    ecologically rich forest, streams, meadows and floodplains. Phase I,
    336 acres, is expected to close soon in a fee and conservation easement
    deal with the Town of Simsbury, which will make a $1 million non-
    refundable deposit on an option to purchase the remaining 91 acres.
    Ethel Walker contains Class I watershed land and the primary recharge
    area for the Stratton Brook Aquifer which provides 10,000+ residents
    with drinking water. The property lies within Simsbury's Aquifer
    Protection Zone (APZ) and CT DEP's Preliminary APZ. There are extensive
    pubic hiking and equestrian trails here. Large stands of mature
    conifers support more than 60 forest nesting and migratory bird
    species, including a high density of northerly or higher elevation bird
    species. The American Bittern, a CT endangered species, has been
    documented here by the Hartford Audubon Society. Stratton Brook
    supports native Eastern Brook Trout, in decline throughout CT. Ethel
    Walker is contiguous with several preserved properties; if all 427
    acres here are preserved, the property would form the core of 1,400
    acres of open space. CT's 2003 Regional Plan of Development identifies
    Ethel Walker as high conservation value and a key piece to protect.
    Great Swamp and Greater Sterling Forest Areas (NY)
        The Great Swamp is one of NY's most important wetland complexes and
    one of NY's largest and highest quality red maple hardwood swamps. This
    project consists of a 647-acre parcel in Putnam County's Harlem Valley,
    in the East Branch Reservoir Watershed of the NYC Croton Reservoir
    System. An Audubon Society-designated ``Important Birding Area,'' the
    Great Swamp constitutes a 63,000-acre watershed and is breeding habitat
    for more than 90 bird species and migratory habitat for more than 180
    species of waterfowl and other birds. Great blue heron, red-tailed
    hawk, marsh wren, osprey, wood duck, thrushes, vireos, warblers, and
    scarlet tanager make their home here. Located less than 70 miles from
    New York City, this vast and fragile wetland provides numerous benefits
    to residents of New York and Connecticut, including drinking water,
    flood control, recreation, open space, and wildlife habitat. The Great
    Swamp contains a south-flowing section of the East Branch Croton River,
    a critical part of New York City's water supply system, and a north-
    flowing section of the Swamp River which flows into the Housatonic and,
    ultimately, to Long Island Sound. This project is a New York State Open
    Space Conservation Plan (2006) priority site.
        The Sterling Forest Fairgrounds, the Sterling Forest Ski Center,
    the Torsoe property, Arrow Park, the former Kings College property,
    Tuxedo Reserve and the Shirazi property are inholdings and adjacent to
    Sterling Forest. These lands buffer the park, which citizens have
    worked tirelessly to preserve. In close proximity to the Appalachian
    National Scenic Trail, these 1,630 acres contain scenic lakes,
    woodlands, and wetlands, as well as frontage on Orange Turnpike. The
    properties may be developed if not protected. Sterling Forest State
    Park is a great accomplishment of public-private land conservation
    between the Federal Government, the States of New York and New Jersey,
    and private organizations. Preservation of private inholdings and
    adjacent properties, such as these, will safeguard this $78-million
    investment while protecting drinking water, wildlife habitat, and
    recreational, historic, cultural, and scenic resources. This project is
    a New York State Open Space Conservation Plan (2006) priority site.
    Forest Legacy Program and Projects
        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 $120 million in fiscal year 2009. We support this
    funding as it will serve to provide support for important Forest Legacy
    projects in the Highlands region including four exemplary projects:
    Lake Waubeeka (CT), Fishkill Ridge (NY), Passaic Ramapo Watershed (NJ)
    and Tree Farm #1--Mount Hope Tract (PA). These two represent very high
    priorities for conservation that would protect unique and critical
    forests in the eastern United States.
        The Forest Legacy Program is an outstanding example of prioritized,
    strategic Federal conservation program, and a hallmark for how the
    Federal Government can help accomplish sound partnership conservation
    projects with States, municipalities, and nonprofits. Unfortunately,
    funding for this program has decreased significantly over the past
    decade. The fiscal year 2009 President's budget includes just $12.5
    million--representing just three projects nationwide, which would
    protect only 300 acres. Clearly there is a much larger demand as
    evidenced by the States' submissions for the program, totaling over
    $200 million in demonstrated need.
    Land and Water Conservation Fund
        The proposed cuts to the Land & Water Conservation Fund for fiscal
    year 2009, which continue the trend of gravely declining budget for
    this critically important program. The program is the core Federal
    conservation program enabling both the Federal and State governments to
    target and protect vitally important natural resources. While LWCF
    ought to be fully funded at its authorized amount--$900 million--we are
    requesting that this subcommittee and Congress fund LWCF at $403
    million, including $278 for Federal acquisition programs and $125 for
    State programs. This funding would include support for the critical
    acquisitions at the Wallkill National Wildlife Refuge in New Jersey.
        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 for the opportunity to submit this testimony on the
    fiscal year 2009 Interior Environment and Related Agencies
    Appropriations bill.
                                     ______

         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 2009 Budget Request for the
    Office of Surface Mining (OSM) within the U.S. Department of the
    Interior. In its proposed budget, OSM is requesting $63.7 million to
    fund Title V grants to States and Indian tribes for the implementation
    of their regulatory programs and $30.8 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 $62.6 million for Title V grants to
    States in fiscal year 2009, an amount which is matched by the States
    each year. [The figures we will use in this statement reflect grants to
    States only, not Indian tribes. The tribes have recently seen
    significant increases in their Title V grants due to the tribal primacy
    provisions contained in the 2006 Amendments to SMCRA.] 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 fiscal year 2008, Congress approved an additional $5 million
    over the President's budget request of $60.5 million for State
    regulatory programs in OSM's budget, for a total of $65.5 million. The
    States are greatly encouraged by and are most appreciative of the
    significant increase in Title V funding approved by Congress in the
    fiscal year 2008 Omnibus Appropriations bill. Even with the 1.5 percent
    rescission and the allocation for tribal primacy programs, the States
    saw a $6 million increase for our regulatory programs over fiscal year
    2007 levels. As we noted in our statement on last year's budget, State
    Title V grants had been stagnant for over 12 years and the gap between
    the States' requests and what they received was widening. This
    debilitating trend was compounding the problems caused by inflation and
    uncontrollable costs, thus undermining our efforts to realize needed
    program improvements and enhancements and jeopardizing our efforts to
    control the impact of coal extraction operations on people and the
    environment.
        In its fiscal year 2009 budget, OSM is reversing the positive trend
    established by Congress last year. While OSM attempts to paint a
    picture of increased funding for Title V grants, its argument is
    disingenuous as the agency refers to fiscal year 2007 numbers in making
    its case. The fact is, OSM's proposed amount of $62.6 million for State
    Title V grants is $1 million less than what was allocated in fiscal
    year 2008 (after the rescission and tribal allocation). Our estimate of
    actual need for fiscal year 2009 is $68 million, leaving a difference
    of almost $6 million. This difference would be reduced by $2 million if
    Congress' approved amount for fiscal year 2008 was used as the base.
        This is not the time to reverse course and upset the effort to
    restore the efficacy of State regulatory programs. The States are
    finally in a position of seeing some meaningful recognition of their
    program expenses through the upward adjustments approved by Congress
    last year. The States are just now beginning to put last year's
    improved funding to work in their programs through the filling of
    vacant positions and the purchase of much needed equipment and supplies
    (including computers and vehicles). As States prepare their budgets for
    the next few years, there is an expectation that the amount approved by
    Congress will become the new base on which we will build into the
    future--otherwise we create a situation where layoffs would occur for
    those who were just hired. The States continue to face significant cost
    increases in their programs due to inflation, especially increased fuel
    and equipment costs. Health insurance premiums and cost of living
    adjustments are also significant factors in the annual operation of
    State programs, especially with personnel expenses representing some 80
    percent of total program costs. A new challenge has come in the form of
    retirements, where States are faced with buy-outs, paying for unused
    annual leave, and replacing an aging work force. These are substantial,
    often unanticipated, costs that are wreaking havoc on State budgets.
        It is essential that we maintain consistent funding from year to
    year in order to deploy resources for our programs. This is especially
    true with regard to hiring new staff to fill vacancies or to supplement
    under-staffed areas of the programs. We cannot afford to invest money
    in these positions and then face potential layoffs the next year
    because funding is not maintained. Sending these types of mixed signals
    to State legislatures and budget officers will undermine their ability
    to support their respective regulatory programs through matching State
    funds and may cause them to reexamine their commitment to these
    programs. A clear message from Congress that reliable, consistent
    funding will continue will do much to ensure that States can continue
    to implement these vital programs.
        As we have stated before, and as OSM notes in its budget
    justification document, the State regulation of coal production
    continues to be a tremendous bargain for the Federal Government since
    States are able to issue permits and regulate mines for far less than
    it would cost for Federal permitting and regulation. 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.
    If program funding shortfalls continue, the Nation risks the
    possibility of delayed production of a critical energy source and
    negative impacts to the environment. Stressing existing program
    resources also results in the delay or elimination of lower priority
    program functions.
        There continues to be no disagreement about the need demonstrated
    by the States. In fact, in OSM's budget justification document, the
    agency 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 76 of OSM's Budget Justification) For all the above
    reasons, we urge Congress to increase funding for State Title V
    regulatory grants in OSM's fiscal year 2009 budget to $68 million, as
    fully documented in the States' estimates for actual program operating
    costs. This represents a $1 million increase over our request for
    fiscal year 2008 and a $2.5 million increase over the amount approved
    by Congress last year.
        With regard to funding for State Title IV Abandoned Mine Land (AML)
    program grants, Congressional action in 2006 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. As a result,
    the States will receive mandatory funding in fiscal year 2009 of $298.4
    million for AML reclamation work. OSM also proposes to continue its
    support of the Watershed Cooperative Agreement program in the amount of
    $1.5 million, a program we strongly endorse.
        OSM also proposes an amount of $30.8 million for discretionary
    funding related to OSM operations under the Title IV program, which
    includes supplemental funding needed for minimum program States. Under
    the funding formula contained in the 2006 amendments to SMCRA, all of
    the States and tribes will receive funding increases except for minimum
    program States. They remain stagnant for the next fiscal year 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
    unfair and inappropriate for these States to have to wait yet another
    year 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 2009 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 the
    emergency program. OSM's budget would eliminate funding for state-run
    emergency programs and also for Federal emergency projects (in those
    States that do not administer their own emergency programs). Funding
    the OSM emergency program should be a top priority for OSM's
    discretionary spending. This funding has allowed the States and OSM to
    address the unanticipated AML emergencies that inevitably occur each
    year. 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.
        Section 410 of SMCRA establishes an emergency reclamation procedure
    for AML sites that pose a ``sudden danger with a high probability of
    substantial physical harm to the health, safety or general welfare of
    people before it can be abated under normal program operation
    procedures''. (OSM Directive AML-4). In a Federal Register notice dated
    March 6, 1980 (45 Fed. Reg. 14810), OSM noted that ``the Secretary of
    the Interior working through OSM has the responsibility for projects
    administered under these authorities.'' (emphasis added). Therefore,
    the authority for the implementation of the emergency program is placed
    solely on the Secretary. The same Federal Register notice States that
    emergencies are differentiated from priority one problems in section
    403 of SMCRA.
        Additionally, the funding for the emergency program is separate
    from the State and tribal non-emergency AML grant funding since it
    comes from the Secretary's ``discretionary share''. Funding for
    emergencies is provided for in section 402(g)(3) of SMCRA and is used
    for the purposes described therein and with monies remaining after the
    distributions required under sections 402(g)(1), (g)(2) and (g)(5).
    Section 402(g)(1)(C) specifically requires that the non-emergency State
    share be used only for annual reclamation project construction and
    administration costs. The non-emergency Federal share allocated to the
    States in Section 402(g)(5) is used to supplement the State share
    received under 402(g)(1) until the priorities set forth in section
    403(a)(1) and (2) are met. Emergencies do not fall under section 403,
    but are provided for only in section 410. This matter was spoken to
    very directly in a report to the Interior Subcommittee of the House
    Appropriations Committee entitled ``Cleaning Up the Damage: An Analysis
    of the Operation of the AML Program'' in 1992. Rep. Carl C. Perkins (D-
    KY) stated in the report: ``The AML emergency program has existed
    separately and been run differently from normal AML programs for very
    good reason: it deals with separate types of problems. Indeed, the
    Congress recognized this distinction when it devoted a special section
    (410) of SMCRA to the Secretary of the Interior with special powers to
    cope with AML emergencies. Reversing this division of responsibility
    cannot be accomplished simply by reallocating funds. There are a number
    of other hurdles which have to be negotiated.''
        While there were several significant changes to the AML program
    under SMCRA as a result of the 2006 amendments recently passed by
    Congress, there were absolutely no changes to the emergency program
    under section 410 of the Act. In fact, significant funding increases
    were approved by Congress that would allow the States to address long
    overdue reclamation problems including landslides, contaminated
    drinking water, refuse piles, dangerous highwalls, mine fires, and
    exposed mine portals. Diverting these monies to the emergency program,
    as suggested by OSM's budget, would impede the progress the States are
    now making to address AML problems that have been awaiting funding for
    years. In this regard, new section 402(g)(1)(D)(2) requires that the
    Secretary ensure ``strict compliance'' by the States in their use of
    non-emergency grant funds for the priorities listed in section 403(a).
    For the States to do otherwise would require at the least a rulemaking
    by OSM, if not legislative adjustment. It would also reverse 30 years
    of official guidance and practice by OSM. We therefore request that
    Congress restore $21 million for the AML emergency program in OSM's
    fiscal year 2009 budget.
        We also urge the committee to support adequate funding for OSM's
    training program, including monies 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 2009 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.
                                     ______

            Prepared Statement of the Inter-Tribal Bison Cooperative

                          INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

        Chairman Feinstein, ranking minority member Allard and members of
    the subcommittee, thank you for considering this testimony of the
    Inter-Tribal Bison Cooperative (ITBC). This is submitted in conjunction
    with the request recently delivered to the subcommittee from Senators
    Bingaman, Thune, Tester, Johnson, Salazar, Coleman, Baucus, and Kohl.
    ITBC is a Native American non-profit organization, headquartered in
    Rapid City, South Dakota, comprised of 57 federally recognized Indian
    Tribes in 18 States. On behalf of the member Tribes of ITBC I would
    like to address the following issues: (1) request an appropriation of
    $4,000,000.00 for fiscal year 2009, from the Department of the
    Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Operation of Indian Programs, to
    continue our bison restoration efforts; (2) explain to the Committee
    the unmet needs of the members of ITBC; and (3) update the committee on
    the present initiatives of ITBC.
        The American buffalo, also known as bison, has always held great
    meaning for American Indian people. The buffalo provided the Tribes
    with food, shelter, clothing, and essential tools. Indian people
    developed a strong spiritual and cultural relationship with the buffalo
    that has not diminished with the passage of time. It is this connection
    that caused multiple Tribes to come together to organize ITBC with the
    mission of preserving the sacred relationship between Indian people and
    the buffalo through restoring buffalo to Tribal lands. ITBC envisioned
    the restoration of buffalo on Tribal lands would foster sustainable
    economic development that would be compatible with each of the Tribal
    cultures. ITBC received funds in 1992 and began their restoration
    efforts.
        Federal appropriations have allowed ITBC to successfully restore
    buffalo to over 50 reservations, thereby preserving the sacred
    relationship between Indian people and the buffalo. The respect that
    Indian Tribes have maintained for the buffalo has fostered a very
    serious, high level of commitment by ITBC member Tribes for successful
    buffalo herd development. With healthy, viable buffalo herds,
    opportunities now exist for Tribes to utilize buffalo for prevention
    and treatment of the diet related diseases that gravely impact Native
    American populations such as diabetes, obesity, cardio-vascular disease
    and others. Viable buffalo herds also offer Tribes the opportunity to
    develop sustainable economic development projects. This will allow the
    Tribes to utilize a culturally relevant resource as a means to achieve
    self-sufficiency.

                                FUNDING REQUEST

        The Inter-Tribal Bison Cooperative respectfully requests an
    appropriation for fiscal year 2009 in the amount of $4,000,000. This
    amount would restore ITBC to the fiscal year 2006 appropriation level
    and provide for ITBC's continued growth as more Tribes join. The
    requested funding level will allow our member Tribes to continue their
    successful restoration efforts, to restore our marketing initiative and
    to restore the health initiative for the prevention and treatment of
    diet related diseases among Native American populations, while
    simultaneously building economic sustainability for the Tribal
    projects.

                        FUNDING SHORTFALL AND UNMET NEED

        In fiscal year 2006, ITBC and it member Tribes were funded through
    appropriations at $4,000,000. The President's budget in fiscal year
    2007 and fiscal year 2008 eliminated funding for ITBC. ITBC was funded
    $1,000,000 by the BIA in fiscal year 2007 and fiscal year 2008 through
    a congressional appropriation. The cuts came just as ITBC had started a
    successful Marketing Program and Health Initiative that addressed diet
    related health problems that are epidemic on most of our reservations.
    The cuts damaged the economic stability of the ongoing Tribal bison
    programs.
        Without the restoration of funding to the fiscal year 2006 level,
    new member Tribes will not receive adequate funding to begin buffalo
    restoration efforts. Tribes that have successfully restored buffalo to
    Tribal lands will not receive adequate technical assistance and
    resource development funds to ensure the sustainability of existing
    herds. Furthermore, the investment made by Congress in fiscal year 2006
    towards ITBC's health care initiative has been cut to the point of
    almost being non-existent. As indicated above, this was designed to
    utilize buffalo meat for prevention and treatment of diet related
    diseases among Native American populations.
        ITBC is structured as a member cooperative and 100 percent of the
    appropriated funds are expended on the development and support of
    Tribal buffalo herds and buffalo product business ventures. ITBC
    funding is distributed to ITBC member Tribes via a Herd Development
    Grant program developed by the consensus of the members. ITBC surveys
    member Tribes annually to determine unmet project needs and currently
    the total unmet needs for ITBC member Tribes' projects is $12,000,000.
    I have attached the Tribal Bison Project Proposal summaries that detail
    the ITBC member Tribes projects and financial needs for your review.

                           ITBC GOALS AND INITIATIVES

        The goal of ITBC is restoration of buffalo to Indian lands for
    Tribes to utilize in their day to day lives in a manner that promotes
    sustainable economic development.
    Economic Development
        In 1991, seven Indian Tribes had small buffalo herds numbering less
    than 1,600 animals. The buffalo provided little or no economic benefit
    to the Tribal owners. ITBC has proven extremely successful at buffalo
    restoration in its 17 years of existence. Today, with the support and
    technical assistance of ITBC and its fellow member Tribes, 57 Indian
    Tribes are engaged in raising buffalo or developing plans to raise
    buffalo and incorporate them into their daily lives. ITBC and the
    member Tribes have restored approximately 15,000 buffalo back to Tribal
    lands for use by the Tribes and their members.
        Many of these Tribal buffalo programs have developed herds large
    enough to justify plans for marketing products as a step towards self
    sufficiency. Because of the depressed economies on the reservations,
    jobs are scarce and our buffalo restoration efforts on the reservations
    have created hundreds of direct and indirect jobs relating to buffalo
    management and production. As a result, a significant amount of revenue
    derived from buffalo products is beginning to circulate through Indian
    reservation economies.
        However, Tribes must have the resources to build solid foundations
    for this new industry to become fully self sufficient and maintain
    sustainable buffalo herds. ITBC provides critical technical assistance
    to member Tribes that have developed sustainable management and
    infrastructure development plans. Additionally, ITBC provides training
    curriculum for the newly created jobs and marketing plans as Tribal
    herds reach marketing capabilities. ITBC has begun implementation of a
    marketing initiative to provide member Tribes with viable marketing
    options for utilization of buffalo as economic development efforts.
    This marketing initiative is in an infancy stage and renewed funding is
    critical to achieve success.
    Tribal Buffalo Marketing Initiative
        ITBC member Tribes face a multitude of obstacles when trying to get
    their buffalo to market. The remoteness of the reservations means
    having to transport buffalo long distances to processing plants and
    this results in higher operating costs. The quality of meat is also
    negatively impacted by introducing an increased amount of stress on the
    buffalo. Further compounding the problem is the reluctance of some
    processing plants to process range fed buffalo and the requirements of
    some buyers that animals be corn finished in a feedlot situation. Some
    buyers also require USDA certification, which means USDA inspected
    processing plants must be used, which increases transport time. ITBC
    believes this lack of a constant supply chain that is cost effective is
    what is limiting the economic development of Tribal buffalo herds.
        ITBC has assisted the Gros Ventre and Assiniboine Tribes of the
    Fort Belknap Indian Community in northern Montana with the development
    of a meat packing facility acquired by the Tribe in Malta, Montana.
    They have also begun to operate a smoke house in addition to the
    packing plant. ITBC has assisted the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe in
    South Dakota with operation of their meat packing facility. ITBC has
    provided assistance to the Ponca Tribe of Nebraska for a tannery that
    the Tribe has started to produce brain tanned hides. ITBC has set up an
    arrangement in which the Yakama Nation of Washington supplies buffalo
    meat to a Tribal enterprise of the Confederated Tribes of Umatilla in
    Oregon. ITBC believes the creation of locally driven, regional
    marketing plans will help to overcome the remoteness of the
    reservations. ITBC will provide technical assistance in the areas of
    development of distribution and supply systems for buffalo meat and by-
    products and development of a cooperative brand name with standards and
    labeling guarantees for Native American produced buffalo.
    Preventive Health Care Initiative
        ITBC is committed to providing buffalo meat to Indian reservation
    families both as an economic development effort for Native American
    producers and, more critically, as a healthy food option. Current
    research indicates that the diet of most Indian reservation families
    includes large amounts of high cholesterol, processed meats that
    contribute to diabetes, obesity, cardio-vascular disease and other diet
    related illnesses.
        ITBC member Tribes were beginning to implement a preventive health
    care initiative with fiscal year 2006 funding that provided easy access
    to buffalo meat on Indian reservations and educated Indian families on
    the health benefits of range fed buffalo meat. The decrease in funding
    has led to the elimination of the majority of the program with only the
    educational program still in existence.
        Generally, buffalo meat is not sold at the reservation grocery and
    convenience stores, which leaves Indian families with few alternatives
    to the high fat, high cholesterol, processed meats stocked in
    reservation stores. ITBC seeks to remedy this concern by providing
    buffalo meat in family sized quantities to reservation markets. ITBC
    will work with federal food programs to make buffalo meat available
    through the local school systems and local community health networks
    working on addressing diabetes and other health issues.

                                   CONCLUSION

        ITBC has demonstrated 17 years of success by assisting its member
    Tribes to restore buffalo to their native lands for cultural purposes
    and now is working towards economic development for herd
    sustainability. ITBC will continue to provide technical assistance and
    funding to its member Tribes to facilitate the development of
    sustainable buffalo herds.
        ITBC and its member Tribes have created a new reservation industry,
    Tribal buffalo production, resulting in new money for reservation
    economies. In addition, ITBC continues to support methods to market
    buffalo meat by providing easy access to meat on the reservations and
    education efforts about the health benefits buffalo meat can bring to
    the Native diet. The ultimate goal is to restore the Tribal herds to a
    size large enough to support the local health needs of the Tribal
    members and also generate revenue through a cooperative marketing
    effort to achieve economic self sufficiency.
        ITBC and it member Tribes are appreciative of past and current
    support from the Congress and the administration. I urge the committee
    to consider restoring ITBC funding to the fiscal year 2006 level of
    $4,000,000, which will allow ITBC to continue the restoration efforts
    and restore the marketing and health initiative program started in
    fiscal year 2006. We respectfully request that the subcommittee not
    include the type of restrictive language you inserted last year. While
    the vast majority of our funding does go directly to our member tribes,
    it is nearly impossible to operate our organization--including the many
    direct services we provide our members--without any funding. If you
    discuss this matter with the BIA, you will find that we made a number
    of administrative changes since some concerns were raised a few years
    ago and are spending these funds wisely, efficiently and in conjunction
    with all applicable regulatory requirements.
        I would like to thank this committee for the opportunity to submit
    this testimony and the members of ITBC invite the honorable members of
    the committee to visit our Tribal buffalo projects and experience first
    hand their successes. Questions and/or comments regarding any of the
    issues presented within this testimony may be directed to Mr. Ervin
    Carlson, President, or to Mr. James Stone, executive director,
    (jstone@itbcbison.com) at InterTribal Bison Cooperative, 2497 West
    Chicago Street, Rapid City, SD 57702; 605-394-9730.
                                     ______

                Prepared Statement of the Irrigation Association

        The Irrigation Association supports the movement to increase the
    EPA WaterSense program budget to $5 million. This program is delivering
    solid results in their mission to enhance the marketplace for water
    efficient technologies. Given the serious nature of concerns over our
    nation's water supply, one might consider this a modest investment on
    behalf of the federal government. One only need look to the
    southeastern United States to recognize how quickly and how severely a
    water crisis can impact U.S. citizens.
                                     ______

        Prepared Statement of the Independent Tribal Courts Review Team

        Thank you for the opportunity to address the serious issues
    involving Tribal Courts and funding needs for the fiscal year 2009
    Budget. I am the team leader for the Independent Tribal Court Review
    Team. Our requests and recommendations for the fiscal year 2009 Budget
    for Public Safety and Justice in the Bureau of Indian Affair's (BIA)
    Budget that is included in the Department of the Interior.
    Budget Priorities, Request and Recommendations--$52.46 Million
        1. +$2.461 million, restore the proposed cuts in fiscal year 2009
    President's Budget, (includes the $2.3 million fiscal year 2008
    additional appropriations)
        2. +$50.0 million new additional funds for tribal courts, through
    BIA Office of Justice Services, Division of Tribal Justice Support
        For the past 30 months, our Independent Review Team has been
    traveling throughout Indian Country reviewing Tribal and Federal Courts
    of Indian Offenses (CFR Courts). We feel safe in saying that there are
    no individuals with more awareness of the current needs of Tribal
    Courts than our Review Team. During this time, we have completed some
    34 court reviews. We have come into contact with every imaginable type
    of Tribe; large and small, urban and rural, wealthy and poor. We have
    NOT encountered any Tribe whose Court system receives adequate Federal
    funding. We have identified the following decrease in the President's
    budget.

           ITEM.--DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                         Fiscal year                             Amount
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    President's budget:
        2008 enacted.....................................        $14,338,000
        2009 request.....................................         12,047,000
        Program change...................................         -2,461,000
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Cuts for tribal courts of $2,461,000 are not justified in
    President's budget. This reduction will be the second such budget cut
    in two consecutive years.
        Further, our research indicates Tribal courts are at a critical
    stage in terms of financial need. Nationwide, there are 156 Tribes with
    Courts that receive Federal Funding. Those Tribes divide a mere $14.3
    million in Federal funds. It is the strong recommendation of the
    Independent Tribal Courts Review Team that the Federal Tribal Courts
    budget be substantially increased, not decreased as in the President's
    Budget. We strongly urge Congress and the Appropriations Committee to
    increase funding for Tribal Courts by at least $50 million through the
    BIA Office of Justice Services, Division of Tribal Justice Support, to
    assure funds go to tribal courts.
        A frequent observation as a result of the Tribal Court reviews is
    that Tribes and the Federal Government fund Court operations as if they
    were a program that is capable of adjusting to budget reductions and
    not as a branch of government that is required to provide services
    irrespective of budget cuts. As everyone knows, a functional,
    independent and fully funded Court system is essential to the
    dispensation of justice on reservations and everywhere. Tribal Courts
    are under funded; they have little hope of increased funding; they are
    expected to make do with too little funding; and they are depressed
    from the weight of years and even decades of funding deficiency.
        We have seen the poorest Courts in the United States. We have seen
    Courts where holding a jury trial means laying off staff. We have seen
    Courts with no criminal procedure updates for 30 years. We have seen
    Courts where 1,000 defendants a year are prosecuted, by one Judge and
    one prosecutor. We have seen Courts where a significant number of the
    staff is paid below the poverty level; as low as $14,000 per year.
    We've seen courts funded as low as $12,000 per year.
        In many cases, the common denominator is funding. These courts need
    additional funding. Yet, there are many Tribal Court funding fallacies.
    We address some of those here.
     a study of tribal courts will reveal what needs to be done to fix them
        No amount of studying these Courts will cure deficient funding. Any
    study will find Tribal Courts need the things that funding will buy,
    i.e. more staff, more resources, more computers, more training, better
    software, better facilities, etc.

    TRIBES WOULD BENEFIT FROM MOVING TRIBAL JUDICIAL MATTERS TO FEDERAL OR
                                  STATE COURT

        Federal and State Courts are already overburdened. They don't want
    additional jurisdiction or cases. The Federal Courts of Indian Offenses
    are perhaps the most overburdened courts in the Country, even in a
    poorer situation than many Tribal Courts. The Public Law 83-280 states,
    Indian reservations receive the worst level of law enforcement service.
    So bad, in fact, that when the Public Law 83-280 Tribes receive gaming
    funds, the first thing they do is start local law enforcement. Finally,
    Tribal Courts exercise laws and traditions specific to their
    populations, which no non-Tribal Court could, or would do. This assists
    to keep the peace when other means are unavailable.
    gaming means the federal government no longer has to fund tribal courts
        There are perhaps 25-30 Tribes in Indian Country that make
    substantial amounts of money from gaming. The remainder only make
    enough to sustain a few Tribal programs or, as we have seen, just
    barely enough to sustain gaming. The Tribes that profit from gaming do
    not need Federal Court funds and DO NOT SEEK THEM! (Our research has
    revealed several Tribes who have turned down, or will turn down,
    Federal dollars for Tribal Courts because, among other reasons, other
    Tribes have more necessity of these funds). Why put up with the
    headache and the reporting if it is easier for the Tribal government to
    simply support their Court operation out of Tribal funds?
        There are, however, many positive aspects about Tribal Courts. It
    is clear that Tribal Courts and justice systems are vital and important
    to the communities where they are located. Tribes value and want to be
    proud of their Court systems. Tribes with even modest resources tend to
    send additional funding to Courts before other programs. After decades
    of existence, many Tribal Courts, despite minimal funding, have
    achieved a level of experience and sophistication approaching, and in
    some cases surpassing, local non-Indian Courts. Tribal Courts, through
    the Indian Child Welfare Act, have mostly stopped the wholesale removal
    of Indian children from their families. Indian and Non-Indian Courts
    have developed formal and informal agreements regarding jurisdiction.
    Tribal governments have recognized the benefit of having law-trained
    Judges, without doing away with Judges who have cultural/traditional
    expertise. Some Tribal Court systems have Appellate Courts, jury
    trials, well-appointed Courthouses, and Tribal Bar listings and fees.
    Perhaps most importantly, Tribes recognize the benefit of an
    independent judiciary and have taken steps to insulate Courts and
    Judges from political pressure. No longer, in Indian Country, are
    Judges automatically fired for decisions against the legislature.
        However, Tribal Courts continue to have many needs, the greatest of
    which are funding related. We comment today to express our very deep
    concern with the Federal funding levels for Tribal Courts. In
    particular, the President's budget would devastate Tribal Justice
    Systems. We respectfully request that Congress take a close look at
    these funding levels. Our research indicates that they are extremely
    low and should be increased.
        We find these cuts unjustifiable and unsupportable. The Budget
    provides increases in Law Enforcement and Detention (which we support
    as needed and necessary costs for Tribes). How does the President
    suppose those individuals get to detention from law enforcement? The
    most probable answer is through Tribal Courts. The Budget proposes
    $6.34 million in increases in funds to fight Methamphetamine. How does
    the President propose we keep those individuals off the street after
    they are arrested? The most probable answer is through Tribal Courts.
    The Budget proposes $2.67 million in increases in funds for an IMARS
    Reporting system to track convictions. How does the President propose
    we document those convictions? The most probable answer is through
    Tribal Courts.
        There are other examples, but none are necessary to show that this
    budget simply does not make sense. It ignores Tribal Courts, which is
    the primary means for carrying out justice and enforcement of the laws
    on Indian reservations. It relegated Tribal Courts to program status .
    . . essentially stating to Courts, ``. . . we know the numbers [of
    cases] will increase but make do with what you have. Or, in this case,
    less than what you have''.
        Courts, however, are not able to make changes like Tribal programs.
    There are minimum standards that Courts must meet. And every time the
    New York Times (as has occurred) publishes a story about justice in
    Indian Country suggesting a violation of speedy trial requirements or
    bonding or adequate representation, Tribes will suffer the comparison
    with non-Indian Courts. Ideally, Courts should be funded on an
    individual basis and not compete with Tribal Programs for funds.
    Increases for law enforcement should be tied on a percentage basis to
    increases for Tribal courts. The ability of Tribal Courts to do more
    with less and adapt to this inept programmatic analogy should not be
    interpreted as meaning the analogy works.
        The Independent Tribal Court Review Team completed the Tribal & CFR
    Court Reviews Project Final Report in 2006. The report contains 132
    Findings regarding all areas involving Tribal Courts. Many of the
    Findings support the recommendations made above, including several
    indicating that Tribal Courts are under-funded. We list some of these
    below.
        Finding #38: The Federal Funds are inadequate to fund most Court
    needs.--Other Court needs, technology, supplies, travel, training, are
    usually assumed by the Tribe. These needs are often provided by
    decreasing available funds for Tribal Programs. Or, the needs are
    simply not provided and the Courts must make due without these
    services.
        Finding #32: Almost all Courts are under-funded.--Court budgets
    vary widely. When you get beyond the few Tribes with very successful
    economic development ventures, the substantial number of Courts,
    approximately 90 percent, is under-funded. They are missing staff
    positions and common items such as a safe, a Court recording systems,
    telephone systems, or security systems. Almost every Court that is
    under-funded is still mostly functional.
        Finding #33: Many are under-funded at a critical level.--Some
    contracted Courts are very poor. There are Courts with only a part-time
    Judge and a Clerk. They must rely [Tribal] Administration for simple
    items, such as printer ink. There is no training. Salaries are below
    the poverty level. We have seen Courts that operate on less than
    $25,000 per year. We have seen groups of Tribes with low Federal
    funding numbers joined into a single overworked Court system that can
    only provide limited service.
        Finding #6: A very small number of Tribes have large amounts of
    available economic development funds.--These Tribes (about 10 percent)
    are those few with very successful economic development ventures. These
    Tribes contribute 90 percent or more of the funding to their Courts.
    These Tribes pay well; they have several Attorneys on staff, including
    Attorneys on the Tribal Court staff and have fully funded law
    enforcement. These Tribes are better trained and experientially and
    financially able to deal with Court matters, including criminal
    matters, than local city, county and state governments.
        Finding #5: Most Tribal economic development funds provide jobs and
    pay for a modest amount of other governmental services.--The biggest
    fallacy about Indian Nations is that gaming has made all Tribes rich.
    (This fallacy isn't always bad. It often encourages non-Indian
    governments and law enforcement to work with the Tribe.) The vast
    majority of Tribes have limited economic development that 1) funds
    itself and 2) can modestly assist Tribal programs and the Court
    budgets. A majority of Tribes have no economic development or economic
    development that only funds itself.
        On behalf of the Independent Tribal Court Review Team, Charles D.
    Robertson Jr., Honorable Philip D. Lujan, Ralph E. Gonzales, Myrna
    Rivera, court reporter and myself, thank you again for your
    consideration. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact
    Elbridge Coochise at 602-418-8937 or Charles D. Robertson, Jr. at 605-
    390-0061.
                                     ______

            Prepared Statement of the Izaak Walton League of America

        The Izaak Walton League of America appreciates the opportunity to
    submit testimony concerning appropriations for fiscal year 2009 for
    various agencies and programs under the jurisdiction of the
    subcommittee. The League is a national, nonprofit organization founded
    in 1922. We have more than 35,000 members and nearly 300 community-
    based chapters nationwide. Our members are committed to advancing
    common sense policies that safeguard wildlife and habitat, support
    community-based conservation, and address pressing environmental
    issues. The following pertains to programs administered primarily by
    the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the U.S. Environmental
    Protection Agency.
           fish and wildlife service, national wildlife refuge system
        The League joins the Cooperative Alliance for Refuge Enhancement
    (CARE), a diverse coalition of 22 wildlife, sporting, conservation, and
    scientific organizations representing over 14 million members and
    supporters, in requesting $514 million for operations and maintenance
    of the National Wildlife Refuge System in fiscal year 2009. We
    appreciate the steps Congress took in fiscal year 2008 to boost Refuge
    System funding above the administration's request to $434 million and
    encourage it to build on this foundation in the coming fiscal year.
        National Wildlife Refuges across the country provide some of the
    most important habitat for fish, wildlife and waterfowl, and offer
    incredible recreational opportunities for hunters, anglers,
    birdwatchers and countless others who enjoy the outdoors. In addition,
    refuges contribute to local and regional economies generating $1.7
    billion in sales and supporting 27,000 private-sector jobs. In spite of
    these and other benefits, funding for essential refuge operations and
    maintenance has not kept pace with inflation and pressing
    environmental, conservation and law enforcement challenges. Today, the
    System has a $3.5 billion backlog in basic operations and maintenance
    projects. As eroding budgets have forced the Fish and Wildlife Service
    to cut hundreds of staff, visitor services at many refuges have
    declined. Moreover, the Service faces a growing number of law
    enforcement challenges, including poaching and illegal drug trafficking
    and cultivation, with too few full-time law enforcement personnel.
        In 2007, CARE released a comprehensive assessment of the funding
    needs of the Refuge System. This report documented how stagnant
    budgets, inflation and growing demands negatively impact the system as
    a whole. This analysis concluded that the Refuge System needs $765
    million in annual operations and maintenance funding by 2013 to
    properly administer nearly 100 million acres, provide educational and
    recreational programs and services, and conserve critical fish and
    wildlife populations. In order to reach this reasonable goal, we urge
    the Subcommittee to provide $514 million for the Refuge System in
    fiscal year 2009.

                FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE, STATE WILDLIFE GRANTS

        As a member of the Teaming with Wildlife National Steering
    Committee, the League urges the subcommittee to provide $85 million for
    the State Wildlife Grants Program in fiscal year 2009. In fiscal year
    2008, the final appropriation for Wildlife Grants totaled $73.8
    million.
        The State Wildlife Grants Program supports proactive conservation
    projects aimed at preventing wildlife from becoming endangered.
    Experience shows that efforts to restore imperiled wildlife can be
    particularly contentious and costly when action is taken only after
    species are formally listed as threatened or endangered pursuant to the
    Endangered Species Act. State Wildlife Grants support State and
    community-based efforts to safeguard habitat and wildlife before either
    reaches the tipping point. This program also provides States with an
    important source of Federal funds to address non-game species. Finally,
    the Federal investment leverages significant funding from private,
    State, and local sources.
        When Congress established the program, it required States to
    develop comprehensive Wildlife Action Plans that evaluate wildlife
    conservation needs and identify action steps to address those needs. In
    early 2007, the Fish and Wildlife Service completed the process of
    reviewing and approving plans for every State. With approved plans in
    place, State wildlife management agencies and their many partners,
    including Izaak Walton League chapters, are beginning to implement
    them. On-going Federal support, including $85 million for fiscal year
    2009, is critical to effective implementation and to conserving a wide
    array of non-game species and their habitat.

            FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE, NATIONAL FISH PASSAGE PROGRAM

        The League opposes the administration's proposal to reduce the
    budget for the National Fish Passage Program by nearly $6 million
    compared to the fiscal year 2008 appropriation of approximately $11
    million. We urge the subcommittee to provide at least level funding in
    fiscal year 2009.
        The National Fish Passage Program represents a highly valuable
    partnership between the Fish and Wildlife Service, States, localities
    and community groups. Local citizens and partners identify barriers
    that block access to historic habitat and, according to the Service,
    contribute approximately 60 percent of the funding and in-kind support
    for projects designed to remove or bypass those barriers. The Service
    provides technical assistance at the project level and helps to
    prioritize projects for Federal financial assistance.
        The administration's proposal to reduce funding by more than 50
    percent is clearly at odds with the well-documented need for Federal
    investment in this area. In its fiscal year 2009 Budget Justification,
    the Service States that: ``[M]ore than 2.5 million dams, and millions
    of other poorly designed culverts and other structures, impede fish
    passage across the American landscape.''(page FAR-30) Within this much
    larger universe, the Service has identified more than 460 priority
    passage projects with a total estimated cost of nearly $87.5 million.
    The Service further indicates in its Budget Justification that
    addressing these priorities would ``remove or bypass 464 barriers and
    open access to 4,831 miles and 42,143 acres of historical spawning and
    rearing habitats . . .'' (page FAR-30)
        The dramatic reduction proposed by the administration would
    undermine efforts to return many fish species to their native habitat,
    limit recreational fishing opportunities and short-circuit community-
    driven conservation efforts. We applaud the subcommittee for making an
    important investment in the program in the past and urge it to continue
    this effort in fiscal year 2009.

          FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE, NATIONAL FISH HABITAT ACTION PLAN

        The League is a strong proponent of the National Fish Habitat
    Action Plan and regional Fish Habitat Partnerships. We support the
    administration's request for approximately $5.1 million for fiscal year
    2009, which is essentially level with the fiscal year 2008
    appropriation.
        The National Fish Habitat Action Plan provides a national framework
    for restoring critical habitat. Regional partnerships provide
    geographic focus and create opportunities for citizens and groups to
    play active and constructive roles in developing strategies to
    safeguard resources near where they live. The Fish and Wildlife Service
    is the lead Federal agency working with Fish Habitat Partnerships and
    the National Fish Habitat Board. The Service uses limited funding very
    efficiently allocating approximately 60 percent of program dollars to
    on-the-ground restoration projects and most of the remaining funds to
    supporting the regional partnerships. The League is pleased to support
    the request for this important initiative.

       ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, CLEAN WATER STATE REVOLVING FUND

        The League joins the Healing Our Waters Coalition in urging the
    subcommittee to reestablish funding for the Clean Water State Revolving
    Fund (SRF) at the historic high of $1.35 billion with $490 million
    allocated for the Great Lakes States. The Great Lakes, which provide
    drinking water to 40 million people and provide jobs and recreational
    opportunities for millions more, are at risk from combined sewer
    overflows and aging wastewater treatment plants. In fact, the EPA
    estimates that more than 150 municipalities or sewer districts in the
    United States with combined sewer systems operate on the Great Lakes or
    their tributaries--all of which are subject to overflows during
    significant storm events.
        The Clean Water SRF is a highly successful program that provides
    the funds needed to reduce sewage contamination. The administration's
    fiscal year 2009 budget includes $555 million for the SRF, which is
    $134 million below the fiscal year 2008 appropriation, and would target
    $201 million toward the Great Lakes States, which is approximately $48
    million less than current funding. The request is inadequate and would
    undermine efforts to reduce sewage contamination throughout the Great
    Lakes region and across the country. The League supports reinvigorated
    investment in the SRF in fiscal year 2009 and beyond.

           ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, TARGETED WATERSHED GRANTS

        We urge the Subcommittee to reject the administration's proposal to
    terminate Targeted Watershed Grants and to provide $35 million in
    fiscal year 2009 compared to $9 million in fiscal year 2008.
        We further recommend that $10 million of the total be allocated to
    support projects in the Chesapeake Bay watershed.
        Targeted Watershed Grants fund projects that expand collective
    knowledge on the most innovative, sustainable and cost-effective
    strategies to reduce excess nutrient loads to the Chesapeake Bay and
    other important waterways throughout the country. This program has
    helped to reduce nutrient, sediment and bacteria pollution, protect
    drinking water supplies, increase aquatic habitat and enhance
    recreational opportunities. Terminating this program would directly
    undermine successful efforts to address long-standing challenges facing
    the Bay. We encourage the Subcommittee to maintain the program and
    increase the Federal investment.

            ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, CHESAPEAKE BAY PROGRAM

        The League urges the subcommittee to increase funding for the
    Chesapeake Bay Program Office from $22.6 million in fiscal year 2008 to
    $30 million, including $3 million for Small Watershed grants, in fiscal
    year 2009.
        The Chesapeake Bay is the largest estuary on the Atlantic coast and
    one of the largest in the world. EPA's Chesapeake Bay Program Office
    (CBPO) is the primary facilitator of restoration activities by partners
    throughout the watershed. Although the Chesapeake Bay Program has made
    significant progress toward pollution reduction, habitat restoration,
    fisheries management and watershed protection goals, much more work is
    needed to restore the Bay. For example, habitat restoration efforts are
    collectively less than half way to Program goals and there is concern
    about the overall quality of habitats that remain. Achieving these
    goals will require participation from citizen groups and local
    governments. The Chesapeake Bay Program supports stakeholder
    involvement through the Chesapeake Bay Small Watershed Grants. In the
    past nine years, the Small Watershed Grants Program has provided $17.7
    million to support 544 water quality improvement and wildlife habitat
    restoration projects. These grants have been used by recipients to
    leverage an additional $50.7 million from other funding sources. The
    League supports additional investment in the Program Office with
    particular emphasis on boosting support for Small Watershed grants.

      ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, NON-POINT SOURCE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM

        The League opposes the administration's proposal to reduce funding
    for section 319, the Non-point Source Management Program, by $16
    million compared to the fiscal year 2008 funding of $200 million. We
    strongly urge the subcommittee to increase funding for this critical
    program.
        This program provides grants to States, territories and tribes for
    non-point source pollution reduction activities. Non-point source
    pollution is the leading cause of water quality problems and the
    primarily reason that approximately 40 percent of surveyed rivers,
    lakes and estuaries are not clean enough to support fishing or
    swimming. Through this program, States identify impaired waters and
    implement non-point source management programs to address these
    impairments. Since 1990, this program has improved water quality so
    dramatically that 66 watersheds in 28 States have been removed from the
    impaired waters list. In light of the importance and success of this
    program, we join with American Rivers in urging the Subcommittee to
    appropriate $250 million for section 319 in fiscal year 2009.
                                     ______

              Prepared Statement of the Jamestown S'Klallam Tribe

        On behalf of the Jamestown S'Klallam Tribe, I want to thank this
    subcommittee for the opportunity to submit testimony on our funding
    priorities and requests on the fiscal year 2009 Bureau of Indian
    Affairs (BIA) and Indian Health Service (IHS) budgets. We have long
    appreciated this subcommittee's support of our funding requests.
    However, we are gravely concerned that Federal funding for Indian
    programs continues to lose ground compared to spending for the general
    U.S. population at large in the majority of programs that constitute
    the trust responsibility. We believe fulfillment of these
    responsibilities through appropriations is a top priority.
        Tribal-Specific Appropriation Priorities:
        1. $1,460,000 Land Purchase for Tamanowas Rock Sanctuary Project
        2. $200,000 Increase to BIA Tribal Base Budget for Fish & Wildlife
    Management
        Local/Regional Requests and Recommendations: We support all
    requests and recommendations of:
        1. Affiliated Tribes of Northwest Indians
        2. Northwest Portland Area Indian Health Board
        3. Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission
                     national requests and recommendations
        BIA requests:
        1. Restore Johnson O'Malley funds ($21.4 million); and Housing
    Improvement Funds ($13.6 million) to Tribal base programs;
        2. Provide $25 million General Increase to BIA Tribal Priority
    Allocation for inflationary and fixed costs;
        3. Provide $45 million increase for BIA Contract Support Cost
    (CSC), including Direct CSC; and,
        4. $500,000 for BIA Data Management to fund the Office of Program
    Data Quality
        IHS requests:
        5. Provide $486 million for IHS mandatory, inflation and population
    growth increase to maintain existing health care services;
        6. $152 million increase for Contract Health Services (CHS);
        7. $160 million increase for IHS to fully fund Contract Support
    Cost (CSC), including Direct CSC;
        8. Increase $5 million to the Indian Health Service (IHS) Office of
    Tribal Self-Governance.
        We support all requests and recommendations of the National
    Congress of American Indians and National Indian Health Board.

                  TRIBAL-SPECIFIC APPROPRIATION JUSTIFICATION

        $1,460,000 Land Purchase for Tamanowas Rock Sanctuary Project.--The
    purpose of the project is to preserve tribal cultural and ceremonial
    access to an important archaeological site of the S'Klallam American
    Indian people. Tamanowas Rock, located in Eastern Jefferson County on
    the Olympic Peninsula of Washington State, is of great cultural and
    spiritual significance to the Tribes in the region, and also holds
    special historical meaning for the local non-Indian community. As a
    geological formation, the estimated age of Tamanowas Rock is 43 million
    years. More importantly, the oral history among the local Tribes
    includes the era of the mastodons (extinct for 8,000 years), when
    Tamanowas Rock was used as a perch by Tribal hunters. Another story
    references a great flood (assumed to be a tsunami from around 3,000
    years ago) when people tied themselves to the Tamanowas Rock to avoid
    being swept away by the turbulent waters.
        In 1976, Tamanowas Rock was listed in the Washington Heritage
    Register as having major archaeological interest. The Tribes and local
    community have been working to protect the property where the Rock is
    located from development for more than 10 years. In February 2005, the
    Jamestown S'Klallam Tribe, acting on behalf of all the S'Klallam
    Tribes, obtained loans to purchase a 20 acre parcel and a group of
    platted properties totaling 66.32 acres in imminent threat of
    development in the vicinity of the Rock. If dedicated roads are
    vacated, the acreage is closer to 100 acres for the platted properties.
    The local community and the Tribes now seek funds to purchase the land,
    which was temporarily secured by the loans and purchase the remaining
    80 acres directly surrounding Tamanowas Rock, all of which would be
    protected in perpetuity.
        $200,000 Increase to BIA Tribal Base Budget for Fish & Wildlife
    Management.--The U.S. Government formally recognized the Jamestown
    S'Klallam Tribe in 1981. Jamestown is one of four Tribes that signed
    the Point No Point Treaty with the U.S. Government in 1855. The BIA
    began contracting with the Tribe to provide fisheries management
    services. The Point-No-Point Treaty Council (PNPTC) was serving as the
    fisheries management agency for the other Klallam and Skokomish Tribes.
    In its efforts to contract with Jamestown for basic fisheries
    management services, the BIA decided to provide only enough funding to
    slightly expand PNPTC rather than providing funding of sufficient
    quantity for Jamestown to operate a fisheries program of its own.
    Following the implementation of the Self-Governance Initiative, the
    distribution of contracted funds to each PNPTC member tribe was based
    on funding history, thus Jamestown received a significantly smaller
    portion of the PNPTC base funding. The Tribe is required to meet the
    basic fisheries and wildlife management responsibilities of U.S. v
    Washington including planning, negotiation, regulation, and
    enforcement. The $200,000 increase to our Self-Governance base is
    needed to implement these essential treaty fish and wildlife management
    services.
        Local/Regional Requests and Recommendations:
        The Jamestown S'Klallam Tribe is a direct beneficiary of the
    collective Tribal efforts and continues to support the requests and
    recommendations of the Affiliated Tribes of Northwest Indians,
    Northwest Portland Area Indian Health Board, and the Northwest Indian
    Fisheries Commission.
        National Requests and Priorities:
        The President's fiscal year 2009 budget included numerous decreases
    for Indian programs. We are deeply disappointed that once again this
    annual budget does not support strong Tribal Self-Government and Self-
    Determination. The following highlights our top priorities:
        BIA REQUESTS1. Restore Johnson O'Malley funds ($21.4 million); and
    Housing Improvement Funds ($13.6 million) to Tribal base programs
      --The JOM is a critical Indian-specific education program, which
            targets Indian students.
      --The HIP program provides much needed housing repairs for Tribal
            citizens
      --These programs have long been part of our Tribal Self-Governance
            base and we strongly full restoration of these programs in our
            base budgets.
        2. Provide $25 million for General Increase to BIA Tribal Priority
    Allocation for inflationary and fixed costs.
      --For the past 10 years in a row, TPA funding has remained flat and
            continues to lose ground to inflation. In fiscal year 2009, the
            administration's request not only contains no general increase
            for TPA, but TPA allocations would decline 8.3 percent.
      --This activity includes the majority of the funds used to support
            core tribal community services and programs such as housing,
            education, natural resources management and tribal government
            services.
      --It is not reasonable to expect the Tribes and the Bureau to
            maintain these critically needed services to their communities
            when inflation continues to erode the purchasing power of the
            dollar and these programs are already severely under funded.
        3. Provide $45 million increase for BIA to fully fund Contract
    Support Cost (CSC), including Direct CSC.
      --The BIA recently implemented a new CSC Policy, which includes
            indirect and direct CSC.
      --This funding is required to fully fund and implement this policy.
        4. $500,000 for BIA Data Management to fund the Office of Program
    Data Quality (OPDQ).
      --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. For instance, in the
            Department of Interior, Indian Affairs programs do not maintain
            collected data in a ready accessible format for instant
            analysis and reporting, which results in weeks or months of
            staff time 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.
      --We strongly urge an increased investment in data management to more
            efficiently and effectively use program funding and enhance
            data credibility and analysis for use by decision makers in
            critical processes (including GPRA and PART). We request
            $500,000 to establish a centralized office within the BIA for
            data management.

                                  IHS REQUESTS

        5. Provide $486 million for IHS mandatory, inflation and population
    growth increase to maintain existing health care services.
      --Mandatory costs increases are necessary to maintain the current
            level of services. These ``mandatories'' are unavoidable and
            include medical and general inflation, pay costs and population
            growth.
      --This year's President's budget proposes to cute $21.3 million in
            funding. This will have a detrimental effect on health services
            to Indian people and diminish any gains that the Indian health
            system has made over the years to address health disparities.
        6. Provide $152 million increase for Contract Health Service (CHS)
      --$152 million increase is needed for contract health funding. This
            level will allow those Tribes who are not served by an IHS
            Hospital to provide health care services at the same level as
            those Tribes who are served by an IHS Hospital.
        7. Provide $160 million for IHS to fully fund Contract Support Cost
    (CSC), including Direct CSC.
      --On March 1, 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 (through supplemental appropriations,
            if necessary).
        8. Increase $5.0 million to the Indian Health Service (IHS) Office
    of Tribal Self-Governance.
      --In 2003, Congress reduced funding for this office by $4.5 million,
            a loss of 43 percent from the previous year. In each subsequent
            year, this budget was further reduced due to the applied
            congressional rescissions. There are over 330 Self-Governance
            Tribes with funding totaling approximately $1.0 billion; this
            is 57 percent of all federally-recognized Tribes and 33 percent
            of the overall IHS funding. Tribes continue to enter into SG
            resulting in a need for additional OTSG staffing.
        Support all requests and recommendations of the National Congress
    of American Indians and National Indian Health Board.
        The leadership of the Jamestown S'Klallam Tribe remains actively
    involved in both NCAI and NIHB and has participated in numerous
    national forums to discuss and prioritize program funding and budgets.
    We are extremely supportive of the requests from these organizations.
        In conclusion, the treaties and legislation that Tribal governments
    have fought so hard to achieve with the United States Government remain
    the basic foundation of our unique governmental relationship. We
    strongly urge this subcommittee to honor these commitments and request
    that Tribal government operations be afforded the highest priority in
    your appropriation decisions. Thank you in advance.
                                     ______

    Prepared Statement of the Kern County Valley Floor Habitat Conservation
                                      Plan

        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 2009.
        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 $500,000 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
    2009 and $500,000 for fiscal year 2010.
        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 2009, 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 two 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 in the program to address
    Covered Species protection due to the construction of new facilities
    and the operation and maintenance of existing water management and
    conveyance facilities. The Covered Species will benefit from 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 2009
    appropriation to support implementation of this significant program.
                                     ______

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

        As President of the Lac du Flambeau Tribe 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 2009 Budget for BIA, IHS, EPA
    and NPS. We would like to thank the subcommittee for its past support,
    especially your support of the Lac du Flambeau Boarding School Project.
        We are alarmed by the slow erosion of funding for Indian programs
    under the Bush administration. While some proposed cuts are obvious
    (JOM, HIP, natural resource programs), the more insidious reductions
    are the result of the flat program funding and across-the-board
    rescissions that tribes are subject to every year. As the cost of
    living, the cost of fuel, and the cost of other resources rise over the
    years, these programs see little or no increases, and any increase that
    is provided is eliminated once the rescission is applied. We commend
    the subcommittee on its decision to significantly increase law
    enforcement funding in fiscal year 2008, but it is important to
    understand that other areas continue to suffer.
        Inflation, Cost of Living, and Fixed Costs.--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, but Congress and Interior have
    failed to fulfill their obligation to ensure that tribes have the same
    resources to carry out these functions. For example, tribes received
    only 75 percent of the pay cost adjustment in fiscal year 2002, 15
    percent in fiscal year 2003 and 30 percent in fiscal year 2004. To make
    matters worse, the BIA and IHS have steadfastly refused to provide
    tribal contractors with full contract support costs, ensuring that when
    tribes take over these programs, they will be placed in an untenable
    position. This inequity is undermining tribal self-determination.
        The subcommittee also has to understand the impact of the
    increasing cost of health insurance on our ability to provide services
    to our tribal members. In order for us to maintain a $10/hr employee
    (approximately $20,000/yr), the Tribe faces an associated health care
    benefit cost of $20,350 for a family health insurance plan. When the
    Tribe is forced to supplement under-funded BIA and IHS programs in
    order to cover these costs, direct services to our members suffer. We
    have less money available to provide counseling to students, collect
    water samples, put more officers in the field, provide basic health
    service, etc. Without substantial increases in funding, the Tribe will
    continue to decrease services to our tribal membership because we
    cannot afford to absorb these costs. We may be forced to eliminate the
    health insurance benefit, which will seriously impact our ability to
    recruit and maintain our labor force.
        Our highest priority is to keep existing programs from failing. We
    ask that the Subcommittee provide cost of living increases and fully
    fund contract support costs.
        Rescission Exemption.--The purpose of an across-the-board
    rescission is to spread cuts across all programs, but what may seem
    like a small loss to another program can be crippling to tribes. BIA
    and IHS programs have always been severely under-funded. The small
    increases provided in previous years have been eliminated by
    rescissions. This year, the President proposes to fund BIA Indian
    programs at $100 million below last year and IHS programs at $20
    million less. A rescission would take us back even further. Tribes
    simply cannot afford to have our limited funding chipped away like
    this. We ask that the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Indian Health
    Service be exempted from any rescissions applied in the fiscal year
    2009 bill.

                        BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS PROGAMS

        Education.--Because the Tribe's member children attend public
    schools, Johnson O'Malley funding forms the core of the Tribe's
    education program. The JOM program provides funding for supplemental
    education programs for Indian students attending public schools. At Lac
    du Flambeau, JOM money funds a counselor/mentor 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/mentor provides academic support and
    assistance with this transition. The administration attempts to justify
    the cut by claiming 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. The
    Department of Education provides some funds for Indian students under
    Title VII, but the Department has not increased funding for Indian
    student programs for several years. If the JOM program were eliminated,
    we would lose our counselor/mentor. We urge the subcommittee to restore
    full funding to the JOM program and to reject the proposed $5.9 million
    cut to higher education scholarships.
        Road Maintenance.--The BIA proposes an inexplicable cut to road
    maintenance funding for fiscal year 2009, slashing the program in half.
    As Congress well knows, roads in Indian country are unsafe and in
    dismal condition. At least $120 million per year is required to address
    the deplorable state of these roads. As with JOM and HIP, the
    administration justifies this cut by pointing to funding available from
    another agency--here the Department of Transportation. When SAFETEA-LU
    was passed, Congress permitted tribes to use up to 25 percent of DOT
    road construction funding for road maintenance in recognition of the
    BIA's terrible track record and consistent failure to request enough
    road maintenance funds. Congress also made it clear these funds were
    intended to supplement, not replace BIA Road Maintenance Program
    dollars and placed the choice of whether to use these funds for
    maintenance purposes squarely with the Tribal government, not the BIA,
    stating that the agency ``shall continue to retain primary
    responsibility, including annual funding request responsibility, for
    road maintenance programs on Indian reservations.'' 23 U.S.C.  204(c).
    We ask the subcommittee to reject the proposed $13 million cut to road
    maintenance.
        Housing Improvement Program.--HIP is a critical program for Tribes
    like Lac du Flambeau, providing much-needed money to renovate
    dilapidated housing. This is an especially critical need in Northern
    Wisconsin, where substandard housing can have serious health and safety
    consequences in the winter. Lac du Flambeau typically receives about
    $38,000--enough to improve a single home. Because of limited funding,
    the waitlist for HIP services is long. This year, our funding will be
    used to provide a new roof and siding for an elderly and disabled
    tribal member. The administration justifies its proposed elimination by
    claiming that the Department of Housing and Urban Development will
    provide housing assistance. However, the administration also proposes
    to cut funding for Indian housing within HUD. This will only increase
    the need for HIP resources. If HIP funding is eliminated, this woman
    will have no alternative source of funding. Her home and the homes of
    the others on the waiting list will remain in disrepair. We ask the
    subcommittee to restore HIP funding to the fiscal year 2007 level of
    $19 million.
        Natural Resources.--Tribes are leaders in natural resource
    protection and BIA natural resource funding is essential to maintain
    our programs. Lac du Flambeau has a comprehensive Natural Resources
    Department and dedicated staff with considerable expertise in natural
    resource and land management. Our activities include raising fish for
    stocking, conservation law enforcement, collecting data 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. Unfortunately, natural resource programs have
    been cut or flat-funded for many years now, and tribes have been forced
    to lay off staff and shut down programs, leaving critical resources in
    jeopardy. Worse yet, this year's cuts are proposed in order to fund
    internal BIA programs like the proposed $900,000 increase to Integrated
    Resource Information Program, taking limited funding from tribes in
    order to fund more agency bureaucracy. We ask the subcommittee to use
    this funding instead to restore cuts and provide cost of living
    increases for natural resources programs so that these programs can
    continue to operate.
        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 Tribe would like to
    thank the subcommittee for understanding how important this program is
    in restoring and preserving wetlands and waterfowl populations, which
    are vital to the culture and economy of the Great Lakes region. We urge
    the subcommittee to restore $600,000 for the Tribal Wetland and
    Waterfowl Enhancement Initiative (Circle of Flight).
        Another area of concern is Water Management, Planning & Development
    funding, which supports tribes in their efforts to establish Clean
    Water Act standards. The Tribe was recently granted ``Treatment as a
    State'' status under the Clean Water Act, and this funding is essential
    to us. The program has seen more than $2 million in cuts over the past
    several years, which severely impacts tribes. We ask the Subcommittee
    to restore this program to fiscal year 2005 levels ($7.4 million). We
    also ask that you add language preventing the BIA from transferring
    Water Resources money to fund Water Rights Litigation. This practice
    has created a severe drain on the budget for water management. It is
    important that the subcommittee understand that protecting the quality
    of water resources is as important as securing the right to those
    resources--rights are of little use if the resource is contaminated.
        The Tribe also supports the Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife
    Commission (GLIFWC) request for $4,327,000. The Tribe is a member of
    the Commission, which assists the Tribe in protecting and implementing
    its treaty-guaranteed hunting, fishing and gathering rights.
        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 they also 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. Our conservation officers
    are now 100 percent dependent on tribal funds. This costs the Tribe
    $343,000 annually, in addition to the $893,000 the Tribe pays for its
    non-conservation law enforcement programs. We appreciate the increase
    provided for law enforcement in fiscal year 2008. We ask that the
    Subcommittee direct a portion of any increases in law enforcement
    funding to conservation officers.
        Indian Land Consolidation.--This program received a significant cut
    last year and the President proposes to eliminate the program entirely
    this year. For the Lac du Flambeau Tribe, this program has been very
    successful. With ILCA funding, we were able to purchase over 200 acres
    of fractionated land. This helps keep land in trust and expedites
    natural resource activities such as timber sales and forest development
    projects. We ask the subcommittee to restore this program to the fiscal
    year 2007 level ($34 million).

                    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY PROGRAMS

        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 includes nearly one-half of all of the water area (56.34
    square miles) within Wisconsin Indian Reservations. The Tribe's GIS
    Program indicates that there are 260 lakes covering 17,897 acres, 71
    miles of streams, and 24,000 acres of wetlands cover within the
    Reservation. 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 Tribe's program. In fiscal year 2008,
    we will receive $161,000. We request restoration of full funding to the
    Clean Water Program, including restoration of $171,000 from this fund
    for the Tribe's Water Resources Program.
        Indian Environmental General Assistance Program.--We support the
    Administration's proposed $1 million increase to the Indian
    Environmental General Assistance Program (GAP). GAP funding is the
    primary federal mechanism available for tribes to protect our lands.
    These funds enable tribes to assume environmental responsibilities
    delegated by EPA. We ask the subcommittee to support this increase and
    to further increase funding to $68.3 million. 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.''

                         NATIONAL PARK SERVICE PROGRAMS

        Historic Preservation.--In 1995, Congress began encouraging tribes
    to assume historic preservation responsibilities as part of self-
    determination. There are currently 76 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. We thank the subcommittee
    for the $1 million increase provided to THPOs last year, but more
    funding is needed. We ask that $13.7 million be provided for Tribal
    Historic Preservation Officers (THPOs), which would provide a modest
    base funding amount of $180,000 per THPO program.

                         INDIAN HEALTH SERVICE PROGRAMS

        Contract Health.--Federal funding for health services has fallen
    dramatically behind the rising cost of health care over the past 5
    years. We anticipate the fiscal year 2009 shortfall to be in excess of
    $3 million. 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, and not to limit this
    increase to emergency CHEF funding, which can be difficult for tribes
    to access.
        Contract Support Costs.--HS estimates that it has a $107 million
    shortfall in contract support costs, yet it continues to request only
    minimal increases. We ask the subcommittee to consider making a portion
    of any unobligated balances available for contract support costs.
        Contacts.--Mary J. Pavel or Addie C. Rolnick at Sonosky, Chambers,
    Sachse, Endreson & Perry, LLP 1425 K Street NW, Ste. 600, Washington
    D.C. 20005; 202-682-0240 (tel); 202-682-0249 (fax) mpavel@sonosky.com;
    arolnick@sonosky.com.
                                     ______

          Prepared Statement of the Lamoille County Natural Resources
                    Conservation District and Nature Center

        Madam Chairman and honorable members of the subcommittee: Thank you
    for the opportunity to present this testimony in support of an
    appropriation of $4 million from the Forest Legacy Program to protect
    the 5,727-acre Eden Forest property in Eden, Vermont.
        I also urge your support for a significant increase in funding for
    the Forest Legacy Program in fiscal year 2009 to enable the protection
    of more forest resources than are included in the President's budget.
    The budget for this year proposes a cut of 75 percent and sets aside
    funds for only three Forest Legacy projects nationwide out of 87
    submitted by the States. Without additional funds, the program will not
    be able to continue its successful partnerships with States, local
    communities, landowners and grassroots organizations like the Lamoille
    County Natural Resources Conservation District & Nature Center to
    protect valuable forestlands, while retaining, in many cases, private
    ownership.
        The Forest Legacy Program in Vermont seeks to achieve significant
    conservation goals for the State by protecting the following types of
    land: large contiguous and productive forest blocks, wildlife habitat
    dependent on 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 2009
    is the 5,727-acre Eden Forest. Situated in Lamoille County on the spine
    of the northern Green Mountains in Eden and Johnson, this large
    contiguous timber tract is truly a high-quality forest, which contains
    two unique natural communities known as red spruce hardwood swamp and
    semi-rich northern hardwood forest. The property has been managed for
    timber for over 50 years and, given the excellent condition of the
    forest and forest roads, is well positioned to continue providing
    forest products far into the future. Because the Forest Legacy Program
    allows for and encourages sustainable stand management the Eden Forest
    represents a potential balance of preservation and utilization. Funding
    of the Eden Forest, and other similar Forest Legacy Projects, bring
    together ecological and egalitarian needs of communities.
        Eden Forest is adjacent to 24,188 acres of conserved land and
    shares a common boundary with the Long Trail State Forest and the Long
    Trail corridor itself for approximately 4 miles. The Long Trail is the
    Nation's oldest long-distance hiking trail and one of Vermont's most
    cherished cultural resources. The property also contains portions of
    both Bowen and Butternut Mountain summits. Its protection would create
    a 30,000-acre block of protected land, a significant unfragmented
    ``core'' forest in Vermont's northern woods.
        Eden Forest's close proximity to such ecological hotspots as the
    Babcock Nature Preserve, the Atlas Timberlands, and Green River
    Reservoir State Park coupled with the large unfragmented nature of the
    property will provide a haven for many wildlife species such as black
    bear, bobcat, gray and red fox, moose, and deer. Over 5,000 acres of
    the property is considered ``core'' habitat and has received a high
    wildlife-linkage-value rating by the Vermont Department of Fish and
    Wildlife due in part to it being a ``black bear production habitat''
    area. These areas support a relatively high density of cub-producing
    females. This property also has 120 acres of beaver wetlands that
    provide habitat for wood ducks, wood turtles, and many species of
    warblers. A rookery for great blue herons, a rare species in Vermont,
    was found at one of the property's wetland complexes.
        The Eden Forest property also encapsulates almost the entire
    watersheds of two Gihon River headwater streams, Stony Brook and Wild
    Brook. It also contains approximately one-half mile of frontage on both
    sides of the Gihon River itself, which is a tributary of the Lamoille
    River, and abuts Vermont's scenic Route 100. The property also includes
    more than 46 miles of streams and rivers that make up part of the Gihon
    River headwaters. The Vermont Department of Environmental
    Conservation's draft Lamoille Basin Plan recognizes the importance of
    protecting the Gihon River headwaters area for its near-pristine
    natural condition, wildlife and fish habitat value, timber value, and
    location adjacent to a core of protected land. Numerous wetlands dot
    the extensive property, including the six-acre Lanpher Meadow.
    Protection of the Eden Forest property and associated waters directly
    contributes to the water quality of Lake Champlain which is already
    impacted by elevated phosphorus levels associated with developed and
    mismanaged sub watersheds. Lake Champlain is often called ``North
    America's most historic lake'' in addition to offering an abundance of
    recreational and natural features.
        Historically, the Eden Forest property has also provided numerous
    recreational activities such as hiking, hunting, and cross-country
    skiing. Snowmobiling is also allowed, and the property hosts trails
    that are managed by the Vermont Association of Snow Travelers (VAST).
    Lamoille County also has the largest connected network of cross-county
    ski trails in the world, and this project could help expand that
    network in the future. These activities all make up an important part
    of the local tourist economy.
        Eden Forest is under immediate pressure from development. According
    to 2000 census data, the town of Eden has the second highest percentage
    of population growth in Lamoille County, and its projected population
    growth through 2015 is expected to continue at a higher rate than
    almost any other town in the county. Eden also had a 25 percent
    increase in the number of housing units from 1990 to 2000, indicating a
    high demand for new homes in the area. This type of sprawl is largely
    to blame for the fragmentation of Vermont's forests and farms. With its
    first-rate access to Route 100, low-elevation open meadows, well-
    developed road network, southern exposure, scenic views, and proximity
    to the major cities in Vermont, Eden Forest is a prime spot for
    development.
        The Lamoille County Natural Resources Conservation District &
    Nature Center, incorporated in 1945 to represent landholders, is
    committed to maintain and improve the natural resources of Lamoille
    County and to provide our cooperators with resources and tools, like
    the Forest Legacy Program, to encourage responsible and sustainable
    management and development of natural spaces within our communities.
    Since the District's incorporation over 60 years ago, the greatest
    change has been in land use; no longer are our cooperators agricultural
    producers and the forestry sector despite the fact that much of the
    Lamoille County economy is based on the natural environment. To respond
    appropriate, the Lamoille County Natural Resources Conservation
    District & Nature Center has prioritized all projects that support the
    traditional working landscape of agriculture and forestry. Protection
    of working forest lands like the Eden Forest will ensure the
    continuation of the rural character and wild flavor that the local
    communities of Lamoille County depend on.
        Thank you again, Madam Chairman for the opportunity to present this
    testimony in support of an appropriation of $4 million from the Forest
    Legacy Program in fiscal year 2009 to protect the vast 5,727-acre Eden
    Forest property.
                                     ______

            Prepared Statement of the League of American Orchestras

        The League of American Orchestras urges the subcommittee to approve
    fiscal year 2009 funding for the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA)
    at a level of $176 million. Congressional support for the NEA has
    strengthened in recent years, evidenced by meaningful funding
    increases, particularly in fiscal year 2008 when Congress approved a
    $20.3 million restoration of NEA funds. Still, the NEA has never fully
    recovered from a 40 percent budget cut in fiscal year 1996 and the
    current level of funding for the NEA is still well below the 1992
    appropriation of $176 million.
        Founded in 1942, the League of American Orchestras is the national
    service organization for symphony, chamber, youth, and collegiate
    orchestras. Orchestras exist in all 50 states, in virtually every
    community. We estimate that there are approximately 1,800 orchestras in
    the United States, with annual budgets ranging from less than $12,000
    to more than $77 million. Orchestras in this country are supported by a
    network of citizens that advance the presence of music in their
    communities--instrumentalists, conductors, managers, board members,
    volunteers, staff members, and business partners.
        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 distress, 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.
        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.
        In the most recently completed grant year, fiscal year 2007, the
    NEA's Grants to Organizations included 127 grants to orchestras and the
    communities they serve, supporting arts education for children and
    adults, preserving great classical works, fostering the creative
    endeavors of contemporary classical musicians, composers, and
    conductors, and expanding public access to performances.

            NEA FUNDING LEADS TO INCREASED PUBLIC ACCESS TO THE ARTS

        The NEA, together with the arts organizations that receive Federal
    support, is committed to improving public access to the arts. NEA
    grants reach every Congressional district in the country. Grants
    awarded to orchestras through the Access to Artistic Excellence program
    support educational activities, concerts, festivals, professional
    development, and residencies in communities across the country. With
    Federal support, orchestras are extending the reach of their activities
    beyond their home cities, bringing music to communities in surrounding
    towns and regions.
      --The New Mexico Symphony Orchestra, assisted by an NEA grant, has
            been able to bring its touring program to rural and underserved
            communities. The audiences for the public and school
            performances included first-time attendees and reflected the
            diversity of the local communities, which are predominantly
            Native American and Hispanic. The orchestra is committed to
            continuing to provide the diverse population of New Mexico with
            the highest quality live performances of symphonic music, to
            present a broad repertoire in a variety of venues, and to be an
            important educational force. NEA funding lends credibility to
            their ongoing efforts to secure critical operating funds, and
            the orchestra was able to attract funding from community
            partners, the Mellon Foundation, and helped persuade New Mexico
            legislature to re-institute touring funds for the orchestra's
            next fiscal year.
      --An NEA grant supports the Vermont Symphony Orchestra's (VSO) annual
            ``Made in Vermont Music Festival'' statewide tour, which takes
            a chamber orchestra to nine small, rural communities across the
            state during foliage season. The VSO also partners with the
            Vermont State College (VSC) system, with three of the concerts
            taking place on VSC campuses. Because several of the
            performances take place on college campuses, there is always a
            new audience in attendance, year to year. Further, an expanded
            ``Green Room Program,'' which reaches local high school
            students, draws new student attendees. Support from the NEA is
            critical and irreplaceable to this project and assists in the
            orchestra's application to the Vermont Council on the Arts for
            state arts support. The ``Made in Vermont Music Festival'' will
            embark on its 15th annual tour September 25-October 5, 2008,
            with Music Director Jaime Laredo conducting and performing as
            violin soloist.
      --An NEA grant will enable the Nashville Symphony to perform for
            children and adults through outdoor concerts and participate in
            community-wide events in different communities, drawing many
            new audience members who are not usual attendees of symphony
            concerts in Nashville. The Nashville Symphony has been a
            grateful recipient of NEA support for almost 20 years, and the
            community engagement program has doubled over the last 6 years.
            The orchestra is asked by new communities on a regular basis to
            perform, and it makes every effort to accommodate these
            requests. In 2007-2008, the Nashville Symphony will visit seven
            counties in Middle Tennessee. NEA awards are matched by
            community sponsorships, and community engagement concerts are
            offered free of charge to the public, or are offered for a
            minimal fee that the communities themselves charge so that
            funds raised go to local arts programs and initiatives.

       NEA-FUNDED ARTS PROGRAMS NURTURE THE CREATIVE POTENTIAL OF YOUNG
                                    LEARNERS

        Arts education is proven to boost the capacity of young people to
    succeed in school, work, and life. Children gain the ``arts advantage''
    through NEA-funded projects that engage them in the creative process,
    spark their skills of imagination, and develop their capacity for self-
    discipline, perseverance, and teamwork. Young people benefit from
    participating in the vibrant network of youth orchestras in America.
        The youth orchestra field is growing--among reporting orchestras,
    the average number of students participating in conducted ensembles
    increased by 25.9 percent between the 1989-1990 and the 2004-2005
    seasons. We look to youth orchestras as a place where young people come
    together from a wide variety of backgrounds--from countries all over
    the world, and from a variety of economic, social, religious and ethnic
    backgrounds. Music is a positive force for teaching people to work
    creatively together. Among America's orchestras our youth orchestras
    are the most diverse.
        Orchestras are essential and active partners in increasing access
    to lifelong music education, improving the quality of life in their
    communities by collaborating with school systems and other local
    partners to deliver a wide array of education and community programs.
      --The Dubuque Symphony Orchestra received its first NEA grant to
            support a series of concerts featuring Gareth Johnson, a winner
            of the International Sphinx Competition that recognizes young,
            ethnically diverse string instrumentalists. This support from
            the NEA enabled the orchestra to support young talent and
            promote artistic diversity as part of a city-wide Multicultural
            Festival organized by the Dubuque Symphony Orchestra to
            commemorate Black History Month. Furthermore, the orchestra was
            able to engage underserved groups in the community while
            inspiring and educating audiences, many of whom experienced
            classical music for the very first time.

        NEA GRANTS UNIQUELY SUPPORT CREATIVITY IN COMMUNITIES NATIONWIDE

        The NEA identifies and supports projects that connect the arts--and
    artists--to their broader communities, encouraging creative
    collaboration and building artistic strength. Projects supported by the
    NEA must demonstrate artistic excellence and a strong capacity to reach
    new audiences. Audiences across the country are currently experiencing
    an NEA-funded project that exhibits the hallmarks of the agency:
    reaching new audiences, attracting additional financial support, and
    providing access to the arts to communities nationwide.
      --An NEA grant to the Reno Chamber Orchestra supports the second
            round of the ``Ford Made in America'' project, a collaborative
            commissioning, performance, and outreach project that involves
            60 smaller-budget orchestras, including at least one from each
            of the 50 States, providing an opportunity to achieve together
            what no one of them could afford to do on their own. For
            orchestras with smaller budgets, commissioning and presenting a
            major new work by a nationally recognized composer can be
            difficult, due to budget constraints and limited staff
            resources. The largest consortium commission ever planned by
            American orchestras, Ford Made in America gives ensembles in
            smaller communities the capacity to premiere a new work by
            Joseph Schwantner, one of the most frequently performed
            composers in the United States. Alongside the NEA, the Ford
            Motor Company Fund has again contributed major funding, and the
            program is a partnership of the League of American Orchestras
            and Meet the Composer. On the local level, Ford Made in America
            has opened up new potential funding streams for participating
            orchestras.
        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 $176 million in
    funding for the National Endowment for the Arts.
                                     ______

              Prepared Statement of the Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe

        Thank you for allowing the Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe an opportunity
    to submit our written testimony that lists the funding needs for fiscal
    year 2009 before this highly esteem committee.
        My name is Frances Charles and I am the chairwoman of the Lower
    Elwha Klallam Tribe. Our Reservation is located on and near the mouth
    of the Elwha River on the North Coast of the Olympic Peninsula, about 5
    miles west of the City of Port Angeles, Washington. I am here today to
    request full funding for the Indian Health Service in Fiscal 2009,
    including :
      --a $486,000,000 increase to cover mandatory, inflation, and
            population growth;
      --a $152,000,000 increase for Contract Health Services;
      --a $160,000,000 increase to fully fund Contract Support Costs;
      --a $5,000,000 increase for IHS' Office of Self-Governance;
      --restoration of $21,000,000 for Health Care Facilities Construction;
            and
      --continued annual funding of the Special Diabetes Program for
            Indians at $150,000,000 until new authority is enacted.
        Increased funding levels are needed to maintain existing health
    care services; meet unmet health care needs in our growing population;
    and support Tribal Self-determination efforts.
        The Elwha Tribe also supports restoration of Johnson-O'Malley
    ($21,400,000) and Housing Improvement ($13,600,000) funds to the Bureau
    of Indian Affairs base programs, along with a $25,000,000 increase in
    the BIA's Tribal Priority Allocation, a $45,000,000 increase for BIA
    Contract Support Costs, and $500,000 for BIA Data Management. In
    addition, we welcome the subcommittee's support of funding for
    restoration of freshwater and marine fisheries habitat in the Port
    Angeles region. Our Tribe is a partner with the State and Federal
    governments in both Elwha River Restoration and Port Angeles Harbor
    Cleanup. But I want to focus my testimony today on health care issues.
        Prior to entering Self-Governance in the Indian Health Service in
    2002, we took over our Tribe's Health Services from IHS' Neah Bay
    Service Unit in March 1995. Our clinic, located just west of Port
    Angeles on U.S. Highway 101, is better situated to provide health care
    services in the Port Angeles Region. The clinic serves about 1000
    member and non-member Indians, including 416 individuals who lack
    insurance. Ours is also the only clinic in the Port Angeles area
    accepting new Medicare and Medicaid patients, including non-Indians. In
    addition, under a recently negotiated Memorandum of Understanding with
    the Veterans Administration, our clinic will soon begin serving both
    Indian and non-Indian veterans.
        Unfortunately, our Contract Health Services Program remains
    seriously under-funded. For fiscal year 2007, that program received
    $517,175 to serve 642 eligible Native Americans living on reservation
    land. After using $197,800 to buy prescription drugs for this
    population, we had just $319,380 remaining for all of fiscal year 2007.
    We do not collect contract support costs from our Contract Health
    Service allocation and are forced to use third-party revenues to
    attempt to make up this shortfall.
        Ever-increasing medical costs are affecting the criteria we use to
    select treatment options. For example, in fiscal year 2007 the Contract
    Health Service budget was severely impacted by two cancer patients.
    Because of the high cost of the medical treatment for one of the
    patients--$200,000 per month just for cancer center care, not including
    hospital and physician fees or medication--the Tribe was forced to go
    into Priority I, meaning all medical referrals were stopped except for
    patients requiring hospitalization or at risk for life and limb. As you
    can see, the medical needs of just one tribal member can put a
    substantial strain on the yearly budget, leaving other tribal
    households in jeopardy. We need more realistic funding levels.
        Increased funding would also facilitate the purchase of diagnostic
    equipment, such as lab and x-ray equipment, as well as essential
    medical supplies. Our veteran, eldercare and pediatric caseloads are
    all increasing. We need to keep pace in our clinic. And, as our service
    population ages, we hope to construct and operate an assisted living
    facility serving veterans and tribal elders. We especially honor and
    care for our veterans. We are proud that such a high proportion of
    Indian people have served, and continue to serve, in the Armed Forces.
    We want to provide them with the best medical facilities possible.
        As we enter fiscal year 2008 our Tribe is faced with many
    challenges regarding health care. The greatest challenge will be to
    provide Contract Health Care. We are told that program will only
    receive $500,000 for fiscal year 2008. That funding will be
    insufficient to cover our increasing medical costs for eldercare,
    emergency room visits, surgeries, orthopedics, diabetic management,
    cancer care, health and prevention programs.
        Mr. Chairman, you can see that we have the same health care
    problems as the country at large: increasing uninsured or under-insured
    veteran, eldercare and pediatric caseloads. If anything, our service
    population has greater health-care needs than the general population.
    But because of cuts, rather than growth, in the Indian Health Services
    budget, and because IHS requires us to subsidize contract support
    costs, we are actually forced to treat our children, elders and
    veterans with diminished funding. This is causing a health-care crisis,
    for our Tribe and for our region. We hope that your subcommittee will
    not let this happen, that Congress will be able to provide health care
    funding at more realistic levels in the coming years.
        Finally, Mr. Chairman, I want to express my Tribe's appreciation
    for Senates' efforts toward reauthorizing the Indian Health Care
    Improvement Act. Much has been done, and much remains to be done, to
    improve health care for our people. We know that there are many demands
    made upon the Federal Budget; and, we hope that the Senate, present and
    future, will continue to give high priority to Indian Health Care.
                                     ______

                 Prepared Statement of the Lummi Indian Nation

        On behalf of the Lummi Indian Nation, I would like to thank the
    chairman and the distinguished committee members for the opportunity to
    share with you the funding priorities and requests of the Lummi Indian
    Nation for the fiscal year 2009 Budgets for the Bureau of Indian
    Affairs and the Indian Health Service.
        The Lummi Indian Nation is located on the northern coast of
    Washington State, and is the third largest tribe in Washington State
    serving a population of over 5,200. The Lummi Indian Nation is a
    fishing Nation. We have drawn our physical and spiritual sustenance
    from the marine tidelands and waters, which as surrounded us for
    hundreds of thousands of years. Now the abundance of wild salmon is
    gone. The remaining salmon stocks do not support commercial fisheries.
    Our fishers have trying to survive with shellfish products. In 1999 we
    had 700 licensed fishers who supported nearly 3,000 tribal members.
    Today, we have about 350 remaining. This means that over 400 small
    businesses in our community have gone bankrupt in the past 9 years.
    This is the basic inescapable reality of the Lummi Indian Nation. We
    are culturally a fishing society. Our people have contracted diseases
    that were unknown to us at the beginning of the 20th Century. Our
    people are seeking a return to traditional health and to practice our
    traditional healthy lifestyles. Our families are struggling to hold
    traditional values against the onslaught of poverty, drug abuse, mental
    and physical illness. Domestic violence among our people is three times
    the rate experienced by our non-Indian neighbors. Our children and
    elders go without the food clothing, shelter and community support that
    they desperately need.
                            tribal specific requests
    Bureau of Indian Affairs
      --+$5 million--BIA General Assistance Program
      --+$500,000--Tribal Community Safety Center
      --+$850,000--Water Resources Protection
      --+$1.5 million--Wetland and Habitat Mitigation Bank Land Acquisition
      --+$1.6 million--Salmon Hatchery Program Maintenance
      --+$1 million--BIA Realty
      --+$2.5 million--Slater Road Bridge Project
    Indian Health Service
      --+$2 million--Contract Health Funds
      --+$600,000--Lummi Dental Facility Staffing and Equipment
        lummi indian nation specific requests--bureau of indian affairs
    +$5 million.--BIA General Assistance Program
        The Lummi Indian Nation worked with the BIA General Assistance
    Staff to develop a plan for emergency services for our fishers. This
    assistance did help some fishers make the transition from salmon to
    other commercial fisheries, until the BIA administrative decision was
    made not to allow Tribes to seek assistance for economic disaster, even
    though it is allowable under the program regulations. Lummi Indian
    Nation is requesting that the Committee direct the Bureau to reverse
    this decision and provide the BIA General Assistance Program with an
    additional $5million to address the needs of those Tribes impacted by
    economic distress, such as the economic disaster facing the Lummi
    Indian Nation.
    +$500,000.--Tribal Community Safety Center (Office of Indian Services)
        The Lummi Indian Nation has been able to organize eight federally
    recognized Tribal governments to support the development and operation
    of a Community Public Safety Center, which would serve as a regional
    alternative jail. The facility would feature a variety of incarceration
    services from the least restrictive forms of community-based services
    through limited maximum-security incarceration services. With proper
    planning and contract obligations the Tribes could support this
    operation.
    +$850,000.--Water Resources Protection (Division of Water)
        Pursuant to the 1855 Treaty of Point Elliot, an adequate quantity
    and quality of water is needed both on the Lummi Reservation to support
    an economically viable homeland for the Lummi People and in the
    Nooksack River watershed to support a sustainable, harvestable surplus
    of salmon and shellfish. In November 2007 the Federal judge approved
    the negotiated settlement to the lawsuit United States, Lummi Nation v.
    Washington State Department of Ecology, et al, Civil Action No. C01-
    0047Z (U.S. District Court, Western District of Washington). The
    negotiated settlement resolved water rights conflicts for only a
    portion of the Lummi Indian Reservation; it did not resolve on-going
    conflicts for the northern half of the Reservation and it did not
    resolve on-going conflicts over water allocation in the Nooksack River
    watershed, which discharges through the Reservation. In addition, the
    negotiated settlement created obligations on the parties including
    paying for a Federal water master, metering all water uses, and
    performing additional monitoring and reporting. The Lummi Indian Nation
    is requesting $150,000 to pay the cost of these obligations due the
    Lummi Indian Nation. Efforts to resolve the water rights conflicts have
    been underway for many years and additional technical, legal, and
    policy support is needed to resolve these conflicts. The estimated
    additional annual cost for this support is $700,000.
    +$1.5 million--Wetland and Habitat Mitigation Bank Land Acquisition
        The Lummi Indian Nation is developing a wetland and habitat
    mitigation bank on the Reservation to restore high-value and relatively
    rare saltwater marsh habitat and to ensure no net loss of wetland areas
    or functions as a result of residential, commercial, municipal, and
    industrial growth on the Reservation and in surrounding areas. Although
    the Lummi Indian Nation already owns about half of the land that will
    be used in the wetland and habitat mitigation bank, individual tribal
    members own the remainder of the targeted land in the Lummi River flood
    plain. Purchasing this land, at fair market value, which has marginal
    value for agricultural purposes due to saline soils and brackish water
    supplies, will consolidate ownership and allow the land to be used for
    a purpose that provides a substantial benefit to the ecosystem and
    supports the residential and economic development of the Lummi Indian
    Nation and surrounding communities.
    +$1.6 million.--Salmon Hatchery Program Maintenance (Hatchery
            Maintenance & Rehabilitation)
        The Lummi Indian Nation currently operates three salmon hatcheries
    that support tribal and other fisheries in the region. The tribal
    hatchery facilities were originally constructed in the early 1970's.
    The original infrastructure needs to be repaired or replaced as it
    approaches the end of its useful life and other infrastructure needs to
    be developed or modified to ensure compliance with the Clean Water Act
    and/or the Endangered Species Act. The existing pump station along the
    Nooksack River needs to be upgraded at a cost of approximately $600,000
    and the existing approximately 4 mile long, 10-inch diameter asbestos-
    cement water supply line needs to be replaced with a 12-inch diameter
    pipeline at a cost of approximately $1 million.
    +$1 million.--BIA Realty (Division of Realty)
        Funding is requested to support BIA processing the backlog of
    Tribal fee to trust applications that have been accumulating for nearly
    20 years. This backlog is a significant barrier to Tribal development
    today.
    +$2.5 million.--Slater Road Bridge Project (Division of Transportation)
        The Lummi Indian Nation is partnering with the Federal Emergency
    Management Agency and neighboring Whatcom County to elevate a
    frequently flooded section of Slater Road. When this section of Slater
    Road is flooded, access to the Lummi Reservation, Lummi Island, the
    Cherry Point heavy impact industrial zone, and the City of Ferndale are
    severely limited, which threatens public health and safety and has
    substantial economic impacts. The FEMA provided a $3 million grant for
    the project through the Pre-Disaster Mitigation Program (the maximum
    grant allowable) and Whatcom County has committed $3.66 million to the
    project based on initial project cost estimates. The design for the
    project has been completed but, due to unforeseen costs and increase
    material costs, the engineer's cost estimate based on the 100 percent
    design is approximately $2.5 million greater than the available budget.
    Value engineering efforts did not substantially lower the costs and
    would have a greater environmental impact. An additional $2.5 million
    is needed to construct this important project, from Indian Reservation
    Roads (IRR) Road and Bridge funds.
          lummi indian nation specific requests--indian health service
    +$2 million.--Contract Health Funds
        The Lummi Indian Nation has endured a shortage of contract health
    care funds for many years due to constantly increasing health care and
    health care administrative costs and a budget that does not keep pace.
    The Lummi Indian Nation is requesting that the Committee direct the IHS
    to develop an allocation plan for contract health care funds that
    recognizes that Tribes who are not served by an IHS Hospital incur
    greater contract health costs than those tribes who are provided
    services by such a facility. The Lummi Indian Nation has incurred
    approximately $2 million annually in costs that are not covered by the
    current allocation level.
    +$600,000.--Lummi Indian Nation Dental Facility Staffing and Equipment
        In 2008 the Lummi Indian Nation is completing the process of
    expanding is dental clinic facility and services. Funding for this
    project was generated through a combination of IHS facility and tribal
    funds. The Tribal Health Planner has determined that the Dental Clinic
    needs at least 12 chairs. Currently there are only four chairs and a 4
    month waiting list for both youth and adult to see the dentists even
    though the Lummi Indian Nation has prioritized dental services for
    school age children. Lummi Indian Nation funds have been used to create
    dental clinic space sufficient for 12 chairs. The Lummi Indian Nation
    is requesting that the Committee direct the IHS to provide the Lummi
    Indian Nation with additional equipment (4 operatories at $100,000
    each) and staffing (two dentists at the rate of $100,000 annually
    each).
            requests and recommendations supporting all tribal needs
    BIA Requests
      --Restore Johnson O'Malley funds ($21.4 million); and Housing
            Improvement Funds ($13.6 million) to Tribal base programs
      --Provide $25 million General Increase to BIA Tribal Priority
            Allocation for inflationary and fixed costs
      --Provide $45 million increase for BIA Contract Support Cost (CSC),
            including Direct CSC
      --$500,000 for BIA Data Management funding of Office of Program Data
            Quality
    IHS Requests
      --Provide $486 million for IHS mandatory, inflation and population
            growth increase to maintain existing health care services
            (President's budget proposes a cut of $21.3 million)
      --$152 million increase for Contract Health Services (CHS)
      --$160 million increase for IHS to fully fund Contract Support Cost
            (CSC), including Direct CSC
      --Increase $5 million to the Indian Health Service (IHS) Office of
            Tribal Self-Governance
      --Restore $21 million for health care facilities construction
      --Maintain annual funding for Special Diabetes Program for Indians
            (SDPI) at $150 million until new authority is enacted (Current
            extended authority for Special Diabetes Program for Indians
            will expire in 2009.)
    The Lummi Indian Nation Supports the Regional Requests and
            Recommendations for
        Affiliated Tribes of Northwest Indians
        Northwest Portland Area Indian Health Board
        Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission
    The Lummi Indian Nation Supports the National Requests and
            Recommendations for
        National Congress of American Indians
        National Indian Health Board
                                     ______

           Prepared Statement of the Mother Lode Chapter, Sierra Club

        The Mother Lode Chapter of the Sierra Club supports an
    appropriation of $5 million from the Land and Water Conservation Fund
    to the U.S. Forest Service to purchase lands in Tahoe National Forest,
    California. Some of these lands are in the canyon of the Middle Yuba
    River, and the remainder are in the canyon of the North Yuba River.
        The Mother Lode 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 of areas with exceptional values
    in the checkerboard 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 the exceptional checkerboard areas--for example, 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 appropriation for
    fiscal year 2009.
        Checkerboard parcels along the Middle Yuba River and parcels in the
    watershed of the North Yuba River with a total area of 3,700 acres are
    available for acquisition in fiscal year 2009.

                            MIDDLE YUBA RIVER LANDS

        These lands lie along 12 miles of the canyon of the Middle Yuba
    River, a deep rugged canyon that includes three sheer-walled inner box
    canyons. This 12-mile stretch is the upstream end of the 39 miles of
    the Middle Yuba that Tahoe National Forest has found eligible for
    designation in the Wild and Scenic River System by virtue of its
    exceptional scenic qualities. Most of the parcels are on the lower
    slopes and in the bottom of the canyon.
        Bald eagles and northern goshawks reside in the canyon, which is a
    critical wildlife corridor. The canyon contains nesting and foraging
    areas for California spotted owls. Most of the national forest lands in
    the canyon are included in Tahoe National Forest's Carnivore Network,
    lands that are to be managed to benefit habitat for marten and Pacific
    fisher.
        The entire 39 mile stretch of the Middle Yuba is considered to be a
    good to excellent trout stream. The first 4 miles downstream from
    Milton Reservoir are more accessible than the canyons further
    downstream, and acquisition of lands along this stretch would help
    ensure public access to almost all of it. The available lands include a
    stretch of Macklin Creek, which contains a self-sustaining population
    of Lahontan cutthroat trout, a federally-listed threatened species.
    Macklin Creek is an important contributor to California's Lahontan
    cutthroat trout recovery program.
        The Middle Yuba canyon offers excellent opportunities for
    fishermen, hikers, and canyon explorers who enjoy solitude, strenuous
    adventure, and highly scenic primitive settings. There are several
    historic trails into the canyon. Some of them are presently usable, and
    others could be reconstructed to provide additional access.
        Acquisition of the available Middle Yuba River lands would
    significantly increase and consolidate public ownership within the
    canyon, facilitating coordinated management to preserve the canyon's
    important wildlife habitat, watershed, and wild river values. If these
    lands are not acquired, some parcels might be sold to individuals
    desiring unusually isolated second-home sites. Development of these
    sites would gravely damage the pristine canyon.

                             NORTH YUBA RIVER LANDS

        Most of the 11 scattered parcels lie on the middle and upper slopes
    of the canyon of the North Yuba River, a few miles upstream from the
    town of Downieville. These parcels are in the middleground and
    background views from the North Yuba River canyon and heavily traveled
    State Highway 49, which is designated as a California Scenic Highway.
    The North Yuba River canyon is also a very popular recreation area.
    Protection of the highly scenic views from the canyon and highway is a
    significant public benefit.
        Acquisition of the North Yuba River parcels will substantially
    consolidate public ownership in several drainages tributary to the
    North Fork and facilitate coordinated management to preserve the
    scenic, watershed, and wildlife habitat values of these drainages,
    which are included in Tahoe National Forest's Carnivore Network.
                                     ______

     Prepared Statement of the National Association of Abandoned Mine Land
                                    Programs

        As the president of the National Association of Abandoned Mine Land
    Programs I submit this statement on the proposed fiscal year 2009
    Office of Surface Mining budget.
        The NAAMLP is a tax-exempt organization consisting of 31 States and
    Indian tribes with a history of coal mining and coal mine related
    hazards. These States and tribes are responsible for 99.5 percent of
    the Nation's coal production. A majority of the States and tribes
    within the NAAMLP administer abandoned mine land (AML) reclamation
    programs funded and overseen by the Office of Surface Mining (OSM)
    pursuant to Title IV of the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act
    (SMCRA, Public Law 95-87). Since the enactment of the SMCRA by Congress
    in 1977, the AML program has reclaimed thousands of dangerous sites
    left by abandoned coal mines, resulting in increased safety for
    millions of Americans. Specifically, more than 285,000 acres of
    abandoned coal mine sites have been reclaimed through $3.5 billion in
    grants to States and tribes under the AML program. This means hazards
    associated with more than 27,000 open mine portals and shafts, 2.9
    million feet of dangerous highwalls, and 16,000 acres of dangerous
    piles and embankments have been eliminated and the land reclaimed.
    Despite these impressive accomplishments, $3 billion priority 1 and 2
    problems threaten public health and safety and remain unreclaimed.
    These hazardous sites require safeguarding by State and tribal AML
    programs.
        The 2006 Amendments to Title IV of the (SMCRA extended the Interior
    Department's authority to collect Abandoned Mine Land (AML) fees
    through September 30, 2021 and made the majority of the funding
    available to States and Tribes mandatory and without further
    appropriation by Congress. The 15-year extension coupled with increased
    funding will provide the States and tribes with the ability to carryout
    the remaining AML reclamation work. It is the intention of the States
    and tribes to continue to focus on the protection of the public health
    and safety to ensure restoration of abandoned mines.
        Beginning with fiscal year 2008, State Title IV grants are funded
    primarily by permanent appropriations. States will receive mandatory
    funding in fiscal year 2009 of $298.4 million for AML reclamation work.
    With the funding off-budget, this will finally allow the States and
    tribes to make staffing decisions and in turn begin planning for long
    range design and reclamation activities.
        However, several issues remain unresolved and these items from the
    OSM proposed budget are of a concern to the NAAMLP.

                            MINIMUM PROGRAM FUNDING

       OSM proposes an amount of $30.8 million for discretionary funding
    related to OSM operations under the Title IV program, which includes
    funding needed for minimum program States. Under the new funding
    formula, all of the States and tribes will receive funding increases
    except for minimum program States. Under the 2006 Amendments to SMCRA
    all States and tribes will receive increases in AML funding beginning
    in fiscal year 2008 (29 percent to 269 percent increases), while
    Minimum Program States will receive limited funding for fiscal year
    2008 and fiscal year 2009. The Minimum Program States are Alaska,
    Arkansas, Iowa, Kansas, Maryland, Missouri, and Oklahoma. For the last
    14 years, Minimum Program States have been critically under funded in
    respect to the number of Priority 1 and Priority 2 AML hazards that
    need to be reclaimed. For 3 years (fiscal year 1992, fiscal year 1993,
    and fiscal year 1994) the Minimum Program States received $2 million
    annually, the amount mandated by SMCRA. Since that time the Minimum
    Program States have been limited to an annual allocation of only $1.5
    million, except for a very small increase of $60,000 to $345,000,
    depending on the State. The 2006 amendments increased the Minimum
    Program distribution to $3 million annually, a move supported by the
    NAAMLP. OSM has interpreted the 2006 amendments in a manner that holds
    the Minimum Program distribution to the previous level of $1.5 million
    per year. We urge Congress to fund these States at the statutorily
    authorized level of $3 million in fiscal year 2009 and allow these
    States to get on with the critical AML projects awaiting funding.

                           EMERGENCY PROGRAM FUNDING

        Continuation of the OSM Emergency program fulfills the promise to
    ensure the highest response from Federal and State AML programs for
    protecting the public against the most serious and hazardous problems
    associated with abandoned mines. Many States and tribes continue to
    have AML emergencies that annually cost millions of dollars; between
    2003-2007, $92.4 million was spent on funding for emergency projects in
    19 States. OSM's 2009 budget would eliminate funding for State-run
    emergency programs and also for Federal emergency projects (in those
    States that do not administer their own emergency programs). The AML
    program is first and foremost designed to protect public health and
    safety. The majority of State and tribal AML projects specifically
    correct AML features that threaten someone's personal safety or
    welfare. While State and tribal AML programs do complete significant
    projects that benefit the environment, the primary focus has been on
    eliminating health and safety hazards. Acting as an unfunded Federal
    mandate, the elimination of Federal funding for the AML emergency
    program would require State and tribal AML programs to fund emergencies
    from non-emergency and waterline project grant funding. Because of the
    2006 Amendments, States will be receiving significant funding increases
    that would allow the States to address long overdue reclamation
    problems including landslides, contaminated drinking water, refuse
    piles, dangerous highwalls, mine fires, and exposed mine portals.
    Coupled with the prior loss of funding for the Appalachian Clean
    Streams Initiative, diverting these monies to the emergency program, as
    suggested by OSM's budget, would impede the progress the States are
    about to make in addressing AML problems that have been awaiting
    funding for years. This diversion of funding will have a significant
    and disproportionately harmful effect on minimum program States that
    are currently being funded at a lower level.
        Prior to the proposed Federal fiscal year 2009 budget, the Federal
    Office of Surface Mining has complied with section 410 and funded all
    AML emergency program reclamation since the inception of SMCRA. Section
    410 of SMCRA establishes emergency reclamation procedures for AML sites
    that pose a high risk of physical harm to the public health and safety
    and recognizes the difference between an AML problem and an AML
    Emergency. Also, the funding for the emergency program is separate from
    the State and tribal non-emergency AML grant funding since it comes
    from the Secretary's ``discretionary share''. Funding for emergencies
    is provided for in section 402(g)(3) of SMCRA. It is unclear whether
    non-emergency funds received by the States can be used to fund
    emergency projects due to funding stipulations found in section 402(g).
    Furthermore, the 2006 SMCRA Amendments (Public Law 109-432) did not
    include any language that would mandate or authorize the States and
    tribes to fund and/or take sole responsibility for the AML Emergency
    Program. And finally, the 2006 SMCRA Amendments (Public Law 109-432)
    mandate the continued collection of sufficient revenue by OSM to cover
    necessary expenditures under section 402(g)(3), including emergencies.
    So, at the same time OSM proposes to eliminate emergency funding it
    continues to collect sufficient revenue to fund the emergency program.
    If OSM is not going to distribute the collected revenue to the States
    to fund the emergency program, it should discontinue collecting the
    revenue.
        The NAAMLP urges Congress to once again include at least $21
    million for the AML Emergency Program in OSM's fiscal year 2009 budget
    and to direct the agency to continue this funding into the future in
    order to address the AML emergencies that require immediate action to
    abate the threat to the public health and safety. (Attached is a
    Resolution passed by the NAAMLP in support of this funding)

                            TECHNOLOGY AND TRAINING

       The NAAMLP continues to support funding for OSM's National
    Technical Training Program (NTTP) and the Technical Innovation
    Professional Services Program (TIPS). The NTTP has been very successful
    in pooling resources from OSM, States and tribes to provide the
    necessary technical expertise and training needed to enhance the skills
    of State and tribal abandoned mine reclamation program staffs. TIPS is
    another successful partnership between OSM, States and tribes that
    provides the needed upgrades to computer software and hardware along
    with training and expertise in the computer technology field. Both of
    these programs need continued funding. The States and tribes also need
    funding in order to travel to training and to technology transfer
    events.
        Thank you for the opportunity to present the NAAMLP perspective.
    Please contact me if the NAAMLP can provide more information in any
    way.

     A RESOLUTION CONCERNING RESTORATION OF FUNDING FOR THE AML EMERGENCY
                                    PROGRAM

        WHEREAS, The passage of the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation
    Act of 1977, Public Law 95-87 (Title IV--Section 410) provided the
    Secretary of the U.S. Department of the Interior the authorization to
    expend moneys from the Abandoned Mine Land (AML) Reclamation fund for
    AML emergencies; and
        WHEREAS, many States and tribes continue to have AML emergencies
    that annually cost millions of dollars; and
        WHEREAS, prior to the proposed Federal fiscal year 2009 budget, the
    Federal Office of Surface Mining has complied with section 410 and
    funded all AML emergency program reclamation since the inception of
    SMCRA; and
        WHEREAS, the President's proposed fiscal year 2009 budget
    eliminates all funding for the AML Emergency Program and anticipates
    the elimination of AML Emergency Program funding in the future; and
        WHEREAS, the elimination of Federal funding for the AML emergency
    program would necessitate that State and tribal AML programs divert
    funding from non-emergency reclamation and AML waterline projects to
    fund emergencies; and
        WHEREAS, the passage of the 2006 SMCRA Amendments (Public Law 109-
    432) did not include any language that would mandate or authorize the
    States and tribes to fund and/or take sole responsibility for the AML
    Emergency Program; and
        WHEREAS, the 2006 SMCRA Amendments (Public Law 109-432) mandate the
    continued collection of sufficient revenue to cover necessary
    expenditures under section 402(g)(3), including emergencies;
        NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the National Association of
    Abandoned Mine Land Programs urges Congress to restore at least $21
    million for the AML Emergency Program in OSM's fiscal year 2009 budget
    and to direct the agency to continue this funding into the future in
    order to address the AML emergencies that require immediate action to
    abate the threat to the public health and safety.
        Signed this 28th day of February, 2008
        LORETTA PINEDA, President
                                     ______

      Prepared Statement of the National Association of Clean Air Agencies

        The National Association of Clean Air Agencies (NACAA) represents
    the State and local air quality agencies in 53 States and territories
    and over 165 metropolitan areas across the country. NACAA appreciates
    the opportunity to provide testimony on the fiscal year 2009 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. 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 2009 by $84.7 million above the
    President's request, for a total of $270.3 million. This represents a
    restoration of the $31.2-million cut contained in the President's
    request, along with an increase of $53.5 million. Additionally, NACAA
    requests that grants for the fine particulate matter monitoring program
    not be shifted from section 103 authority to section 105 authority, as
    the administration's budget proposal recommends. The increase NACAA is
    recommending would not be an earmark because these expenditures are
    authorized under the Clean Air Act and the funds would be awarded to
    State and local air pollution control agencies in all 50 States.
        Thank you very much for restoring in fiscal year 2008 the grants
    for State and local air agencies that were targeted for a reduction in
    the President's request last year. The members of NACAA were extremely
    gratified by your commitment to clean air and public health and hope
    you will again restore the grants that would be cut under the
    President's request and provide an increase above last year's amount to
    support important air quality activities that are described below.

      RESTORATION OF STATE AND LOCAL AIR GRANTS IS ESSENTIAL TO CLEAN AIR
                                    EFFORTS

        For the third straight year, the administration's budget request
    calls for $185.6 million for grants to State and local air quality
    agencies, which is a significant reduction compared to the fiscal year
    2008 appropriated level--a cut of over 14 percent. These grants,
    provided under sections 103 and 105 of the Clean Air Act, are critical
    to State and local agency efforts to implement the many complex
    requirements of our Nation's clean air program. Reductions of this
    magnitude would have a devastating effect on our clean air efforts
    across the country.
        When EPA proposed similar cuts in each of the last 2 years, NACAA
    members analyzed the specific impacts the reductions would have on
    their programs and reported very disturbing results (see
    www.4cleanair.org/StateandLocalExamplesofImpactsofCuts.pdf and
    www.4cleanair.org/documents/FY2008budgetanalysisfinal022607.pdf).
    Because the proposed budget for fiscal year 2009 is the same, similar
    negative impacts would be expected. For example, most State and local
    air agencies reported that the reductions would force them to lay off
    valuable staff or leave current vacancies unfilled. Many agencies would
    shut down existing monitors or otherwise curtail monitoring programs.
    Many inspection and enforcement activities would be impaired. Permits
    for minor sources would take longer to process and customer service
    would diminish. Some smaller local agencies might even be forced to
    cease operations entirely--a loss with significant negative
    consequences for those areas. Finally, the proposed cuts would deprive
    the Regional Planning Organizations of necessary tools and resources to
    help State and local agencies carry out technical activities related to
    regional haze that they have done so successfully for years.
        The impact of the proposed decreases would be exacerbated by the
    proposal to shift grants for the fine particulate matter
    (PM2.5) monitoring program from section 103 authority (which
    does not require a 40-percent match from State and local recipients) to
    section 105 authority and reduce them by the amount of the 40-percent
    match. Because of the inability of some State and local air agencies to
    provide matching funds specifically dedicated to PM2.5
    monitoring, there would be significant cuts to this important program,
    and some agencies could be forced to turn away much-needed grant funds
    and cease monitoring efforts for this pollutant. PM2.5 is
    very damaging to public health, even leading to thousands of premature
    deaths. The air quality monitoring program is the foundation of State
    and local air agencies' efforts to understand the nature of the
    PM2.5 problem and address it. Dedicated funding under
    section 103 has enabled States and localities to build a strong
    PM2.5 monitoring program. NACAA urges you to retain the
    PM2.5 monitoring program under section 103 authority.

         ADDITIONAL FUNDS ABOVE FISCAL YEAR 2008 LEVELS ARE NEEDED FOR
                         CONTINUING AND NEW ACTIVITIES

        In addition to restoring the proposed cuts, NACAA recommends that
    Federal funding for State and local air programs be increased. While
    the need for additional funding for air programs is great, we recognize
    that there are many competing claims on Federal resources and that full
    funding is not possible in the current economic climate. Therefore,
    NACAA is requesting only a portion of the optimal amount. However, the
    following information is provided as context, to illustrate that the
    amount NACAA is requesting is truly a fraction of what is needed.
        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, the Federal Government provides only about
    25 percent of the total (not including Title V permit fees, which State
    and local agencies collect from major sources and can use to fund only
    permit-related activities). The total amount needed to fund State and
    local efforts to implement the Clean Air Act is estimated at over $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
    equal approximately $600 million annually. However, Federal grants have
    been only about one-third of this total in recent years. To make
    matters worse, over the past 15 or 20 years, Federal grants for State
    and local air pollution control agencies to operate their programs have
    decreased by approximately one-third in terms of purchasing power.
        While significant grant increases are needed to carry out State and
    local agencies' existing obligations, they are facing several important
    new responsibilities that will even further strain their budgets. For
    example, State and local agencies are in the midst of developing State
    Implementation Plans for haze, PM2.5 and ozone, requiring
    new activities for each program, all of which are time-consuming, labor
    intensive and costly. These include, among others, emission inventory
    development, emissions and air quality modeling to determine what
    reductions are needed, development of strategies to decrease emissions,
    adoption of regulations, stakeholder outreach, and coordination with
    EPA to ensure the plans are acceptable.
        Additionally, EPA has just tightened both the PM2.5 and
    ozone standards. The new standards will require States and localities
    to greatly expand their ambient monitoring networks, necessitating
    additional equipment and staff. With regard to ozone, over 250
    additional counties are expected to violate the just-promulgated
    primary health standard. Additional monitors will be needed in these
    areas, as well as in numerous counties across the country where there
    is currently no data being collected. Further, as a result of the lower
    standard, a month has been added to the ozone season in many areas,
    meaning that more staff and resources will be needed to sample during
    the longer season. It is estimated that an additional $15-20 million
    will be needed for these ozone monitoring activities. The existing
    PM2.5 network is also inadequate, especially in light of the
    recently tightened daily standard. An estimated $10-15 million in
    additional funds are needed to ensure that the PM2.5
    monitoring network is sufficient.
        Another example of additional workload is the implementation of
    standards for smaller--or ``area''--sources of hazardous air pollutants
    (HAPs), many of which have not been regulated before. Pursuant to a
    court order, EPA is issuing 50 standards to reduce HAP emissions from
    area sources that, in the aggregate, are responsible for significant
    emissions. For State and local agencies that will implement the
    standards, locating facilities, providing compliance assistance and
    outreach, permitting and enforcing requirements will be labor
    intensive. Because most of these sources are too small for the Title V
    permit program, they will not pay permit fees. Thus, State and local
    agencies will need additional grant funds to take delegation of this
    new program.

                        WHY IS AIR POLLUTION A CONCERN?

        With all the competing requests facing Congress, it is appropriate
    to ask why air pollution activities should receive additional funding.
    The answer is that dirty air poses a significant risk; tens of
    thousands of people die prematurely every year and many more suffer
    ill-health as a result of air pollution. In fact, it would be fair to
    say that more people die from exposure to air pollution than from
    almost any other problem that this subcommittee addresses.
        While great progress has been made under the Clean Air Act,
    millions of people in this country continue to breathe unhealthful air.
    Over 150 million people live in areas that violate at least one of the
    six health-based National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS).
    Exposure to these pollutants causes a host of problems including
    aggravation of existing respiratory and cardiovascular disease, damage
    to lung tissue, impaired breathing, irregular heart beat, heart
    attacks, lung cancer and death. The pollutants covered by the NAAQS are
    not the only problems this country faces. EPA's own data on toxic air
    pollution estimate that more than 270 million people in this country
    live in census tracts where the combined upper-bound lifetime cancer
    risk exceeds 10 in 1 million (1 in 1 million is generally considered
    ``acceptable''). Further, over 92 percent of the population lives in
    areas with ``hazard index'' values for respiratory toxicity above 1.0--
    the level above which adverse effects to the respiratory system occur.

                  DIESEL RETROFIT FUNDING SHOULD BE INCREASED

        NACAA is a member of a broad coalition of over 200 groups,
    representing public-interest, environmental, business and governmental
    organizations, among others. The coalition recognizes the importance of
    adequate funding for State and local air quality agencies and
    recommends that Federal grants to them be increased. The coalition also
    recommends that Congress provide $70 million in fiscal year 2009 for
    programs authorized by the Diesel Emissions Reduction Act (DERA). The
    DERA programs are intended to decrease the amount of harmful
    microscopic particles in the ambient air resulting from diesel exhaust.
    NACAA urges Congress to provide this funding to these important
    efforts. Additionally, because the funds provided for the DERA
    activities will support more than just State and local air agencies,
    NACAA recommends the program be funded through an EPA account other
    than STAG.

           EPA SHOULD OBTAIN STATE AND LOCAL CONCURRENCE FOR EARMARKS

        NACAA believes Congress' intention in providing grant funds is to
    support the activities of State and local air agencies. Accordingly,
    EPA should not dictate precisely how these funds must be spent without
    considering the recommendations of State and local air agencies and the
    fact that each area may have different air quality priorities. When EPA
    earmarks new or existing grant funds for very specific projects or
    initiatives without first consulting with State and local agencies, the
    result can be an allocation of resources that is inefficient and
    ineffective. It would be helpful if this subcommittee reminded EPA of
    the need to discuss with and obtain prior concurrence from State and
    local air agencies on any earmarks for specific activities or programs.

                                   CONCLUSION

        The President's budget request calls for a significant decrease in
    grants to State and local air agencies at a time when these entities
    are required to take on significant new responsibilities. This would
    make it difficult, if not impossible, for many State and local clean
    air agencies to carry out the tasks that are essential to their
    mission, which is protecting public health by achieving and maintaining
    improvements in air quality. Not only would budget decreases at this
    time be intolerable, but air agencies require additional resources to
    meet their responsibilities.
        NACAA recommends that the fiscal year 2009 budget for Federal
    grants to State and local air quality agencies under sections 103 and
    105 of the Clean Air Act be increased above the President's request by
    $84.7 million (from $185.6 million to $270.3 million). This represents
    a restoration of the $31.2 million cut contained in the President's
    request, along with a modest increase of $53.5 million. Additionally,
    grants for the PM2.5 monitoring program should not be
    shifted from section 103 authority to section 105 authority.
        Thank you for this opportunity to provide testimony on this
    important issue and for your careful consideration of the impacts that
    deficient funding will have on air quality and public health.
                                     ______

       Prepared Statement of the National Association of Forest Service
                                Retirees (NAFSR)

        The following recommendations relate to all programs of the U.S.
    Forest Service. In developing these recommendations, we used the fiscal
    year 2008 Omnibus appropriation, as enacted, as the starting point. We
    find the administration's fiscal year 2009 budget proposals for the
    Forest Service to be irresponsible. We believe the base funding for all
    programs should be the fiscal year 2008 appropriation level adjusted
    for pay act and other uncontrollable costs (an increase of $77 million
    across all program areas). We recommend the following increases to the
    base funding level:

                            [In millions of dollars]
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    Amount
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Wildland Fire Management: Fully fund implementation of the   ...........
     National Fire Plan........................................
    National Forest System:
        Land Management Planning...............................           10
        Inventory and Monitoring...............................           10
        Recreation, Wilderness, and Heritage Management........           20
        Wildlife and Fisheries Management......................           10
        Forest Products........................................           10
        Vegetation and Watershed Management....................           15
        Land Ownership Management..............................  ...........
    Research:
        Resource Management and Use............................           10
        Water, Air, Soil.......................................           10
    State and Private Forestry:
        Forest Stewardship.....................................           10
        Forest Health--Federal Lands...........................           10
        Forest Health--Coop Lands..............................            5
    Capital Improvements and Maintenance.......................           25
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

                            WILDLAND FIRE MANAGEMENT

    Fire Operations--Suppression
        The most critical issue that needs to be addressed in the Forest
    Service budget is the funding of fire suppression. The current
    procedure of including the 10-year average cost of fire suppression
    within the agency's discretionary budget is destroying the capability
    of the Forest Service to carryout the remainder of its statutory
    missions. From 25 percent in fiscal year 2000, fire funding is now
    approaching 50 percent of the budget. The suppression cost trend means
    the 10-year average is going to continue to grow, further cannibalizing
    funding for other programs. While the overall Forest Service budget has
    increased 9 percent over the last 6 years, the diversion of funds to
    fire suppression has had a major impact on the workforce available to
    carry out the multiple-use mission of the agency. The number of
    foresters, biologists, and other resource specialists, along with
    supporting technicians, is a good measure of the capability of a
    resource management agency to carry out its mission. As illustrated in
    the following table, the capability of the Forest Service has been
    seriously compromised.

                                            FOREST SERVICE STAFF LEVEL (FTE)
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Fiscal year
                                                                     --------------------------------     Percent
                                                                           2002            2008          reduction
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Research........................................................           2,494           2,283              -9
    State and Private Forestry......................................             909             739             -19
    National Forest System..........................................          17,094          11,156             -35
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF FOREST SERVICE RETIREES (NAFSR) RECOMMENDS
    THAT FIRE SUPPRESSION COSTS BE SEGREGATED FROM THE OTHER DISCRETIONARY
     PROGRAMS OF THE FOREST SERVICE. NAFSR RECOMMENDS FULL FUNDING OF THE
                               NATIONAL FIRE PLAN

    National Forest System
                Land Management Planning
        The National Forest Management Act requires that all activities on
    the National Forests be conducted in accordance with approved Land
    Management Plans. It requires revision of these plans at 10 to 15 year
    intervals in order to reflect changing conditions, new knowledge, and
    changing public needs and desires. Revisions of 60 percent of the Plans
    are overdue. Revisions must be completed to comply with the law, avoid
    legal challenges, and to keep National Forest management relevant to
    the needs of the people.

        NAFSR RECOMMENDS AN INCREASE OF $10 MILLION FOR LAND MANAGEMENT
                                    PLANNING

    Inventory and Monitoring
        Regular monitoring of forest resource conditions and the results of
    management activities is fundamental to sound forest management. It is
    particularly important during this period of climate change. Further
    implementation of ecosystem management and use of adaptive management,
    key to obtaining public acceptance of vegetation management projects,
    cannot be accomplished without assurance of appropriate inventory and
    monitoring of resources and project outcomes. The number of resource
    specialists and technicians available for inventory and monitoring
    declined by 44 percent between fiscal year 2002 and fiscal year 2008.

         NAFSR RECOMMENDS AN INCREASE OF $10 MILLION FOR INVENTORY AND
                                   MONITORING

    Recreation, Wilderness, and Heritage Management
        The National Forests include some of the most scenic, historic, and
    culturally important recreation areas of our country. Some 192 million
    visitors enjoy camping, hiking, fishing, hunting, skiing, visits to
    cultural sites and visitor centers, and other activities each year. But
    the quality of facilities is declining and access to recreation
    opportunities is being lost. Personnel available to administer and care
    for recreation facilities and resources dropped by 28 percent between
    2002 and 2008. The capacity of recreation sites managed to standard
    declined from 93,600,000 PAOT in fiscal year 2002 to 70,230,000 in
    fiscal year 2008. Priority Heritage Sites managed to standard declined
    from 8,112 to 2,294, and the miles of trail maintained to standard has
    declined 30 percent in this period.

    NAFSR RECOMMENDS AN INCREASE OF $20 MILLION FOR RECREATION, WILDERNESS,
                            AND HERITAGE MANAGEMENT

    Wildlife and Fisheries Habitat Management
        The National Forest System includes some of the most important
    wildlife and fish habitat in the nation. There are thousands of miles
    of streams, millions of acres of big game habitat, and thousands of
    species of plants and animals. Proper stewardship of these resources
    requires on the ground management by biologists and technicians. But
    while the pressure on these important resources continues to grow, the
    personnel available to care for the habitat has declined. From 2002 to
    2008 the wildlife and fisheries staff was reduced by 39 percent.

    NAFSR RECOMMENDS AN INCREASE OF $10 MILLION FOR WILDLIFE AND FISHERIES
                                   MANAGEMENT

    Forest Products
        There is wide spread recognition of the need to thin our
    overstocked forests to reduce their vulnerability to fire, insects, and
    disease. Funding for hazardous fuel reduction is important and must be
    continued, but it is only scratching the surface. Annual growth on the
    currently roaded portion of the timberlands on the National Forests is
    about 4 billion cubic feet. Not all of the material that needs to be
    removed has economic value, but portions are suitable for conventional
    wood products. Much more is suitable for energy production, including
    ethanol. Capturing these economic values is essential for making real
    progress in improving the conditions of our forests. It can also
    contribute to meeting our energy needs.

     NAFSR RECOMMENDS THE FOREST SERVICE ASSESS THE OPPORTUNITY TO MARKET
    MATERIAL THAT NEEDS TO BE REMOVED FROM THE FOREST FOR CONVENTIONAL WOOD
     PRODUCTS, ENERGY, AND OTHER USES. NAFSR RECOMMENDS AN INCREASE OF $10
     MILLION FOR CONVENTIOAL SALES OR STEWARDSHIP CONTRACTING FOR MATERIAL
       THAT NEEDS TO BE REMOVED FROM THE FOREST TO PROMOTE FOREST HEALTH

    Vegetation and Watershed Management
        One of the primary purposes for which the National Forests were
    established is to provide favorable conditions of water flow. Our
    forested watersheds provide much of the water that meets the needs of
    our growing population, particularly in the West. Resource management
    specialists and supporting technicians available to protect and enhance
    our watersheds have declined by 44 percent in the last 6 years. This
    decline must be reversed.
        With the serious fire seasons of recent years, the backlog of
    reforestation needs is growing, but the reforestation program is
    shrinking. The Forest Service estimates the backlog of needed
    reforestation at more than one million acres, but reporting is not up
    to date. The capacity to monitor reforestation needs, maintain adequate
    nursery capacity, and operate a program to eliminate the backlog in a
    reasonable time must be redeveloped and maintained.

    NAFSR RECOMMENDS THAT THE CONGRESS REQUIRE THE FOREST SERVICE TO REPORT
        REGULARLY ON ITS CAPACITY TO MONITOR REFORESTATION NEEDS AND TO
      PROMPTLY REFOREST AREAS FOLOWING DEFORESTATION. NAFSR RECOMMENDS AN
        INCREASE OF $15 MILLION FOR VEGETATION AND WATERSHED MANAGEMENT

    Land Ownership Management
        The National Forest System is a vast estate. Millions of acres of
    land share thousands of miles of property boundaries with other
    agencies, small, and large property owners. Proper stewardship of this
    Federal estate requires maintenance of property lines, monitoring for
    trespass, and administering thousands of special use permits. The
    National Forests should be good neighbors to adjacent landowners and
    communities. With a 19 percent reduction in staffing for this activity
    in the last 6 years, it is instead becoming an unresponsive, absentee
    landlord.

        NAFSR RECOMMENDS AN INCREASE OF $10 MILLION FOR LAND OWNERSHIP
                                   MANAGEMENT

    Research
        Quality management of our forest resources requires up to date
    scientific knowledge. Forest research in this country has declined
    substantially as major forest product companies have divested ownership
    of their timberlands and terminated their research efforts. Funding for
    research at universities has declined. With retrenchment elsewhere, the
    9 percent reduction in research scientists and support personnel in the
    Forest Service research organization has been particularly untimely. We
    urgently need more information on the response of forest resources to
    changing climate and the refinement of management practices to respond
    to these changes. We urgently need to develop forest products that use
    the immense volume of small material that needs to be removed from our
    forests to reduce their vulnerability to fire, insects, and disease.
    Economically viable uses for this material for energy, such a
    cellulosic ethanol, would permit treatment of the thousands of acres
    that need thinning and at the same time help meet the energy needs of
    our country.

    NAFSR RECOMMENDS AN INCREASE OF $20 MILLION FOR RESEARCH WITH EMPHASIS
     ON RESPONSE TO CLIMATE CHANGE AND DEVELOPING ECONOMIC USES FOR SMALL
                               DIAMETER MATERIAL

    State and Private Forestry
        Two-thirds of our Nation's forests are in small non-industrial
    ownerships. This land is vital to meeting our Nation's needs for wood
    products and for providing other forest values. The importance of
    proper management of these forest lands is growing as the forest
    industry continues to divest its timberlands. The continued
    fragmentation of ownership of these lands presents serious challenges
    to assuring proper stewardship and sustainable management. The State
    and Private Forestry program, in cooperation with State Foresters, has
    a proven record in helping to promote sustainable forest practices on
    these lands. Continuing drought conditions have increased fire, insect,
    and disease problems on private lands, just as they have for Federal
    lands. Continued attention is needed so that private owners can be
    encouraged to make long-term investments in the management of these
    lands.

     NAFSR RECOMMENDS AN INCREASE OF $10 MILLION FOR THE STATE AND PRIVATE
    FORESTRY PROGRAM FOR FOREST STEWARDSHIP. NAFSR RECOMMENDS FULL FUNDING
    FOR THE NATIONAL FIRE PLAN. NAFSR RECOMMENDS AN INCREASE OF $10 MILLION
      FOR FOREST HEALTH ON FEDERAL LANDS AND $5 MILLION FOR FOREST HEALTH
                            MANAGEMENT ON COOP LANDS

    Capital Improvements and Maintenance
        Over the years the Congress has made substantial investments in
    developing the infrastructure necessary for the protection and use of
    the National Forests and Grasslands. Unfortunately, funds have not been
    provided to maintain these facilities adequately. The public is losing
    access and use through deterioration of roads, trails, campgrounds, and
    visitor centers. One-third of the recreation facilities are in poor
    condition. Inadequately maintained roads and other facilities result in
    damage to watersheds and fisheries habitat. Inadequate access increases
    the cost of management activities.

     NAFSR RECOMMENDS AN INCREASE OF $25 MILLION FOR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS
                                AND MAINTENANCE

    Miscellaneous
                NAFSR Recommends that Restrictions on Contracting out be
                        Retained
        The National Association of Forest Service Retirees believes that
    the National Forests and Grasslands should be managed so they are an
    asset to the communities within and adjacent to these lands. In too
    many instances, rather than being an asset, the overstocked, insect-
    infested, poorly maintained, understaffed Forests are becoming a
    liability. We believe the funding increases recommended above will
    begin the process of restoring the capability of the Forest Service to
    provide proper stewardship for these national treasures.
                                     ______

        Prepared Statement of the National Association of State Energy
                                   Officials

        Madam Chair and members of the subcommittee, I am Dub Taylor of
    Texas, 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 $103 million, including specific report language directing that
    the funds be utilized only for the Energy Star program. We were
    extremely disappointed with the $44.2 million fiscal year 2009 request
    and the $48.2 million funding level established in fiscal year 2008. At
    the present time, Congress is seriously considering climate
    legislation. The Energy Star programs are successful and cost-
    effective. They should be expanded, not reduced. With oil prices at
    $117/barrel, gasoline prices nearing $4/gallon, and large spikes in
    natural gas, heating oil and propane, Energy Star can help consumers
    quickly.
        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 almost 20 State members, including California. 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, Maryland, Texas and Wisconsin. A Mid-Atlantic regional effort
    has just started. 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. 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

        Considering Alaska's extreme climate, Energy Star has been a very
    helpful tool in promoting energy efficiency. Approximately 11,400
    Alaska homes have earned Energy Star. In Alaska the penetration rate of
    Energy Star homes for single-family site-built housing is 20 percent,
    well above the 12 percent national average. 12 million square feet of
    buildings have also been rated utilizing the EPA performance rating
    system and the Alaska Housing Finance Corporation has utilized its
    rating software to qualify more than 10,000 Energy Star homes.
        In California, residents and businesses are projected to save over
    $14 billion through the Energy Star investments that have already been
    made. Approximately 110,000 California homes have earned the Energy
    Star. California also has a tax credit for the construction of a new,
    or purchase of an existing, Energy Star Home. The State Green Building
    Action Plan requires State agencies to only lease Energy Star space and
    purchase Energy Star equipment. The State also has an Energy Star
    Residential Fixture promotion program.
        In Colorado, Energy Star investments in qualified products, homes
    and buildings are projected to save over $2 billion over the life of
    these efforts. 9,000 homes in the State have earned the Energy Star and
    another 900 buildings (over 130 million square feet) have been rated
    utilizing the performance rating system. Eighty-six Colorado companies
    are now building Energy Star rated homes. Aggressive Energy Star
    efforts are occurring in Stapleton, Jefferson County Public Schools,
    Poudre School District, Colorado Springs School District and Falcon
    School District. With the passage of new State legislation and actions
    by the Governor, aggressive new Energy Star promotion activities have
    had a significant impact.
        Maryland has just passed a group of major energy bills promoted by
    the Governor. The Maryland Energy Administration is tasked with leading
    the charge to promote energy efficiency and reduce energy consumption
    quickly. 140 companies and public entities are participating in Energy
    Star in the State. 130 million square feet of buildings in Maryland
    have been rated for energy efficiency. Tax incentives are also
    available to consumers for the purchase of Energy Star qualified
    products.
        Thirty companies and public entities in Mississippi are
    participating actively in Energy Star product promotions. 11 million
    square feet of buildings have been rated for energy efficiency. The
    State is also working with other southeastern States to promote energy
    efficiency in commercial buildings through the Southeast Rebuild
    Collaborative. The State Energy Office (Mississippi Development
    Authority) has been providing training to schools and government
    agencies in Energy Star tools.$600 million will be saved in the Energy
    Star investments that have already been made in Nebraska. 21 million
    square feet of buildings in the State have been rated using energy
    performance rating system tools. The Nebraska Energy Office has also
    been promoting the program and sponsored an energy-efficient prototype
    home in Lincoln that is demonstrating affordable yet energy-efficient
    housing techniques. The Energy Office provides loans to finance
    residential energy efficient improvements. 22 companies are now
    building Energy Star homes in the State.
        Seventy-eight companies and public entities in New Hampshire have
    been actively promoting Energy Star. 2,000 homes so far have earned the
    Energy Star and 14 million square feet of buildings have been rated.
    The Governor announced (Executive Order 2005-4) a specific State
    commitment to encourage the purchase of Energy Star products and
    participation in the Energy Star challenge. Forty-three New Hampshire
    companies are building Energy Star homes and the first three residence
    halls in the country to earn the Energy Star are located on the
    University of New Hampshire campus in Durham.
        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-nine
    companies participate in Energy Star and over 3,300 homes are Energy
    Star compliant. New Mexico has 63 buildings with over 9 million square
    feet that have been rated for energy efficiency, with 6 buildings
    earning the Energy Star for superior efficiency. Public Service Company
    of New Mexico offers cash rebates for water heater wraps and Energy
    Star programmable thermostats.
        Rhode Island businesses and residents will save more than $390
    million through Energy Star investments they have already made.
    Approximately 2,000 homes have been rated utilizing Energy Star tools.
    The State has held a sales tax holiday for Energy Star labeled
    products. The State, in cooperation with National Grid, has been
    promoting Home Performance with Energy Star.
        Five million square feet of building space in South Dakota has been
    rated for energy efficiency utilizing EPA's performance rating system.
    The State has been aggressively promoting a variety of Energy Star
    efforts, including Energy Star Change a Light Day. Two of the entities
    that have taken advantage of energy savings through Energy Star,
    include Yankton Public Schools and Watertown Middle School.
        In Tennessee, 120 companies and public entities, including
    significant numbers of small businesses, have been participating in
    Energy Star. Businesses and residents are projected to save $2 billion
    through Energy Star investments that have already been made. The State
    Energy Office has taken the lead in promoting the Energy Star Challenge
    and the Change a Light campaign, urging consumers to shift to CFLs.
    Participants in the program range from Nashville Habitat for Humanity
    to Clayton Homes, Inc.
        Utah residents and businesses will save $700 million through
    investments they have already made in Energy Star products, homes and
    buildings. 120 companies are actively participating in the Energy Star
    program. 7,500 Utah homes have earned the Energy Star and over 17
    million square feet has been rated for energy efficiency in the State.
    Energy Star success stories have included Ence Homes, Rocky Mountain
    Power, the Cottonwood Corporate Center, etc.
        Vermont has aggressively promoted energy efficiency for many years
    and 58 public entities and companies have been involved in the program.
    4,600 homes in the State have earned Energy Star, which is a high
    percentage. In addition, 120 buildings covering 8 million square feet
    have been rated for energy efficiency utilizing EPA's energy
    performance rating system. As a result of an Executive Order (14-03),
    State agencies are only permitted to purchase Energy Star products.
        Residents and businesses in West Virginia will save over $400
    million as a result of Energy Star investments that they have already
    made. Over 13 million square feet of building space has been rated
    utilizing EPA's energy performance rating system. The State Energy
    Office (West Virginia Development Office) has been helping county
    school systems throughout the State by providing both Energy Star
    benchmarking tools and other financial mechanisms to help implement
    improvements. Giant Eagle and Food Lion have been Energy Star leaders
    in the State.
        Wisconsin has 490 companies and public entities that have been
    promoting Energy Star. 8,000 homes have earned Energy Star and 180
    million square feet of building space, across 1,500 buildings, have
    been rated for energy efficiency. Energy Star is now part of the
    State's procurement guidelines. A 2005 study found that Wisconsin
    Energy Star new homes utilize 23 percent less energy per square foot
    for heating than older Wisconsin homes, even though the new homes are
    generally 22 percent larger.
        We can provide a myriad of other State examples at your request.

                                   CONCLUSION

        Significant 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 Universities
      and Land-Grant Colleges (NASULGC), Board on Natural Resources (BNR)

        On behalf of the NASULGC Board on Natural Resources (BNR), we thank
    you for your support of science and research programs within the United
    States Geological Survey (USGS) and the Environmental Protection Agency
    (EPA). We appreciate the opportunity to provide detailed
    recommendations for: $1.3 billion for the USGS and $781 million for the
    EPA Science and Technology budget. Within USGS, we ask for support of
    $8.8 million for the Water Resources Research Institutes, $32.1 million
    for the National Cooperative Geologic Mapping Program, and $61 million
    for the Mineral Resources Program, including $5 million for a Mineral
    Resources External Grants program. Within EPA, we ask for support of
    $100 million for the EPA Science to Achieve Results competitive grants
    and $10 million for the STAR Graduate Fellowships.
        NASULGC Recommends $1.3 Billion for the United States Geological
    Survey.--The fiscal year 2008 enacted level was $1.01 billion while the
    President's fiscal year 2009 request is $969 million. This increase is
    necessary to cover inflation and rising fixed costs such as salaries
    and rent and to accomplish core tasks that have been under-funded for
    years.
        NASULGC supports this amount in coordination with the USGS
    Coalition, an alliance of organizations united by a commitment to the
    continued vitality of the unique combination of biological,
    geographical, geological, and hydrological programs of the USGS.
        In the wake of Hurricane Katrina, the USGS was praised for quickly
    arriving on the scene and providing reliable data that assisted
    recovery teams. As members of academic community that have partnered
    with the USGS for the past several decades, we were very pleased with
    their performance during this catastrophe.
        We have worked with the USGS to provide the public and private
    sector, as well as policymakers, with crucial information about natural
    resources, natural hazards and wildlife diversity. Furthermore, the
    USGS provides geospatial data, from maps to satellite images, for
    improved land and wildlife management. The USGS plays a key role in
    assessment of global climate change. Our universities provide necessary
    expertise to complement the USGS workforce. We further recommend that
    part of the $1.3 billion request be used to support the following
    requests:
        The NASULGC BNR Requests $8.8 Million for the Water Resources
    Research Institutes (WRRI).--The fiscal year 2008 enacted level is
    $6.404 million and the President's fiscal year 2009 request is $0. The
    NASULGC BNR request is based on the following: $7,000,000 in base
    grants for the WRRI as authorized by section 104(b) of the Water
    Resources Research Act, including state-based competitive grants; and
    $1,500,000 to support activities authorized by section 104(g) of the
    act, and a national competitive grants program.
        The administration's proposal to eliminate funding for this
    excellent partnership with State governments and universities is
    unjustified. Federal funding for the WRRI program is the catalyst that
    moves States and cities to invest in university-based research to
    address their own water management issues. State WRRI take the
    relatively modest amount of Federal funding appropriated, match it 2:1
    with State, local, and other funds and use it to put university
    scientists to work finding solutions to the most pressing local and
    State water problems that are of national importance. The Institutes
    have raised more than $15 in other funds for every $1 funded through
    this program.
        The added benefit is that often research to address State and local
    problems helps solve problems that are of regional and national
    importance. Many of the projects funded through this program provide
    the knowledge for State or local managers to implement new Federal laws
    and regulations. Perhaps most important, the Federal funding provides
    the driving force of collaboration in water research and education
    among local, State, Federal, and university water professionals.
        This program is essential to solving State, regional, and inter-
    jurisdictional water resources problems. Institutes in Louisiana,
    California, and North Carolina, for example, made major contributions
    in emergency planning and hurricane recovery, protecting groundwater
    aquifers from sea water intrusion and reducing water treatment costs.
    The institutes also train the next generation of water resource
    managers and scientists.
        The NASULGC Board on Natural Resources also supports funding at a
    level of $32.1 million for the National Cooperative Geologic Mapping
    Program (NCGMP) within the USGS budget.--The fiscal year 2008 enacted
    level is $26.6 million while the President's fiscal year 2009 request
    is $27.4 million. The mission of the NCGMP is to provide accurate
    geologic maps that help sustain and improve the quality of life and
    economic vitality of the United States and mitigate geologic hazardous
    events and conditions. Universities are involved in this program in two
    ways. First, universities participate through the production of new
    geologic maps to meet needs in stewardship of water, energy, and
    mineral resources; risk reduction from natural hazards such as
    earthquakes and landslides; and environmental protection. Second,
    through EDMAP, universities train the next generation of geologic
    mappers through a competitive matching-fund grant program. Since
    EDMAP's inception in 1996, more than $5 million from the NCGMP have
    supported geologic mapping efforts of more than 600 students working
    with more than 220 professors at 136 universities in 44 States plus
    Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia. A 2007 survey by NCGMP
    demonstrated that students who participated in EDMAP (1) fall well
    above the national average for pursuing advanced academic degrees in
    the geoscience field, (2) easily obtain geoscience positions due to the
    knowledge gained through EDMAP, and (3) frequently use the skills
    gained through EDMAP.
        The NASULGC Board on Natural Resources supports $61 million for the
    Mineral Resources Program (MRP).--The fiscal year 2008 enacted level is
    $50.8 million, while the administration's fiscal year 2009 request is
    $26.3 million. The 2008 National Research Council's (NRC) report
    ``Minerals, Critical Minerals, and the U.S. Economy'' clearly lays out
    the danger of continuing cuts to the services this program provides to
    our nation's economy. Items such as LCDs, catalytic converters,
    rechargeable batteries, and other electronics all use minerals
    designated as ``critical'' based on the risk that they may become
    unavailable for any number of reasons. The role of minerals information
    is becoming ever more vital as the Nation works to remain competitive
    and searches for emerging technologies to solve some of our most
    pressing environmental issues.
        The administration's fiscal year 2009 request cuts by 63 percent
    (210 FTE) the number of professionals in the MRP. This is on top of
    substantial cuts to this program since 1996. At the same time, the NRC
    report cited above calls for the ``need to maintain adequate, accurate
    and timely information and analysis on minerals at a national level in
    the Federal Government with additional, not fewer, professionals having
    appropriate backgrounds to perform the work.'' For example, as society
    pushes toward sustainability, the importance of experts designing
    products with an eye toward recycling minerals will only increase.
    Currently, only a few formal training programs have emerged to train a
    new generation in the field. For this reason, we request support for
    Mineral Resources External Grants programs of at least $5 million. The
    USGS committed $1,000,000 toward Mineral Resources External Research
    for fiscal year 2006, but cut the program to $0 in fiscal year 2007 and
    committed only $250,000 in fiscal year 2008. The administration again
    proposes to cut the program to $0 for fiscal year 2009. Sustained and
    additional funds are needed to expand upon the first step in fiscal
    year 2006. Apart from this small program, there is virtually no funding
    to sustain applied science research and education related to mineral
    resources.
        Furthermore, the establishment of a consistently well-funded
    Minerals Resources External Grants program would follow the
    recommendations of three recent NRC reports and would help arrest the
    dramatic decline of minerals expertise in the United States. Funding
    levels of $5 million in fiscal year 2009, and $8 million in fiscal year
    2010, is an appropriate ramp-up for the external grants program, which
    ideally should reach a level of $20 million per year. Modest levels of
    external research funding by the MRP in fiscal year 2006 ($1,000,000)
    to 15 universities and in fiscal year 2008 ($250,000) to 3 universities
    supported graduate student research and education.
        With regard to EPA, NASULGC supports a request of $809 million in
    fiscal year 2009 for Science and Technology (S&T).--The fiscal year
    2008 enacted level is $785.7 million while the administration's fiscal
    year 2009 request is $790 million. The BNR requested amount provides an
    increase of 3 percent to maintain ongoing programs and keep up with
    inflation. Without sound science, EPA will be unable to correctly
    identify and develop sound management and mitigation strategies for
    critical environmental problems.
        NASULGC recommends that the Committee restore STAR funding to $100
    million for competitive grants and $10 million for STAR graduate
    fellowships.--The fiscal year 2008 enacted levels are $54.7 million and
    $7.3 million respectively, while the President's fiscal year 2009
    budget request is $55.3 million and $5.9 million respectively. One of
    the most effective programs for improving the agency's science
    capabilities is the Science to Achieve Results (STAR) program. In 2003,
    the National Research Council strongly endorsed STAR in its report,
    ``The Measure of STAR.'' The investment EPA ORD makes in STAR is
    especially significant and effective, because STAR is not a stand-alone
    grants program. It is coordinated with EPA program and regional
    offices, and targeted at high-priority needs that support the agency's
    mission. The program is leveraged by the participation of other Federal
    agencies and the private sector, and involves thousands of research
    scholars in universities.
        NASULGC universities have used STAR extramural research funding to
    accomplish the following: develop evaluations of U.S. estuarine and
    coastal water quality degradation; analyze ecosystem health and
    impairment; establish effective multi-university research
    collaborations; and develop techniques to assess the risks to fish in
    the Great Lakes associated with exposure to endocrine disrupting
    chemicals
        STAR graduate fellowships are also an excellent investment in the
    next generation of scientists and engineers, and provide opportunities
    for some of the brightest minds to develop the skills to enhance and
    replenish this Nation's environmental science expertise. Moreover,
    these grants are often a way to get minority graduate students engaged
    in high-level scientific research. STAR funding is a very important
    tool in the effort to address the future workforce needs of EPA. These
    investigator-initiated research grants are significantly expanding the
    number of scientists conducting EPA-related research and enhancing the
    overall quality of EPA S&T.
        Thank you for the opportunity to share our views with the
    committee.

                                 ABOUT NASULGC

        NASULGC is the Nation's oldest higher education association.
    Currently the association has over 200 member institutions--including
    the historically black land-grant institutions--located in all 50
    States. The Association's overriding mission is to support high quality
    public education through efforts that enhance the capacity of member
    institutions to perform their traditional teaching, research, and
    public service roles.
                      about the board on natural resources
        The Board's mission is to promote university-based programs dealing
    with natural resources, wildlife, ecology, energy, and the environment.
    Most NASULGC institutions are represented on the Board. Present
    membership exceeds 500 scientists and educators, who are some of the
    Nation's leading research and educational expertise in environmental
    and natural-resource disciplines.
                                     ______

        Prepared Statement of the National Conference of State Historic
                             Preservation Officers

                                    REQUEST

      --$50,000,000 for State Historic Preservation Offices, and
      --$5,000,000 for competitive grants to States for historic site
            survey fieldwork and digitization of documents.
        The programs are funded through the U.S. Department of the
    Interior's, National Park Service Historic Preservation Fund and
    authorized by the 1966 National Historic Preservation Act.
        The National Conference of State Historic Preservation Officers
    (NCSHPO) appreciates the opportunity to submit this statement for the
    record regarding the funding request for State Historic Preservation
    Offices and for historic site survey fieldwork and digitization. NCSHPO
    is the professional association of the State government officials who
    carry out the national historic preservation program as delegates of
    the Secretary of Interior pursuant to the National Historic
    Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA). The NCSHPO acts as a communications
    vehicle among the State Historic Preservation Offices (SHPOs) and their
    staffs and represents the SHPOs with Congress, Federal agencies and
    national preservation organizations.

       NATIONAL HISTORIC PRESERVATION ACT--NPS LEADERSHIP RESPONSIBILITY

        In 1966 Congress recognized the importance of preserving our past
    by passing the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA16 USC 470),
    which established today's Historic Preservation program. The NHPA
    directs State Historic Preservation Offices (SHPOs) to carry out the
    Federal preservation program: (1) Locate and record historic resources;
    (2) Nominate significant historic resources to the National Register of
    Historic Places; (3) Foster historic preservation programs at the local
    government level and the creation of preservation ordinances; (4)
    Provide funds for preservation activities; (5) Comment on federal
    preservation tax projects; (6) Review all federal projects for their
    impact on historic properties; and (7) Provide technical assistance to
    Federal agencies, State and local governments, and the private sector.

                        SHPO FUNDING--DOLLARS WELL SPENT

        For such a small program, SHPOs have extensive and wide ranging
    support--from within Congress, to State and local governments,
    community organizations and individuals across the country. Brent Warr,
    Mayor of Gulfport Mississippi said that through the Historic
    Preservation Fund's hurricane Relief Grant Program, ``The historical
    character of our community is being renewed, distinguishing us from
    others and preserving our heritage so that it can be shared with future
    generations.''
        Historic preservation is a sound investment and as an economic tool
    has proved its worth. Since 1981, rehabilitation activities in Colorado
    have created almost 29,000 jobs and generated a total of over $2
    billion in direct and indirect economic impacts. In Florida, an
    examination of the assessed values of mainly residential property in
    eighteen historic districts found that in at least 15 cases, property
    in historic districts appreciated greater than comparable, targeted
    non-historic districts and that there was no case where historic
    district designation depressed the property values. In 2007, HPF
    programs such as the Rehabilitation Tax Credit stimulated $4.35 Billion
    in private investment and at the same time produced 6,553 low and
    moderate income housing units, a 17 percent increase over 2006, and
    created an estimated 40,755 jobs.
        Though often unglamorous, SHPOs work is fundamentally essential to
    the preservation of our heritage. From 2002 to 2007, the number of
    section 106 reviews conducted increased 104 percent to 129,200 while
    SHPO funding decreased by nearly 5 percent over the same time period.
    In 2007, SHPOs also provided nearly 82,000 National Register
    eligibility opinions, assisted in creating 58 new Certified Local
    Governments and provided technical assistance and preservation policy
    guidance to hundreds of thousands of communities and individuals
    nationwide.

                  INVENTORY FUNDING--NPS STEPS UP TO THE PLATE

        Many of the programs discussed above could be done much more
    effectively and efficiently if States had an accurate inventory of
    their historic resources in a digitized format. Knowing what you have
    and defining the location and significance of the Nation's historic
    assets, is fundamental for all historic preservation activity. Further,
    having electronic access to that data is essential for Federal project
    planning. We are pleased and encouraged that the NPS is ``stepping up
    to the plate'' and fulfilling its 40-year old commitment to find
    America's historic places by acknowledging and responding to the strong
    recommendations of the 2006 Preserve America Summit and by requesting
    inventory funding in fiscal year 2008 and for fiscal year 2009.
        While, a select few SHPOs have made remarkable progress assembling
    a patchwork of funding to initiate digital access to inventory
    information, other SHPOs around the country are not as fortunate. After
    40 years of the national preservation program we, as a Nation, still
    don't know the location of hundreds of thousands of our historic
    resources.
        Support for inventory funding exists within Congress, State and
    local governments, and the private sector and while we are pleased that
    the Administration has requested funding we are disappointed in the
    proposed amount of $2 million. We believe a minimum of $5 million (the
    administration's fiscal year 2008 unfulfilled request) a year for 5
    years is needed.
        Specifically, inventory funds would be used for two purposes (1) to
    conduct inventory fieldwork, filling in the current patchwork of
    identified sites which is essential for Federal project review (section
    106) and lays a foundation of every future preservation activity, e.
    g., National Register) and (2) to convert existing paper records to
    electronic formats (data bases, GIS).
        Recent natural disasters have also exposed the adverse consequences
    of the void in historic resources information. In the Gulf, in 2005 aid
    to victims and FEMA responses were delayed because digitized historic
    site locations were not available. The NPS detailed staff to do after
    the fact digitization of the location of historic places. The result of
    the work--on line access to maps of historic sites--led to a dramatic
    reduction in project review, from weeks to hours.

       NATIONAL ACADEMY OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION REPORT--CONFIRMS NCSHPO
                                    REQUEST

        Federal funding for SHPOs is money well spent. Under the
    administration's Program Assessment Rating Tool, management of Historic
    Preservation Programs received a score of 89 percent indicating
    exemplary performance of mandated activities. Reinforcing this finding
    is the December 2007 National Academy of Public Administration (NAPA)
    report ``BACK TO THE FUTURE: A Review of the National Historic
    Preservation Program.''
        NAPA, a non-profit, independent coalition of top management and
    organizational leaders, found that the National Historic Preservation
    Program ``stands as a successful example of effective Federal-State
    partnership and is working to realize Congress' original vision to a
    great extent. And while the program's basic structure is sound, it
    continues to face a number of notable challenges.'' The Panel concluded
    ``that a stronger Federal leadership role, greater resources, and
    enhanced management are needed to build upon the existing, successful
    framework to achieve the full potential of the NHPA on behalf of the
    American people.'' \1\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ NAPA, ``BACK TO THE FUTURE: A Review of the National Historic
    Preservation Programs'' December 2007, p. 29.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Report recommendations specific to SHPOs included the following:
      --the NPS request funding and FTE increases sufficient to address the
            increased workload since fiscal year 1981 in National Register
            eligibility opinion, tax credit reviews, section 106 reviews,
            and HPF grants administration and to redress, at least in part,
            the significant decline in inflation adjusted funding;
      --the NPS build upon the National Preservation program's success by
            providing a stronger national leadership role in consultation
            with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) and
            other national partners as appropriate;
      --the NPS expand its mission to make building the capacity of State
            Historic Preservation Officers and Tribal Historic Preservation
            Officers a top priority and that it pursue this goal
            aggressively in cooperation with its national partners;
      --the Department of the Interior and the NPS strengthen the
            performance of the National Historic Preservation program and
            expand resources based on its demonstrated effectiveness in
            cooperation with the ACHP; and
      --the NPS improve the efficiency of national historic preservation
            efforts by taking full advantage of information technologies.
        On behalf of the States, NCSHPO is working in concert with the NPS
    to strategize on implementing the recommendations. However, Congress
    ultimately decides funding levels and without additional funding, many
    of these recommendations are unattainable.
      conclusion--hpf: a wise federal investment and the right thing to do
        Congress stated in 1966 that ``The spirit and direction of the
    Nation are founded upon and reflected in its historic heritage.''
    Historic preservation recognizes that was common and ordinary in the
    past is often rare and precious today, and what is common and ordinary
    today may be extraordinary, 50, 100 or 500 years from now.
        NCSHPO thanks the committee for the opportunity to provide
    testimony and for their commitment to historic preservation. The
    Federal Government plays an invaluable role in preserving our Nation's
    history and through our partnership, State Historic Preservation
    Officers stand committed to identify, protect, and maintain our
    Nation's historic heritage.
        Thank you.
                                     ______

        Prepared Statement of the National Congress of American Indians

        On behalf of the tribal nations of the National Congress of
    American Indians (NCAI), we are pleased to present our recommendations
    on the administration's fiscal year 2009 budget for Indian programs. At
    the recent State of Indian Nations address, NCAI President Joe Garcia
    spoke about the special place of honor children hold in American Indian
    and Alaska Native cultures. He discussed the community's sacred
    obligation to instill in them the traditional knowledge of past
    generations so their innocence and laughter may develop into wisdom as
    they become the leaders of the future. He stressed our belief that
    every Indian child should have the right to community-based, culturally
    appropriate services that help them grow up safe, healthy, and
    spiritually strong--free from abuse, neglect, and poverty.
    Unfortunately, all too often Native children are born into
    circumstances that may be rich in culture and love, but fail to meet
    their basic needs of health, shelter, safety, and education. Our
    communities have a vision of a restored, safer, healthier Indian
    Country for our children, but the President's budget request fails to
    move us in the direction of that vision and will leave Indian children
    in poverty and at risk.
        This NCAI fiscal year 2009 testimony highlights key aspects of the
    vision tribal leaders have expressed to create a safe, healthy Indian
    Country for our children. In developing these recommendations we
    recognize that chipping away at the years of under-funding and backlogs
    that plague Indian Country will be accomplished over time. The requests
    that follow do not reflect the full need in Indian Country, but rather
    are achievable first steps that we believe Congress and the President
    should be able to support this year.

                           PUBLIC SAFETY AND JUSTICE

        The administration of justice in Indian Country is clearly in
    crisis. Across the Nation, tribal leaders have called for more
    resources, making public safety and justice the top priority in budget
    consultations over the years. The current lack of resources for public
    safety poses a direct threat to Native children and the future of
    Indian Country.
        Recent media attention has highlighted the unconscionable breakdown
    in public safety in tribal communities. Although U.S. attorneys have
    the sole authority to prosecute felony crime on most reservations, the
    Denver Post's article, ``Lawless Lands,'' details how U.S. attorneys
    declined to prosecute 65 percent of all reservation cases between 1997
    and 2006, twice the rate of declination for all other federally
    prosecuted crime.\1\ Federal agents focus on terrorism and organized
    crime, while the investigation of serious crimes on reservations sits
    for years, leaving suspects free to commit other crimes. Tribal leaders
    point out that Federal prosecutors respond least to the kinds of crime
    that most affect Indian reservations: aggravated assault, domestic
    assault, sex crimes, and drug crimes. The Department of Justice simply
    is not meeting its responsibilities to Indian Country. Hundreds of
    these serious cases are sent through tribal misdemeanor courts instead,
    over-taxing the tribal courts and jails.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ Riley, M. (2007, November 11-14). Lawless Lands. The Denver
    Post. Retrieved February 11, 2008, from www.denverpost.com.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Law Enforcement.--Although tribal law enforcement officers have
    limited authority under Federal law, they are often the first
    responders to reservation crime. Yet, according to the Bureau of Indian
    Affairs, Indian Country has a 42 percent unmet staffing need for police
    departments. To put this in perspective, 2,555 Indian country law
    enforcement officers make up about 0.004 percent of the total 675,734
    State, city, and county law enforcement officers in the United States,
    yet they patrol approximately 2 percent of the landmass of the United
    States and 1 percent of the population.
        In fiscal year 2008, the Department of Interior (DOI) launched a
    Safe Indian Communities initiative, with much needed increases for law
    enforcement funding. DOI States it proposes to continue this initiative
    for fiscal year 2009, however, the actual funding overall for the BIA
    public safety and justice category would decline by $882,000.
    Meanwhile, at the Department of Justice, the President's proposal would
    eliminate all of the tribal set-asides that currently exist in any of
    the DOJ grant programs and would effectively zero out a number of
    programs critical to tribal governments including: COPS, Byrne Grants,
    Grants to Tribal Governments under the Violence Against Women Act,
    incarceration on tribal lands, and tribal courts funding. NCAI urges
    Congress to include a 10 percent increase for BIA law enforcement in
    fiscal year 2009 and in the future until the gap in law enforcement
    funding for tribal communities is closed.
        Tribal Courts.--Tribal courts are overwhelmed with hundreds of
    serious cases declined by U.S. attorneys as well as increasing meth and
    drug crimes. Tribal courts have been level funded for at least the last
    five years. The fiscal year 2008 Omnibus spending bill increased tribal
    court funding by $2.3 million. However, the fiscal year 2009 budget
    request would eliminate $2.3 million. NCAI urges Congress to reject
    this cut to tribal courts and add 10 percent to this item.
        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. The
    report detailed the stark realities: 79 percent of facilities fall
    below minimum staffing levels on a regular basis; poorly maintained
    facilities that provide ample opportunity for escape are common;
    unusually high rates of suicide, a trend that generally correlates with
    reduced staff supervision and the influence of drugs and alcohol; and
    jails dilapidated to the point of condemnation. Recent testimony by the
    BIA suggests that as many as 90 percent of tribal detention facilities
    operated by the BIA may need to be closed because of their condition.
    Indian tribes report having to let dangerous criminals go free because
    of a lack of bed spaces in tribal jails. NCAI urges adequate funding to
    address the backlog of detention facility construction and staffing in
    Indian Country. To address the DOJ-documented crisis in Indian Country
    detention facilities, funding for at least 15 new facilities, including
    both tribal and BIA facilities, should be provided in the upcoming
    year.
        Johnson O'Malley.--Once again, the President proposed to completely
    eliminate the JOM program at the BIA. JOM provides supplemental funds
    to address the unique educational and cultural needs of Native children
    attending public school. What is different about JOM is that its
    ``special and unique needs'' are determined not by the school boards,
    but instead through parent committees that each JOM program is required
    to have, as well as completing need assessments where parents have a
    say in what their children need to complete for the school year. NCAI
    urges full restoration of JOM to $21.4 million in fiscal year 2009,
    including the self-governance compacts and Consolidated Tribal
    Government Program contracts that fund JOM.
        Tribal Colleges.--Funding for the United Tribes Technical College
    (UTTC) and Navajo Technical College (NTC) were eliminated entirely from
    the budget. The BIA funding (eliminated from the President's budget
    since fiscal year 2003) and the Carl Perkins funds (Section 117 for
    Tribally Controlled Postsecondary Career and Technical Institutions)
    are eliminated from the President's budget for fiscal year 2009. These
    funds form the core of the operating budgets for both UTTC and NTC.
    Taken together, the funds eliminated from the budget represent the
    entire core operating budgets for UTTC and NTC. This is the first year
    the Carl Perkins funds were also eliminated for UTTC and NTC. NCAI
    urges Congress to work out how to restore funding for these two
    colleges. NCAI also supports the requests of the American Indian Higher
    Education Consortium for tribal colleges and universities.
        Bureau of Indian Education.--NCAI recommends Congress restore $5.9
    million reduction proposed for scholarships as well as restore $5.9
    million for the Scholarships and Adult Education in the BIE budget.
        Indian Health Service.--The 2008 budget request for IHS is $4.3
    billion, maintaining fiscal year 2008 levels. The administration's
    budget proposes $21 million reduction in construction costs due to the
    completion of project stages funded in fiscal year 2008. NCAI urges
    Congress to fund the IHS at a level in fiscal year 2009 to maintain
    existing services and accommodate population growth.
        Facilities Construction.--This section of the budget includes
    construction of new facilities, such as inpatient hospitals, outpatient
    hospitals, staff quarters for health professionals, regional treatment
    centers and joint venture construction programs. It also includes the
    small ambulatory program and the construction of dental facilities.
    These elements constitute the entire physical infrastructure of the
    health care delivery system in American Indian and Alaska Native
    communities. NCAI urges Congress to restore the facilities construction
    funding.
        Contract Support Costs.--An increase in contract support costs
    (CSC) is necessary as tribal governments continue to assume control of
    new programs, services, functions, and activities under Self-
    Determination and Self-Governance. Tribal programs have increased the
    quality and level of services in their health systems under these
    policies. Failure to adequately fund CSC defeats the very programs that
    appear to be helping improve health conditions for American Indians and
    Alaska Natives. NCAI urges Congress to fully fund BIA and IHS contract
    support costs in fiscal year 2009.
        Urban Indian Health.--Urban Indian Health Programs have a profound
    effect on their communities by providing culturally sensitive, non-
    duplicative services. They promote good family living essential to the
    prosperity of Native children. They help to educate local health care
    providers about the needs and the cultural conditioning of the urban
    Indian population. The President once again proposes to eliminate this
    program in fiscal year 2009. NCAI urges Congress to restore the program
    and provide $40 million in fiscal year 2009 to help close the gap in
    funding for Urban programs.
        Indian Land Consolidation: One of the most disappointing proposed
    cuts in the President's fiscal year 2009 budget for Indian programs is
    the proposal to eliminate the budget for Indian land consolidation.
    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 improves Federal
    administration and management, and saves substantial Federal dollars
    that currently go to tracking tiny land interests. The investment in
    land consolidation will do more to save on future trust administration
    costs than any other item in the trust budget.
        It is particularly surprising that the administration would propose
    to completely eliminate this budget. Over the past decade, even in
    years when there was little attention paid to land consolidation, the
    budget always received $8 to $13 million annually. But during the
    passage of the American Indian Probate Reform Act (AIPRA) in 2004, the
    administration realized the importance of land consolidation and agreed
    to significantly increased budgets. Both Interior and the Office of
    Management and Budget negotiated and agreed to authorizations of
    $75,000,000 for fiscal year 2005, $95,000,000 for fiscal year 2006, and
    $145,000,000 for each of fiscal year 2007 through fiscal year 2010. The
    increased commitment to land consolidation was a part of the agreement
    to AIPRA, where tribes and individual land owners have also taken on
    increased responsibility for land consolidation.
        But the increases came for only 2 years--$34.5 million in fiscal
    year 2006 and the same in fiscal year 2007. The land consolidation
    funding did a great deal of good in those years, buying back millions
    of fractionated interests, and the program was scaling up its efforts
    in anticipation of increased budgets in the future. During the
    formation of the fiscal year 2008 budget, Indian country was in serious
    negotiations with the administration and Congress for settlement of the
    Cobell trust fund accounting litigation, and it was widely anticipated
    that land consolidation funds would be included in the settlement--
    perhaps a billion or more. This was the rationale we were given for the
    decrease in the fiscal year 2008 land consolidation budget to $10
    million--a sufficient amount to keep the program operating while the
    new funds from the settlement were negotiated.
        But the settlement did not materialize, and now the administration
    wants to eliminate the program. We have not seen any analysis by the
    administration which warrants a drastic change in direction from the
    AIPRA agreement. We also do not believe that a tribal effort at land
    consolidation will be supported unless there is a commitment from the
    Federal Government to do its part in addressing fractionation. We
    strongly urge Congress to return to the levels anticipated under AIPRA,
    and fund land consolidation at $50 million for fiscal year 2009.
        BIA Rights Protection Implementation.--This program in the BIA
    budget supports the exercise of off-reservation hunting, fishing, and
    gathering rights for 49 tribes located in the Pacific Northwest and
    Great Lakes regions and their 5 umbrella inter-tribal fish and wildlife
    organizations. Despite the critical role tribes play in managing the
    resources on tribal land and surrounding areas, BIA resources have
    eroded in recent years. The administration proposed reducing this item
    by $3.5 million in fiscal year 2009. NCAI urges Congress to restore the
    base funding for Rights Protection Implementation.
        Endangered Species.--The President proposed reducing Endangered
    Species Act funding by nearly $1 million. Funding for Endangered
    Species Act compliance must be increased to $6.6 million so the BIA can
    meet its otherwise unfunded mandates under the ESA.
        BIA Indian Reservation Roads.--The Department of Interior intends
    to reduce the Bureau of Indian Affairs Road Maintenance budget by $13
    million, or 50 percent. The justification for this reduction is that
    ``Tribes could use about $100 million in Department of Transportation
    funds for Indian Reservation Roads.'' As Congress and the President
    consider how to stimulate our economy, providing more funds--not less--
    to address the multi-billion dollar BIA road maintenance backlog will
    increase jobs in often impoverished reservation economies and will
    allow the BIA and Tribal governments to replace inefficient and
    antiquated road maintenance equipment. By cutting the budget request
    for the BIA Road Maintenance Program in half--and by justifying the
    reduction by reference to Tribal authority to use IRR Program
    construction funds for maintenance--the President's budget ignores a
    Congressional mandate and seeks to shift responsibility for maintaining
    Indian reservation roads to the overburdened Highway Trust Fund. As far
    back as 2003, the BIA formally acknowledged that at least $120 million
    per year was needed to maintain BIA-owned roads and bridges to a safe
    standard and $50 million per year was needed for bridge rehabilitation
    and replacement. This estimate does not take into account the millions
    needed to address the road maintenance backlogs that have accumulated
    as a result of the BIA's inability to meet existing need under its
    current budget. NCAI urges Congress to at least restore the $13 million
    to IRR funding in the fiscal year 2009 budget.

                                   CONCLUSION

        The NCAI has gathered the input of tribal leaders and native
    organizations in the creation of these budget recommendations and we
    are honored to submit this document on their behalf. Native peoples
    have endeavored to live and work along side non-native peoples as well
    as defend our freedoms and communities in this diverse nation. We are
    determined to address the long-standing challenges in our communities
    and provide for the health, education, public safety and economic
    development needs of our tribal citizens.
                                     ______

           Prepared Statement of the National Cooperators' Coalition

        Madam Chairwoman and Senator Allard: We write to ask that you
    increase the fiscal year 2009 funding for the U.S. Geological Survey's
    Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Units (CFWRUs) $8 million above
    the budget request. The continued austere budget requests by USGS and
    the administration for the system are inadequate to maintain this
    highly valued partnership.
        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. CFWRU's have
    established a 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.
        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 three dollars for every dollar 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, collaborations and
    accountability. The role of the Cooperative Research Unit System in
    facilitating these kinds of solutions and training the wildlife
    managers of tomorrow, who will be leading the way, should not be
    compromised. The Unit's contribution to natural resource agencies
    through its scientific capabilities, expertise, technical assistance
    and the training of personnel is required for responsive, science based
    management.
        To begin meeting these high priority research and training needs in
    fiscal year 2009, we ask that you establish a competitive, matching
    fund program within existing CFWRU legislative authority that would
    make available $5 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.
        We greatly appreciate the addition by Congress of nearly $1 million
    to the fiscal year 2008 USGS requested funding level. Those added funds
    are making it possible to begin the process of filling current
    scientist vacancies and restoring seriously eroded operational funds
    for each CFWRU. Unfortunately, the fiscal year 2009 USGS budget request
    fails to retain this increase, which jeopardizes the continued
    integrity of the CFWRUs. Approximately one fifth of all Coop Unit
    scientist positions are vacant due to erosion of funding since fiscal
    year 2001. To restore the necessary capacity in the CFWRU program for
    it to meet the Nation's research and training needs, the fiscal year
    2009 USGS appropriation needs to provide approximately $3 million more
    than the fiscal year 2008 appropriated level. An increase in funding
    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.
        We urge 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 make the best use of Federal
    funds, becoming even more effective in using science and collaboration
    to address the natural resources challenges facing the Interior
    Department, other Federal, State, local agencies and this country's
    citizens.
        Thank you for consideration of our request.
                                     ______

    Prepared Statement of the National Environmental Services Center, West
                      Virginia University, Morgantown, WV

        Chairwoman Feinstein, ranking member Allard, and members of the
    subcommittee: We request an appropriation of $2 million in fiscal year
    2009 to assist small communities in meeting their wastewater treatment
    needs under the programs of the National Small Flows Clearinghouse and
    the National Environmental Training Center for Small Communities. Both
    programs are administered by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
    (EPA) under the Environmental Programs and Management (EPM) account.

                                  INTRODUCTION

        My name is Richard Bajura and I serve as executive director of the
    National Environmental Services Center. Our center is home to both EPA
    and USDA funded programs that provide comprehensive environmental
    services to small communities and rural areas. Our work is focused
    mainly on drinking water, wastewater, and municipal solid waste. Two of
    our major programs, the National Small Flows Clearinghouse
    (Clearinghouse) and the National Environmental Training Center for
    Small Communities (Training Center) are the subjects of this testimony.
    These first two pages outline the need and justification for our
    request; the last two pages of our testimony provide background
    information about the Clearinghouse and Training Center programs.

                                      NEED

        According to EPA's Clean Watersheds Needs Survey 2004 Report to
    Congress, small communities in the United States (populations less than
    10,000) need $17 billion for wastewater services. However, State and
    Federal funds available to help meet these needs have decreased, and
    competition among the communities for these monies has intensified.
    Small and rural communities require assistance in developing,
    maintaining, and managing infrastructure for municipal wastewater
    treatment facilities that protect public health and meet environmental
    regulations. These communities are most often characterized as being
    rural, having few financial resources, and as being overseen by elected
    officials who have limited time and support personnel to make decisions
    in these matters.
        Given the limited funding available to assist communities, our
    programs provide information, services, and access to expertise that
    enable these communities to maximize the benefits from their available
    funds. The congressionally directed funding requested in our testimony
    will enable us to help these communities with services they will not
    otherwise obtain.
        EPA is charged with developing implementation and management
    strategies and technical assistance services for decentralized
    wastewater treatment systems for small and rural communities. However,
    EPA has an insufficient number of staff to carry out this
    responsibility. EPA has relied on the Clearinghouse and the Training
    Center to provide information services, technical assistance, and
    training for small communities and for service providers. While
    Congress has charged the EPA with these responsibilities, the
    administration routinely does not provide financial support for such
    programs and congressional action is required each year to support
    Clearinghouse and Training Center services.

                      SUPPORT FOR EPA NATIONAL PRIORITIES

        As part of a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) initiated by EPA,
    the National Environmental Services Center, which houses both programs,
    joined with 7 other national organizations to assist the agency in
    meeting its strategic goals under its Decentralized Treatment Program.
    Services provided by both programs are the underpinning for the
    activities of many of the MOU partners in achieving their respective
    goals in the MOU partnership. Continued support for the Clearinghouse
    and the Training Center is important to EPA in meeting its national
    goals under its water programs.

                                    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
    to obtain assistance. By virtue of the congressional appropriation, we
    are able to offer most of our services free of charge.
        Without congressional support, the Clearinghouse and Training
    Center programs will be unable to attain sufficient funding to continue
    in the near term. In the longer term, the Clearinghouse can be
    supported under the funding formula provided for the Clearinghouse
    through renewal of the State Revolving Loan Fund (SRF) financing
    section of the Clean Water Act [H.R. 720] that was passed by the House
    in March of 2007. While EPA has a mandate to protect drinking water and
    manage wastewater discharges, the administration budget request
    typically does not include funding for water programs that serve small
    and rural communities. Given the absence of funding in the President's
    budget, Congress regularly adds funds each year to the EPA budget to
    continue service provider programs to meet the goals established by
    EPA. In the past, funding for the Clearinghouse and Training Center has
    been included among the congressional priorities for water-related
    programs such as the National Rural Water Association, Rural Community
    Assistance Partnership, Groundwater Protection Council, and similar
    organizations. The Clearinghouse and the Training Center are national
    programs that serve the same constituencies as the aforementioned
    programs by providing complementary services and should be similarly
    supported.
        We are requesting funding at a total of $2.0 million for the
    National Small Flows Clearinghouse and the National Environmental
    Training Center for Small Communities programs to support our work
    until the Clean Water SRF legislation is reauthorized and enacted.
    Thank you for considering our request.
                                     ______

      Prepared Statement of the National Federation of Federal Employees
                                   Local 1957

        As officers of the National Federation of Federal Employees (NFFE)
    Local 1957, we are once again writing on behalf of the bargaining unit
    for the Minerals Information Team (MIT), Geologic Division, U.S.
    Geological Survey (USGS), Reston,VA. We are concerned that the
    President's proposed fiscal year 2009 budget for the USGS includes a
    $5.1 million cut (33 percent) to the MIT's current funding level of
    $15.4 million, and $25.5 million (48 percent) from the entire Mineral
    Resource Program (MRP), of which we are a part.
        NFFE is concerned that the proposed MRP budget cut would
    irrevocably harm MIT through a Reduction in Force and elimination of
    valuable information for analysis of global mineral supply. This is a
    50 percent slash from fiscal year 2006 levels. The USGS could not
    fulfill its mandate by Congress to assure there is an adequate and
    reliable supply of mineral materials for national defense, as
    established by The Defense Production Act of 1950, as amended (1980 and
    1992).
        MIT is relied upon as an objective source of minerals information
    and expertise by Federal, State, and Local Governments, as well as by
    private, academic, and nongovernmental organizations. MIT produces more
    than 500 publications per year covering most nonfuel minerals,
    including Mineral Commodity Summaries for the Congressional Offices.
    Our web site provides approximately 1.4 million publication downloads
    per year and nearly double the number of hits.
        The proposed fiscal year 2009 budget would decimate MIT and MRP by
    eliminating at least 210 of 334 occupied scientific positions from
    across the country, about 43 of which would be from MIT. MIT would have
    to severely reduce its core function--the collection and dissemination
    of data on domestic and international production and consumption of
    mineral commodities--and cease research on mineral and material life
    cycles, flows, and future demand and uses.
        MIT is already laboring under a severely constrained budget that
    has declined by about 27 percent in real dollars to $11.6 million since
    1996, the year the group was moved to the USGS. The proposed fiscal
    year 2009 budget would reduce MIT funding 51 percent from that of
    fiscal year 1996 to $7.8 million (real dollars). Compounding the
    problem, MIT has had to absorb mandated increases in salaries and cost
    of living adjustments. Not surprisingly, filled FTE positions have
    fallen by about 27 percent (47). Quite frankly, MIT is now at the point
    that even flat levels of funding will prevent the group from fully
    accomplishing its mission.
        All this is occurring at a time of increasing globalization and
    materials competition from developing countries such as China and India
    that has led to global supply constraints, record-high metals prices,
    and increasing concern over the adequacy of mineral materials necessary
    to fuel technological innovation. Currently, the United States import
    dependence for most strategic and critical nonfuel minerals exceeds 75
    percent, which is greater than the country's dependence on foreign oil.
    Information and analysis of domestic and international markets is
    increasingly important to assure an adequate supply of minerals for the
    Nation's economic and defense needs. In 2006, MIT found that the Nation
    relied more than 50 percent on imports to meet their needs for 45 of 81
    nonfuel mineral commodities essential to the economy, and of those, was
    100 percent import reliant for 17 and 80 percent for another 13.
        The administration's continuous lack of support is summed up by the
    Office of Management Budget's (OMB) position ``. . . if the work of the
    MRP is truly of great value another non-Federal entity will pick up the
    work. The expertise does exist within state geological surveys and
    universities to conduct this work, however the funding does not. OMB
    believes that other entities can find the money to conduct the research
    through partnerships with private industry. Some say that this may call
    the impartiality of the research into question.''
        We are puzzled by OMB's reasoning. Like other Federal agencies that
    collect and analyze statistical information, MIT provides a fundamental
    service to the Nation that cannot be duplicated in the private sector
    or by other levels of government. It takes a Federal organization to
    coordinate and analyze mineral surveys data on a national level,
    including that from foreign sources. Mineral companies and foreign
    governments would understandably be reluctant to report proprietary or
    business sensitive data to private sector organizations.
        MIT's mission is similar to that of the Energy Information
    Administration (EIA) under the Department of Energy (DOE). EIA was, in
    fact, part of MIT prior to its creation in 1977. Like MIT, the EIA has
    become a recognized provider of data and value-added analysis on the
    Country's and the world's supply of energy minerals. Unlike MIT,
    however, EIA has had increased funding from $78 million in fiscal year
    2001 to $95.5 million in fiscal year 2008 (22.4 percent).
        The National Academies of Sciences (NAS) in an October 2007 report
    ``Minerals, Critical Minerals, and the U.S. Economy'' recommended that
    ``the Federal Government should enhance the types of data and
    information it collects, disseminates, and analyzes on minerals and
    mineral product, especially as these data and information relate to
    minerals or mineral products that are or may become critical. . . .
    Decision makers in both the public and private sectors need continuous,
    unbiased, and thorough information on the uses and possible supply
    restrictions of nonfuel minerals. The U.S. Geological Survey's Minerals
    Information Team is the most comprehensive source for this sort of
    information.'' The NAS further recommended ``that the Federal
    Government give the necessary authority and funding to USGS or
    whichever agency will ultimately be responsible to collect minerals
    information.''
        In 2006, Congress rejected a similar reduction proposed by the
    administration. In rejecting that proposed cut, the congressional joint
    committee wrote ``[we] strongly disagree with the administration's
    proposed reductions to the mineral assessment program and believe it
    irresponsible for the administration to decrease or eliminate funding
    for what is inherently a Federal responsibility.'' NFFE now urges
    Congress to do the same in fiscal year 2009, and restore the group's
    ability to function effectively by further increasing MIT's budget to
    $23 million.
        We thank you for your consideration of these issues that affect
    both our Union's and the Nation's interests.
                                     ______

        Prepared Statement of the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation

        Madam Chairman and members of the subcommittee: Thank you for the
    opportunity to submit testimony regarding fiscal year 2009 Department
    of Interior Appropriations and funding for the National Fish and
    Wildlife Foundation (Foundation). We appreciate the subcommittee's past
    support and respectfully request your approval of funding at the
    following levels:
      --$10 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 funding request for fiscal year 2009 is well within the
    authorized levels and would allow the Foundation to uphold our mission
    and expand our successful partnerships with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
    Service (FWS), Bureau of Land Management (BLM), and Forest Service
    (FS). Madam Chairman, I want to make one very important point: we are
    asking for your support of well-established conservation programs with
    national significance. The Foundation is an honest broker for the
    Federal agencies and we have a remarkable track record of bringing
    private partners together to leverage Federal funds and maximize
    conservation impacts.
        Since the Foundation's establishment by Congress in 1984, the
    Foundation has built strong partnerships with the FWS, BLM, and FS by
    convening cooperative efforts to further the conservation of fish,
    wildlife and plants. The Foundation continues to excel in grant-making
    while providing thought leadership, accountability and sustainable
    conservation outcomes. Our unique ability to organize Federal agencies
    and private partners to work together to achieve mutual conservation
    goals through on-the-ground and in-the-water grant programs is notable
    and there is significant potential to advance these efforts in fiscal
    year 2009 and beyond.
        In addition to FWS, BLM and FS, the Foundation works closely with
    other Department of Interior agencies, the Environmental Protection
    Agency (EPA), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
    and USDA's Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), among others.
    On average, every Federal dollar is leveraged with three or more
    matching dollars from the non-Federal sector. Therefore, an
    appropriation of $21 million in fiscal year 2009 would turn into a
    minimum of $42 million, according to the Foundation's Congressional
    Charter which requires a minimum of a 1:1 match, and have the potential
    to turn into $84 million or more for on-the-ground conservation. Funds
    appropriated by this subcommittee are exclusively dedicated to grants
    and are not spent on overhead expenses of the Foundation.
        This subcommittee's funding has been critical to our success in
    attracting additional funding for conservation through corporate
    sponsorship, legal settlements, and direct gifts. Through our targeted
    grants, the Foundation strategically invests the Federal funds
    entrusted to us to achieve measurable success in ``moving the needle''
    on collaborative conservation objectives over the next 5- to 10-year
    period.
        In fiscal year 2007, the Foundation awarded $12.2 million of our
    FWS, FS, and BLM appropriations to support 267 projects. FWS, BLM and
    FS funds were leveraged with $41 million in other Foundation Federal
    funds, corporate contributions, and matching funds. The remaining $1.7
    million in appropriated funds will be obligated for our spring 2008
    projects. When these projects are approved, the FWS, BLM and FS
    appropriations of $13.9 million for fiscal year 2007 will have been
    leveraged into more than $65 million in on-the-ground projects.

                 CONSERVING FISH, WILDLIFE, PLANTS AND HABITATS

        Fiscal year 2009 appropriations through FWS, BLM and FS will be
    focused on mutually agreed upon projects across the country according
    to our Keystone Initiatives and the objectives of the Foundation's
    Special Grant Programs, which are specific to a geographic area, group
    of species, or conservation concern. 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. In 2007 the Foundation continued
    implementing a new strategic plan and developing targeted Keystone
    Initiatives, with the goal of achieving sustainable and measurable
    conservation impacts.
        Four Keystone Initiatives were launched by the Foundation in 2007:
    (1) Birds (2) Wildlife and Habitats (3) Fish and (4) Marine and Coastal
    Conservation. 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. Achieving
    success through our Keystone Initiatives will also help to fulfill the
    objectives of the National Fish Habitat Action Plan, North American
    Waterfowl Management Plan, and Partners in Flight, among others.
        With continued support through FWS, BLM, and FS appropriations, the
    Foundation can accelerate our collaborative efforts to achieve long-
    term conservation impacts for fish and wildlife through our Keystone
    Initiatives. Increased funding in fiscal year 2009 will also help to
    strengthen the Foundation's Special Grant Programs, a few of which are
    highlighted below:
      --The Washington State Community Salmon Fund was established in 2000
            to award community-based grants to assist rural communities,
            farmers, ranchers and other private landowners with salmon
            habitat conservation projects. With continued support from this
            subcommittee, the program has expanded to include funding and
            participation from the Washington Salmon Recovery Funding
            Board, the Washington Conservation Commission, King County, WA
            and Pierce County, WA. More than 300 grants have been awarded
            through the partnership to benefit every major salmon-bearing
            watershed across Washington. The program helps to implement
            local salmon recovery projects identified as priorities in
            Federal and State agency approved recovery plans. Projects also
            provide numerous benefits for other aquatic and riparian
            wildlife species as well as improved water quality.
      --The Great Lakes Watershed Restoration Fund is a partnership between
            FWS, FS, EPA, NOAA and NRCS to promote ecosystem restoration in
            the Great Lakes watershed. Since 2005, the Foundation has
            leveraged $1.9 million in Federal funds with $3.8 million in
            partner contributions and matching funds to support 36 projects
            throughout the watershed. In 2008, the program is anticipated
            to award an additional $1.5 million to restore and enhance fish
            and wildlife habitat in the Great Lakes Basin. In January, the
            Foundation announced a new corporate partnership with
            ArcelorMittal, an international steel company, who will provide
            an additional $2.1 million over the next 3 years for grants in
            the watershed and help to implement the habitat objectives of
            the Great Lakes Regional Collaboration.
      --The International Sea Turtle Conservation Fund supports projects
            for the six species of sea turtles found in the Western
            Hemisphere, all of which are considered endangered or
            threatened. Since 1998, grants have been awarded for more than
            100 projects in over 25 countries, representing a total of $6.2
            million in funding from both Federal and non-Federal sources.
            Projects focus on key nesting and foraging areas for species
            survival as well as local capacity building and outreach with
            fisherman to increase awareness and minimize damage caused by
            certain fishing techniques to marine turtle populations. This
            collaborative effort with NOAA and FWS is the leading source of
            funding for sea turtles in the Western Hemisphere.
        Other Special Grant Programs, including Bring Back the Natives,
    Pulling Together Initiative, Long Island Sound Futures Fund, Delaware
    Estuary Watershed Grants Program, and Chesapeake Bay Stewardship Fund,
    continued positive results in 2007 with grantee requests far exceeding
    available funds. The Foundation strongly supports collaborative efforts
    that integrate conservation practices on agricultural, ranching, and
    forestry operations, with the goal of improving the ecological health
    of working lands. fiscal year 2009 appropriations through FWS, BLM and
    FS will allow the Foundation to continue our investment in common-
    sense, innovative, cooperative approaches that directly benefit diverse
    habitats and a wide range of fish and wildlife species.

             A TRADITION OF SUCCESSFUL AND ACCOUNTABLE PERFORMANCE

        Since 1984, the Foundation has awarded nearly 9,500 grants to over
    3,000 organizations in the United States and abroad and leveraged--with
    our partners--more than $400 million in Federal funds into over $1.3
    billion for conservation. NFWF is recognized by Charity Navigator with
    a 4-star rating for efficiency and effectiveness.
        The Foundation has taken important strides to improve our grant
    review and contracting process to ensure we maximize efficiency while
    maintaining strict financial and evaluation-based requirements.
    Interactive tools through our website have improved communication with
    our stakeholders and helped to streamline our grant-making process. We
    expect that as of spring 2008, the Foundation will be operating under a
    paperless application system.
        Grant-making through our Keystone Initiatives and Special Grant
    Programs involves a thorough internal and external review process. Peer
    reviews involve Federal and State agencies, affected industry, non-
    profit organizations, 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, according to our Congressional Charter, 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.
        Once again, Madam Chairman, we greatly appreciate your continued
    support and hope the subcommittee will approve funding for the
    Foundation in fiscal year 2009.
                                     ______

             Prepared Statement of the National Humanities Alliance

        Chairwoman Feinstein and members of the subcommittee: On behalf of
    the National Humanities Alliance and its 93 member organizations and
    institutions, I am pleased to testify for the record in support of the
    National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH). Our members, and the
    thousands of teachers, scholars, humanities organizations and
    institutions they represent, use NEH grants to maintain a strong system
    of academic research, education and public programs in the humanities.
    The Alliance respectfully urges the subcommittee to support funding of
    $177 million for NEH in fiscal year 2009, an increase of about $32
    million above the fiscal year 2008 appropriation and the President's
    request.

                                    SUMMARY

        The President's fiscal year 2009 budget requests $144.4 million for
    NEH in fiscal year 2009, approximately the same amount as in fiscal
    year 2008. The President would offset increases for overhead costs and
    administration priorities with nearly $7 million in cuts to two of
    NEH's core programs, Preservation & Access and Challenge Grants. NEH's
    other core programs, which include Education, Public Programs,
    Research, and the Federal-State Partnership, would receive level
    funding in the President's Budget. We strongly oppose the President's
    proposed cuts and urge increased funding for all core programs.
        As the single largest source of humanities funding in the United
    States, NEH plays a pivotal 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. Our Nation's schools and universities are falling behind in
    almost every aspect of humanities education and research. A serious
    reinvigoration of the Nation's investment in the humanities is
    desperately needed if we are to keep pace with the rapidly transforming
    global environment, and its pressures on our economy, citizens and
    civic institutions.
        Increased NEH funds will enable the agency to sustain its core
    programs, while extending the reach of its two major initiatives: We
    the People (along with a new WTP program, Picturing America), and the
    Digital Humanities Initiative. The Alliance applauds the agency's
    responsiveness to national needs. We support the increased funding for
    special initiatives included in the President's fiscal year 2009
    Budget. However, we believe funding for these initiatives should be in
    conjunction to, not in competition with, NEH's core programs. We are
    extremely concerned about the proposed elimination of a critical
    Preservation grant competition, Stabilizing Humanities Collections, and
    urge Congress to instruct the agency not to terminate or substantially
    reduce this program in fiscal year 2009.

                                FUNDING ANALYSIS

        NEH is funded at a level of $144.7 million in fiscal year 2008, an
    increase of $3.6 million over the previous fiscal year (a 2.6 percent
    increase over fiscal year 2007), including an additional $2.5 million
    for program funds and $1.1 million for administration. The humanities
    community deeply appreciates this increase. The combined impacts of
    inflation and budget cuts over the last two decades have seriously
    eroded NEH's ability to carry out its congressional mandate. NEH
    reached its nominal funding peak of $177.5 million in fiscal year 1994,
    the benchmark set by the humanities community to begin restoration of
    the agency's budget. However, NEH reached its real historical peak in
    fiscal year 1979; if funded at the 1979 level, NEH today would have a
    budget of more than $400 million.
        The NEH's current funding level is not adequate to meet the needs
    of humanities practitioners and the communities they serve. There is
    significant, unmet demand in this country for new knowledge and
    programming in the humanities--from history and literature, to world
    cultures, foreign languages, philosophy, and ethics. In fiscal year
    2007, NEH was only able to make $118 million in new awards, but it
    received more than $440 million in funding requests.

                             NATIONAL CORE PROGRAMS

        The NEH's national, core program competitions are at the center of
    the agency's mission to create, preserve, and disseminate knowledge in
    the humanities. However, since 1994, these programs have suffered
    disproportionately from budget cuts and inflation. In fiscal year 1994,
    appropriations for the national NEH core program divisions (Research,
    Education, Preservation & Access, Public Programs and Challenge Grants)
    totaled $116.3 million. In fiscal year 2008, appropriations for these
    divisions totaled only $66.0 million--a 43 percent decline in nominal
    funding.
        Preservation and Access Programs.--The NEH Preservation and Access
    Division supports the preservation of materials important to research,
    education, and public programming, including: books, journals,
    newspapers, manuscript and archival collections, maps, photographs,
    films, sound recordings, oral histories, and objects of material
    culture. NEH works with the community to preserve these resources and
    supports the creation of reference materials and new methods to
    increase access to them.
        The President's fiscal year 2009 budget requests $13.9 million for
    the Preservation and Access Division, a decrease of $4.5 million from
    the fiscal year 2008 level. In addition, the administration proposes to
    eliminate an important grant competition, Stabilizing Humanities
    Collections--a program funded at a level of $3.6 million in fiscal year
    2007. We are extremely concerned about the President's proposal, and
    ask for Congress' assistance in restoring funds to the Preservation &
    Access Division, and in ensuring that the Stabilization grants are not
    cancelled in fiscal year 2009.
        The President's proposed reduction is an inappropriate response to
    documented needs for the preservation and dissemination of our Nation's
    cultural heritage. In fiscal year 2007, the Preservation Division
    reviewed 564 applications, representing more than $100 million in
    requested funding. Of these requests, 56 applications were submitted
    for Stabilization grants, totaling more than $15.7 million (only 11
    were funded). Stabilization grants provide libraries, museums, and
    historical societies with hard-to-raise funds necessary to improve
    housing and storage, environmental conditions, security, lighting, and
    fire protection of collections. According to the Heritage Health Index,
    a 2004 survey conducted by Heritage Preservation, only 37 percent of
    collecting institutions in the United States report adequate storage
    and over one-half report damage to collections due to poor
    environmental conditions for their collections.
        Challenge Grants.--The Challenge Grant program helps local, State
    and national institutions secure their humanities resources and
    activities for the long term through fundraising as a means of building
    permanent resources for the future. Grant uses include: establishing or
    augmenting an endowment to pay for humanities staff and programming,
    renovation or construction of facilities, purchase of capital
    equipment, upgrade of technology, and additions to collections.
    Challenge grants are a cost-effective investment of taxpayer dollars.
    First-time challenge grant recipients must match every $1 Federal with
    $3 non-Federal; recipients of subsequent awards must raise $4 non-
    Federal for every $1 Federal. Since the program started, NEH Challenge
    grants have leveraged $1.58 billion in non-Federal support.
        Over the years, Challenge Grants have made an extraordinary
    contribution toward strengthening the institutional base of the
    humanities. Unfortunately, the President's fiscal year 2009 Budget
    requests $7.1 million in funding for Challenge Grants, a decrease of
    $2.2 million from the fiscal year 2008 level. In fiscal year 2009, the
    administration plans to decrease both the number (reduced to 10) and
    size of challenge grants, particularly de-emphasizing endowment grants.
    We oppose these cuts. Challenge Grants are among the most valued NEH
    grants by our members. In fiscal year 2007, NEH received 113
    application requests for this division totaling more than $63 million
    (20 were funded)--nearly nine times the amount recommended by the
    administration.
        We also strongly disagree with the administration's assessment that
    endowment-building grants ``consume a significant amount of Federal
    resources in their first few years while returning only modest benefits
    as the endowment accumulates earnings''. Endowment building allows
    institutions to realize years of return on an initial investment, as
    opposed to a one-time expenditure. Moreover, the increased
    organizational capacity afforded by the annual return on endowment
    funds often allows institutions to further expand humanities
    programming and activities well beyond the scope of the original
    challenge grant.
        Research.--NEH Research grants are among the most coveted and
    prestigious awards for scholars. They support fellowships, stipends,
    collaborative research, and scholarly editions. Investing in humanities
    research yields new knowledge, consumed by the public in the form of
    books, TV/radio documentaries, museum exhibits, course materials, and
    web resources. The President's fiscal year 2009 Budget requests level
    funding of $13.0 million for Research. Research has been among the
    hardest hit areas of the Endowment. In fiscal year 1994 NEH made 1,054
    research awards, including fellowships and stipends, totaling $31.6
    million. In fiscal year 2007, the NEH Research Division made only 309
    new awards totaling $15.6 million (including additional We the People
    funds). NEH research grants are the most competitive offered by NEH,
    with demand far outstripping supply. In fiscal year 2007, NEH
    considered 2,537 research applications representing over $107 million--
    a 12 percent success rate. By comparison, in fiscal year 2006, the
    National Science Foundation made awards to 25 percent of proposals.
        Education.--The Division of Education Programs supports
    professional development opportunities for teachers and faculty
    members, model curricula, and classroom resources for the humanities.
    Education grants strengthen teaching and learning in the humanities
    through all grade levels, from kindergarten to graduate level
    education. The President's fiscal year 2009 Budget requests level
    funding of $12.6 million for Education programs. In contrast, the
    fiscal year 1994 budget allowed NEH to award $29.1 million for 352
    education projects, including seminars and institutes. In fiscal year
    2007, NEH was only able to make 104 new education awards totaling $13.3
    million (including additional We the People funds). The division
    received 429 applications in fiscal year 2007 for $54 million in
    requested funds.
        Public Programs.--It is through NEH-funded public humanities
    programs that the Endowment works most directly with the American
    public. From traveling exhibits in local museums and libraries to film,
    television and radio productions, NEH public programs reach literally
    millions of Americans each year. The President's fiscal year 2009
    Budget requests level funding of $12.7 million for Public Programs. In
    contrast, the fiscal year 1994 budget allowed NEH to award $27.5
    million for 201 public program projects. In fiscal year 2007, NEH was
    only able to make 113 new public program awards totaling $13.7 million
    (including additional We the People funds). The division received 494
    applications in fiscal year 2007 representing more than $70 million in
    requests.
        We support significantly increased funding for NEH's competitive,
    peer-reviewed grant programs through each of the agency's national core
    programs.

                                 STATE PROGRAMS

        Federal/State Partnership.--The NEH Federal/State Partnership is a
    collaborative effort of the NEH and the 56 State humanities councils to
    ensure the delivery of high-quality humanities programming to
    communities throughout the country. State councils are nonprofit
    501(c)(3) organizations governed by local volunteer boards; every
    Federal dollar received by a council for operating support is matched
    equally by local contributions of cash, goods, or services. The
    President's fiscal year 2009 Budget requests flat funding for the
    Federal/State Partnership at $31.7 million. We support significantly
    increased funding for the State councils through NEH.

                            NEH PROGRAM INITIATIVES

        Digital Humanities Initiative (DHI).--Launched in fiscal year 2007,
    DHI offers grants to support the use of digital technologies in
    conducting research and presenting scholarship. This area has been
    identified as a high priority by the National Humanities Alliance
    membership. The President's fiscal year 2009 Budget recommends
    essentially flat funding of $2 million for the newly renamed Office of
    Digital Humanities. We support the agency's modest request for this
    initiative and encourage further investment in the digital humanities
    throughout NEH.
        We the People (WTP).--We the People is an NEH initiative
    established in 2002 to boost the teaching, study, and understanding of
    American history and culture. Over the last 5 years, We the People
    funds have been used largely to support grants made through the
    agency's regular program divisions. The President's fiscal year 2009
    budget requests an additional $5 million to support We the People and
    allow full implementation of the NEH's new Picturing America
    initiative--an agency-directed program to distribute reproductions of
    American masterpieces to schools and libraries nationwide beginning in
    2008. We support the requested increase for We the People, but urge
    that new funds be found without drawing resources away from other NEH
    programs.

                            INTERNATIONAL EDUCATION

        The well-being of this country depends now, as perhaps never
    before, on our ability to understand the history, cultures and
    languages of the world's diverse societies. We appreciate Congress'
    request last year for an evaluation by NEH of its global society
    activities. We look forward to the release of the agency's report, and
    to working with Congress and the NEH on the future enhancement of the
    agency's international education programs.
        We recognize that Congress faces difficult choices this year. We
    are asking the subcommittee to recommend a significant funding increase
    for the National Endowment for the Humanities of $32 million in fiscal
    year 2009, as a necessary investment in the Nation's education and
    research infrastructure. We appreciate the subcommittee's outstanding
    support for the arts and humanities in America. Thank you for your
    consideration of our request.
                                     ______

         Prepared Statement of the Natural Science Collections Alliance

        The Natural Science Collections Alliance (NSC Alliance) encourages
    Congress to provide the United States Geological Survey (USGS) with at
    least $1.3 billion for fiscal year 2009. From this amount, we encourage
    you to provide at least $230 million for the programs and functions of
    the Biological Resources Discipline (BRD).
        The NSC Alliance is a nonprofit association that supports natural
    science collections, their human resources, the institutions that house
    them, and their research activities for the benefit of science and
    society. Our members are part of an international community of museums,
    botanical gardens, herbariums, universities and other institutions that
    house natural science collections and utilize them in research,
    exhibitions, academic and informal science education, public service,
    service to governmental entities such as public health, agriculture,
    homeland security, defense, natural resource conservation, and outreach
    activities for the betterment of society.
        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 enable USGS scientists to utilize innovative
    interdisciplinary research techniques to answer important questions.
    For instance, USGS data are essential to informing our understanding of
    how species and ecological systems may respond to climate change and
    how ecological systems may be able to help ameliorate the effects of
    environmental change. 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 for it is vital to scientific, social, and
    commercial advancement.
        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. For instance, the NSC Alliance has
    worked with USGS personnel to try to identify barriers to the
    digitization of data associated with the tens of millions of specimens
    in natural science collections. Such specimens become increasingly
    valuable each year as new techniques permit the vast storehouse of
    information locked in these specimens to be accessed for scientific
    research. These efforts offer the potential for USGS and academic
    researchers to use these data to improve our understanding of the
    distribution and habitat requirements of species, thus improving our
    ability to efficiently and effectively develop conservation and
    management policies.
        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 example, the National
    Biological Information Infrastructure (NBII) program within the
    Biological Informatics office provides scientists and managers access
    to existing data. In the President's fiscal year 2009 budget request,
    NBII was cut by $2.9 million. This cut will have a significant negative
    impact on this important program. Full funding for NBII would permit
    the establishment of a more interconnected and accessible information
    system and would provide for the continued operation of important
    efforts, such as the National Framework for Early Detection, Rapid
    Assessment, and Rapid Response to Invasive Species (EDDR). The National
    EDDR framework would assist scientists and resource managers in
    correctly identifying invasive species, which are estimated to cost the
    United States $138 billion each year in health care, lost income, and
    environmental consequences.
        USGS scientists work collaboratively and are vital members of the
    research community. Through offices and science centers located in
    every State and through 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 many 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.
        Biological science programs within the USGS gather long-term data
    not available from other sources. Such data have contributed in a
    fundamental manner to our understanding of bird migratory patterns and
    the status and dynamics of biological populations, and have 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.
        The USGS is uniquely positioned to address many of the Nation's
    biological and environmental challenges, including energy independence,
    climate change, water quality, endangered species, introduced pest
    species, emerging diseases, and conservation of biological diversity.
    USGS research in biology and ecosystem science provides data on the
    potential impacts to ecosystems that could result from global climate
    change or from particular land management practices. Additional studies
    conducted by the USGS related to global change indicate that sea-level
    rise will continue to impact coastal areas. These studies will provide
    critical data for resource managers as they develop adaptive management
    strategies for restoration and long-term use of the Nation's natural
    resources, including its coastlines.
        Funding for the USGS has remained flat for nearly a decade. The
    situation is even more critical when the budget is adjusted for
    inflation. The President's fiscal year 2009 budget request for the USGS
    is $969 million, $38 million below the fiscal year 2008 enacted budget
    and more than $6 million below the fiscal year 2008 operating plan.
    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 from
    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 us at 202-628-1500 x
    250.
                                     ______

         Prepared Statement of the National Wildlife Refuge Association

        Madam Chairwoman and members of the subcommittee: On behalf of the
    National Wildlife Refuge Association (NWRA) and its membership
    comprised of current and former refuge professionals, 154 refuge
    Friends organization affiliates and thousands of concerned citizens
    throughout the United States, thank you for your leadership and strong
    support for the National Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS) including the
    enacted $39 million increase for fiscal year 2008. Thank you for the
    opportunity to offer comments on the fiscal year 2009 Interior
    Appropriations bill. Specifically, we respectfully request that the
    subcommittee support the following:
      --An overall funding level of $514 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);
      --An allocation of $55.1 million for the Partners for Fish and
            Wildlife Program, of which $2 million be allocated to conduct
            strategic habitat conservation around national wildlife refuges
            through partnerships among the FWS, 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 the Volunteers
            and Invasives Program which utilizes Friends and volunteers to
            identify and eradicate invasive species on and in connection
            with refuges;
      --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 allocation of $25 million for the NWRS construction budget to
            prevent further degradation of Refuge System infrastructure;
      --An allocation of $85 million for the State and Tribal Wildlife
            Grants Program;
      --An allocation of $10 million for the National Fish and Wildlife
            Foundation (NFWF) in the FWS' Resource Management General
            Administration appropriation;
      --Include language prohibiting use of funds for a land exchange at
            the Izembek NWR in Alaska;
      --An allocation of $30 million for Climate Change Planning for
            refuges.
        The NWRA is the chair of the Cooperative Alliance for Refuge
    Enhancement (CARE), a diverse coalition of 22 wildlife, hunting,
    fishing, conservation, and scientific organizations representing more
    than 14 million members and supporters. A comprehensive analysis by
    CARE determined that the Refuge System needs $765 million in annual
    operations and maintenance funding by 2013 to properly administer its
    nearly 100 million acres and provide the full spectrum of wildlife
    dependent recreation identified in the Refuge Improvement Act of 1997.
    To reach this reasonable goal, we respectfully request that you provide
    $514 million in fiscal year 2009 for Refuge System Operations and
    Maintenance (O&M).
        Recent years of stagnant budgets have caused the System O&M backlog
    to rapidly escalate to more than $3.5 billion. This huge backlog has
    forced the FWS to initiate plans for a dramatic 20 percent workforce
    downsizing. Visitors often show up to find roads and visitor centers
    closed, parking lots and boat launches in disrepair, and habitat
    restoration projects put ``on-hold'' or eliminated. Invasive plant
    species continue to encroach on the Refuge System lands and undermine
    their ability to fulfill their mission. In addition, a serious staffing
    deficiency in biologists and law enforcement officers has caused
    biological monitoring and habitat management to diminish and allowed
    illegal activities such as poaching and trespassing to increase. All of
    these shortcomings have reduced the opportunity for wildlife dependent
    recreational opportunities on Refuge System lands. Creating and
    enhancing these opportunities is critical to connecting people to our
    natural resources. We are grateful for the much-needed budget increase
    that Congress provided the Refuge System for the current fiscal year,
    and we respectfully urge the Congress to build upon this important step
    toward restoring the Refuge System by carefully considering our request
    in the fiscal year 2009 budget.
        While providing adequate funding to operate and maintain the Refuge
    System is of vital importance, 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, 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 (SWAP), 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. All while strengthening
    economies through improved quality of life, clean water and outdoor
    recreation and appreciation.
        Accordingly, for fiscal year 2009 we respectfully ask that the
    subcommittee appropriate $55.1 million for the Partners for Fish and
    Wildlife Program, of which $2 million be allocated specifically to
    conduct strategic habitat conservation around national wildlife refuges
    that engages 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. These local initiatives will
    result in strategic visions which 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'' in the Volunteers and Invasives Program by again
    appropriating $1 million for this valuable program. With annual
    allocations by Congress since fiscal year 2003, more than 207 separate
    refuges have taken actions to control invasives, and the Refuge System
    has identified approximately $166 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. Over the past 3 years, funding awarded to refuges
    through this program for engaging volunteers in invasive species
    management has enabled 2,750 volunteers to contribute more than 49,000
    hours to the treatment, inventory, and restoration of over 211,000
    acres of refuge lands. In fiscal year 2006, a total of 917 volunteers
    contributed 22,239 hours and participated in the treatment, inventory
    and restoration of 73,909 refuge acres.
        Likewise, the Cooperative Volunteer Invasives Monitoring Program
    has demonstrated powerful results at the 32 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 24,000
    acres of refuge lands, in addition to hundreds of water bodies, have
    been inventoried and mapped by a corps of nearly 200 trained volunteers
    contributing 8,000 hours. Refuges participating in the program have
    used the data to engage an additional 887 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 the House passed ``REPAIR Act'' (H.R. 767) that directs the
    Secretary to establish a Cooperative Volunteer Invasives Monitoring and
    Control Program to document and combat invasive species in and near
    national wildlife refuges.
        The NWRA encourages the subcommittee to allocate sufficient funding
    to assess and purchase high-priority water rights and high-priority
    lands and conservation easements through the Land and Water
    Conservation Fund (LWCF). Inadequate water quantity and quality
    represent some of the biggest obstacles for refuges to overcome and
    unfortunately, many refuges do not own the water rights on the refuge
    or they are not guaranteed an allocation of water from a river or
    stream. The FWS is currently compiling a needs-based priority database
    of where water rights need to be secured, and we urge the subcommittee
    to allocate sufficient funding to allow the FWS to acquire these
    essential rights while they are available and affordable. In some
    cases, if we fail to act, refuges will be left high and dry.
        The Refuge System land acquisition backlog is estimated at more
    than $4 billion, with over 15 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 annual 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 which have willing sellers and are immediately
    available for purchase: $5.6 million for Crystal River NWR (FL); $6
    million for Stewart B. McKinney NWR (CT); $2.15 million for
    Rappahannock River Valley NWR (VA); $1 million for Lake Umbagog NWR
    (NH); $2.5 million for Silvio O. Conte NFWR (MA); $1.1062 million for
    Bayou Sauvage NWR (LA); $3.5 million for Rachel Carson NWR (ME); $2
    million for Pelican Island NWR (FL) and $6 million for James Campbell
    NWR (HI).
        We encourage the subcommittee to resist the zeroing out of the
    Refuge System's construction budget proposed in the president's fiscal
    year 2009 budget request and instead allocate $25 million. The FWS has
    identified over $1 billion in construction projects, which in many
    cases will result in replacement of quickly deteriorating structures
    that are becoming more expensive to maintain.
        The NWRA urges the subcommittee to appropriate at least $85 million
    for the State and Tribal Wildlife Grants Program in fiscal year 2009 to
    implement statewide conservation plans, supporting projects to keep
    common species common and develop partnerships. These State-based plans
    can dovetail with refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plans (CCPs) and
    help fulfill the shared Federal/State responsibility for keeping our
    Nation's wildlife from becoming endangered.
        We encourage the subcommittee to allocate $10 million for the
    National Fish and Wildlife Foundation through the FWS' Resource
    Management General Administration appropriation. 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 species in, around and
    outside of national wildlife refuges across the country.
        The NWRA is strongly opposed to a proposed land exchange at the
    Izembek NWR on Alaska's peninsula, which would allow a road to be built
    through the biological heart of the refuge. This exchange is in the
    President's fiscal year 2009 budget justification and has also been
    introduced as legislation in both the House and Senate (H.R. 2801 and
    S. 1680).
        And perhaps most importantly in this era of uncertainty related to
    climate change, we urge the subcommittee to allocate $30 million in
    dedicated funding to allow the FWS to create a plan for how to manage
    refuges in such a way that would allow them to adapt to anticipated
    changes. Work currently conducted by scientists including Dr. Michael
    Scott, Senior Scientist with the U.S. Geological Survey and Professor
    of Wildlife Biology at the University of Idaho, show how models for
    individual refuges can be made that simulate rising water levels,
    increased temperatures, and how species are expected to react. While
    these innovative tools are now readily available, without dedicated
    funding, refuge staff is simply unable to take full advantage. Refuges
    are perhaps our best natural laboratories on a national level to assess
    impacts to wildlife and habitat as a result of global climate change; a
    small investment could yield valuable insights that will guide wildlife
    management and land use planning well into the future.
        In conclusion, the National Wildlife Refuge Association 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 Mexico Department of Game and Fish

        Madam Chairman and honorable members of the subcommittee: On behalf
    of the New Mexico Department of Game and Fish (Department), I
    appreciate the opportunity to present this testimony in support of a
    $2.6 million appropriation from the Land and Water Conservation Fund
    for critical land protection efforts by the Forest Service in the
    Cibola National Forest near Gallup, New Mexico.
        The Department completed the Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation
    Strategy for New Mexico in 2005, combing input from over 125 public,
    private, and tribal interests, as a guide to collaborative and
    coordinated conservation activities in the State. Identified through
    the planning process were Species of Greatest Conservation Need and key
    wildlife habitats throughout New Mexico. One of those Species of
    Greatest Conservation Need is Zuni bluehead sucker, a species listed as
    endangered by the State of New Mexico and a candidate for Federal
    listing under the Endangered Species Act. Zuni bluehead sucker is found
    only in about 9 miles of habitat in the headwaters and isolated springs
    of the upper Zuni River watershed. Preservation of existing habitat and
    reduction of threats to the population from habitat destruction,
    fragmentation, and demands on the water supply to the river and springs
    are critical to keeping this species from extinction.
        The Department, under the guidance of the Comprehensive Wildlife
    Conservation Strategy for New Mexico and the Zuni Bluehead Sucker
    Recovery Plan, is working closely with State, Federal, and Tribal
    agencies and private organizations and individuals to forward our
    common wildlife conservation initiatives. The partnerships that have
    formed to protect habitat in the headwaters of the Zuni River are some
    of the broadest and most diverse in the State, including The Nature
    Conservancy, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S.D.A Forest Service,
    and the Pueblo of Zuni. Priorities include restoration of the watershed
    and protecting habitat by purchase to prevent imminent threats of water
    and housing development. Among ongoing efforts, the Department is
    working with The Nature Conservancy to acquire 440 acres of land along
    the Rio Nutria, the major tributary to the Zuni River. This purchase,
    using the State Natural Lands Protection Act and funded by a special
    land conservation appropriation and the Duke Foundation, will add to
    the 1,300-acre Rio Nutria Preserve previously acquired by the State of
    New Mexico and The Nature Conservancy. Additionally, the Pueblo of
    Zuni, The Nature Conservancy, and the Department are working to restore
    and manage habitat for protection of the sucker on both the Preserve
    and within Zuni tribal lands. This is a unique opportunity to engage
    tribal government in support of the State's Comprehensive Wildlife
    Conservation Strategy.
        The proposed Forest Service acquisition will continue the partners'
    efforts to acquire and preserve habitat for the Zuni bluehead sucker
    and other important species. The two sections of land that make up the
    proposed Forest Service acquisition are important tributary drainages
    in the Zuni River watershed. Tampico Draw bisects the section that
    would be acquired in the first phase of the acquisition and drains
    directly into the Rio Nutria. The second section is on the headwaters
    of Grasshopper Canyon that also drains into Rio Nutria. Protection of
    these areas will help to protect downstream habitat occupied to by Zuni
    bluehead sucker.
        In fiscal year 2009, $2.6 million is required for the Forest
    Service from the Land and Water Conservation Fund to acquire and
    conserve the first 640 acres of the 1,280-acre Tampico Spring property.
    This will preserve critical wildlife habitat, protect an important
    watershed, and facilitate improved management of national forest lands
    in New Mexico.
        Thank you again, Madam Chairman, for the opportunity to present
    this testimony in support of this important Land and Water Conservation
    Fund project in New Mexico.
                                     ______

       Prepared Statement of the New Mexico Interstate Stream Commission

                                    SUMMARY

        This statement is submitted in support of fiscal year 2009
    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 $34,029,000 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 for
    a total appropriation of $34,729,000.
        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 2009 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 1 of the 5 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 $34,029,000 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's Budget Justification documents have stated
    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
    2009 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 $34,029,000 for the Land Resources Subactivity: Soil, Water, and Air
    Management as requested by the President. However, I request that
    $34,729,000 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 Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission

        Mr. Chairman and the other honorable members of the committee, I am
    Billy Frank, Jr., chairman of the Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission
    (NWIFC). It is indeed a privilege and an honor to be able to submit
    written testimony of our present funding requests to this committee on
    behalf of Native American people. On behalf of the membership of the
    NWIFC, our natural resource management funding requests for the fiscal
    year 2009 Budget for the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) and the
    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) are as follows:

               SUMMARY OF NWIFC SPECIFIC APPROPRIATIONS REQUESTS

      --Secure and Enhance Western Washington Fisheries Management Base
            Funding
        --$7.50 million Enhancement of Western Washington Fisheries
                Management Base Funding: BIA/Natural Resource Management/
                Rights Protection
        --$1.8 million--restore reduction incurred in the President's
                fiscal year 2009 Budget: BIA/Natural Resources Management/
                Rights Protection
        --$.075 million--Salmon & Steelhead Habitat Inventory Assessment
                Program (SSHIAP): BIA/Natural Resource/Forestry Projects
      --Maintain the Timber-Fish-Wildlife Program
        --$1.74 million Timber-Fish-Wildlife (TFW) Program: BIA/Natural
                Resource Management/Rights Protection
      --Maintain the Mass Marking Program
        --$2.4 million Mass Marking Program: BIA/Natural Resource
                Management/Rights Program
      --Protect Marine Resources of Puget Sound and Co-manage Natural
            Resources
        --$2.0 million: EPA/National Estuaries Program/Puget Sound
                Partnership
      --Recover Salmon through Hatchery Maintenance/Rehabilitation and
            Reform
        --$1.5 million Hatchery Maintenance/Rehabilitation: BIA Hatchery
                Maintenance/Rehabilitation & Reform
        --$2.43 million Hatchery Reform Implementation: BIA/Natural
                Resource Management/Fish and Wildlife Projects
      --Strengthen Tribal Wildlife Management and Assure Treaty-Protected
            Hunting Rights
        --$5 million Tribal Wildlife Management--Treaty Hunting Rights:
                BIA/Natural Resource Management/Rights Protection
                   support of national tribal appropriations
      --Support Tribal requested funding levels within BIA for Trust
            Responsibility, Tribal Priority Allocation (TPA) and Self-
            Governance that pertains to Fisheries Management and
            Implementation of the U.S.-Canada Pacific Salmon Treaty
      --$160 million to fully fund BIA Contract Support Cost
      --Provide necessary pay cost adjustments for existing and emerging
            programs
      --Support full funding of EPA's Indian General Assistance Program
            (GAP)

                   THE NORTHWEST INDIAN FISHERIES COMMISSION

        Indian tribes have always inhabited the watersheds of western
    Washington, their cultures based on harvesting fish, wildlife, and
    other natural resources in the region. In the mid-1850s, when the
    United States Government wanted to make Washington a State, a series of
    treaties were negotiated with tribes in the region. Through the
    treaties, the tribes gave up most of their land, but also reserved
    certain rights to protect their way of life. The promises of the
    treaties were quickly broken in the decades that followed as the tribes
    were systematically denied their treaty-protected rights by the State
    of Washington. The struggle to obtain recognition of those rights
    climaxed in the ``Fish Wars'' of the late 1960s and early 1970s, when
    tribal members were arrested and jailed for fishing in defiance of
    State law. In 1974, the tribes won a major victory in U.S. v.
    Washington (Boldt Decision), which reaffirmed their treaty-protected
    fishing rights. The ruling--which has been upheld by the U.S. Supreme
    Court--established the tribes as co-managers of the resource were
    entitled to 50 percent of the harvestable number of salmon returning to
    Washington waters. Following the ruling, the tribes created the
    Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission (NWIFC) to assist them in
    conducting orderly and biologically sound fisheries. More recent
    Federal court rulings upholding treaty-reserved shellfish harvest
    rights have further expanded the role and responsibilities of the
    tribes as natural resource managers. Those rulings, combined with the
    interconnectedness of all natural resources, mean that tribal
    participation is today necessary in nearly all aspects of natural
    resource management in the region.

       REQUESTS JUSTIFICATION NARRATIVE BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS/NATURAL
                     RESOURCE MANAGEMENT/RIGHTS PROTECTION

      --$1.8 MILLION RESTORATION OF CUT IN THE PRESIDENT'S BUDGET.--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.
      --$7.5 MILLION ENHANCEMENT OF WESTERN WASHINGTON FISHERIES MANAGEMENT
            BASE FUNDING.--The Tribes and the NWIFC request an increase of
            $4.0 million for the base program funding due to increased
            management obligations and costs. Base funding levels for
            Tribal Natural Resources was initially set more than 30 years
            ago. Funding declines in recent years are attributable to many
            reasons; inflationary costs, rescissions and the overall
            appropriations climate. Hence, today we are receiving less
            funding than we did three decades ago but the level of
            management responsibility has dramatically outpaced the level
            of funding. There have been occasional cost of living
            adjustments and some new monies have been added to core base,
            level funding over the years.
          The tribes request an increase of $2.0 million for base program
            funding to support increased shellfish management needs. In
            1999, the Supreme Court denied cert. and let stand the
            favorable decision of the 9th Circuit Court which included
            guaranteed Tribal rights to harvest and gather shellfish for
            their commercial, ceremonial and subsistence needs. Tribes need
            monies to implement this right, in much the same way as they
            did after the original U.S. v. Washington case was decided.
            Several dozen regional shellfish management plans have been
            successfully negotiated with Tribal and State agencies, and
            Tribes have redirected efforts to conduct the minimum
            management needed for their fisheries. Tribes need new
            resources to collect information to assess treaty/non-treaty
            sharing arrangements, to implement the shellfish sanitation
            consent decree and to better monitor and enforce Tribal
            regulations on deep-water fisheries. Without new resources our
            current successful implementation of the agreement will be
            short-lived.
          The tribes request an increase of $1.5 million for base program
            funding to support increased groundfish management needs. This
            appropriation would fund groundfish management activities for
            the four coastal Treaty Tribes who do not currently receive
            funds for these activities such as data collection, analysis
            and monitoring. These activities are funded from other existing
            fishery program funds which are inadequate and pose challenges
            to Tribes to meet their management needs and responsibilities.
            The transition to greater regional- and species-specific
            management increases the demand for information and staff.
            Groundfish biologists, technicians and enforcement personnel
            are all critical for an effective groundfish management
            program.
      --$1.74 MILLION TO MAINTAIN TIMBER-FISH-WILDLIFE (TFW) PROGRAM.--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.
      --$2.4 MILLION TO MAINTAIN THE MASS MARKING PROGRAM.--These funds are
            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. New plans to implement more
            extensive selective fisheries require additional funding and
            the cost for this task has increased since initial funding
            levels, and is expected to be at least $2.4 million in fiscal
            year 2009.
      --$5.0 MILLION TRIBAL WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT--TREATY HUNTING RIGHTS.--
            Wildlife Management 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 $5.0 million
            would provide each of the member Tribes with a basic
            infrastructure to deal with Tribal wildlife management and
            treaty hunting rights. We also recognize that the USFWS Tribal
            Wildlife Grants, by themselves, are neither adequately funded
            nor are they designed to support long-term tribal staff
            infrastructure. This package supports basic infrastructure at
            each tribe and the NWIFC, as well as provides a pool of project
            monies for competitive grants. Further, the continued
            elimination of $320,000 from the Unresolved Hunting and Fishing
            Rights line item will impact the Tribes ability to develop in-
            common and co-management databases with the State of Washington
            to work through hunting and wildlife management issues.
          bureau of indian affairs/natural resource/forestry programs
      --$75,000 SALMON & STEELHEAD HABITAT INVENTORY ASSESSMENT PROGRAM
            (SSHIAP).--We are requesting an increase of $75,000 for a total
            of $475,000 for the Salmon and Steelhead Habitat Inventory
            Assessment Program (SSHIAP). The SSHIAP program is an
            integrated data base/GIS program that allows tribes, the State
            and local governments, and other partners with real time
            information to make critical decisions regarding watershed
            restoration, funding priorities, etc. This collaborative
            program with the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife and
            other agencies, such as Department of Energy, Puget Sound
            Partnership, U.S. Geological Service, National Information
            Network and Environmental Protection Agency is funded within
            the BIA Natural Resources Management--Forestry--Special
            Projects account. The SSHIAP has become the basic habitat
            management tool of choice in salmon and watershed recovery,
            water quality and quantity issues and resource monitoring
            efforts in the State of Washington.
     bureau of indian affairs/hatchery maintenance/rehabilitation & reform
      --$1.5 MILLION SALMON HABITAT RESTORATION.--BIA HATCHERY MAINTENANCE
            & REHABILITATION
      --$2.43 MILLION SALMON HABITAT RESTORATION.--BIA/NATURAL RESOURCE
            MANAGEMENT/FISH AND WILDLIFE PROJECTS HATCHERY REFORM
            IMPLEMENTATION OR NOAA/PACIFIC SALMON/PACIFIC COASTAL SALMON
            RECOVERY FUND [PCSRF]
        This package includes coordinated efforts underway addressing
    salmon recovery. It supports Hatchery Maintenance and Rehabilitation
    and Hatchery Reform Implementation. Funding for the tribal hatcheries
    has, in recent years, come from both the BIA/Fish Hatchery Repair and
    the NOAA Fisheries/PCSRF accounts. The level of funding from within the
    BIA/Fish Hatchery Repair account is very small and shared with other
    tribes nationally. The NOAA Fisheries/PCSRF account funds not only
    hatchery reform efforts, but is also the overall account from which
    tribes directly receive salmon recovery monies and indirectly compete
    through the State of Washington Salmon Recovery Fund process. It is
    necessary to identify and access additional funding sources to allow
    Tribes to continue in the recovery efforts.

    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY/NATIONAL ESTUARIES PROGRAM/PUGET SOUND
                                  PARTNERSHIP

      --$2.0 MILLION PUGET SOUND PARTNERSHIP.--Marine resources are
            essential to all NWIFC tribes. Two geographical areas help
            define this package--the Pacific Coast and Puget Sound. In
            Puget Sound, the emerging Puget Sound Partnership conveniently
            brings together key marine issues requiring salmon recovery,
            management and regulatory changes, and the need for additional
            funding. Tribes will need to be funded so that they can
            participate in the necessary scientific work and process and
            policy discussions that this partnership entails.
        environmental protection agency/general assistance program (gap)
      --We support full funding of EPA's Indian General Assistance Program
            (GAP) as this funding is critical to the tribes' ability to
            sustain their important water resources programs.
        Again, thank you for allowing me to submit these requests to you
    today.
                                     ______

                      Prepared Statement of OPERA America

        Madam Chairman 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 114 American member companies.
    We strongly urge you to support an increased appropriation of $176
    million for the National Endowment for the Arts. 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.
        Opera is a continuously growing art form that can address the
    diverse needs and backgrounds of our communities. New opera companies
    are being established in communities that have never before had access
    to live performances. Seventy percent of the opera companies in
    existence today have been established since 1960. The growth of the
    field corresponds to the establishment and growth of the NEA. Over the
    last 20 years, a rich repertoire of American operas has been created by
    composers who communicate the American experience in contemporary
    musical and dramatic terms. The growth in the number and quality of
    American operas corresponds directly to the investment of the NEA in
    the New American Works program of the former Opera-Music Theater
    Program.
        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 art form 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 2008 from the NEA's 2008 Access to Artistic
    Excellence Program:
        Amarillo Opera, Inc.
        Amarillo, TX
        $7,500
        To support a production of Carlisle Floyd's Cold Sassy Tree. The
    work will be conducted by James Lowe who worked with the composer on
    the original production.
        Cedar Rapids Opera Theatre
        Cedar Rapids, IA
        $10,000
        To support a production of Verdi's Aida. An admission-free
    performance will be presented for youth and adult participants of three
    nonprofit organizations that support underserved communities; Big
    Brothers Big Sisters, Osada, and the McAuley Center for Women.
        Central City Opera House Association
        Denver, CO
        $17,500
        To support a new production of Britten's The Rape of Lucretia. The
    opera will take place during the National Performing Arts Convention, a
    convening of the national service organizations and their memberships
    of arts professional from across the performing arts, including opera,
    music, dance, and theater.
        Intermountain Opera Association of Bozeman
        Bozeman, MT
        $10,000
        To support performances of Bizet's Carmen and related educational
    activities. Three performances will take place at Willson Auditorium
    utilizing a core group of professional singers, augmented by local
    instrumentalists and singers.
        Michigan Opera Theatre
        Detroit, MI
        $35,000
        To support a revival of Margaret Garner by composer Richard
    Danielpour and librettist Toni Morrison. The three-act opera is based
    on the true story of a slave woman's quest for freedom.
        Opera Company of Philadelphia
        Philadelphia, PA
        $25,000
        To support the East Coast premiere of Cyrano by composer David
    DiChiera and French librettist Bernard Uzan. The project is a
    collaboration among the Opera Company of Philadelphia, Michigan Opera
    Theatre, and Florida Grand Opera.
        Opera Omaha, Inc.
        Omaha, NE
        $12,500
        To support a new production of Verdi's Aida. As part of the
    company's 50th anniversary season, the production will be designed by
    local sculptor and installation artist Catherine Ferguson.
        Pensacola Opera, Inc.
        Pensacola, FL
        $18,000
        To support the commissioning and premiere of The Widow's Lantern by
    composer and librettist David Ott and based on Florida history.
    Collaborations with. West Florida History Preservation, the University
    of West Florida, and Okaloosa-Walton College will provide performance
    venues and production support.
        Pittsburgh Opera, Inc. (Consortium)
        Pittsburgh, PA
        $25,000
        To support the creation of a new production of Saint-Saens' Samson
    and Delilah. Co produced with Minnesota Opera, the project will draw
    upon the shared expertise of both companies and will provide a creative
    opportunity that will strengthen both organizations.
        Portland Opera Association Inc.
        Portland, OR
        $10,000
        To support the Portland Opera Studio Artists (POSA) and the POSA
    Chamber Opera. The training program provides education and performance
    opportunities for young artists while the chamber ensemble presents
    more intimate chamber operas.
        San Francisco Opera Association
        San Francisco, CA
        $100,000
        To support the world premiere of The Bonesetter's Daughter by
    composer Stewart Wallace and librettist Amy Tan. Education and outreach
    programs will include a panel discussion with members of the cast and
    the creative team, preview lectures at Bay Area locations, pre-
    performance lectures.
        Seattle Opera
        Seattle, WA
        $45,000
        To support a production of Bellini's I Puritan. Performances of the
    opera will be accompanied by preview talks, lectures, and radio
    broadcasts.
        Tacoma Opera Association
        Tacoma, WA
        $10,000
        To support performances of Rossini's Il Barbiere di Siviglia (The
    Barber of Seville). Educational outreach to the community includes
    teacher workshops and Student Night at the Opera.
        Union Avenue Opera Theatre
        St. Louis, MO
        $7,500
        To support productions of Donizetti's L'Elisir d'Amore, Massenet's
    Werther, Puccini's Il Tabarro, and Gilbert and Sullivan's The Sorcerer.
    The first two works will be fully staged and orchestrated operas, and
    the latter two works will be minimally staged with piano accompaniment.
        Virginia Opera Association, Inc.
        Norfolk, VA
        $12,500
        To support a new production of Tchaikovsky's Eugene Onegin to be
    part of Virginia Celebrates Russia, an initiative to encourage
    collaborative programming state-wide during an event celebrating the
    200th anniversary of the establishment of U.S.-Russia relations.
        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. With a $20.3 million increase for the NEA in
    fiscal year 2008, Congress began to lay the foundation for full
    restoration of the agency. We urge you to continue towards restoration
    and increase the NEA funding allocation to $176 million for fiscal year
    2009.
        On behalf of OPERA America, thank you for considering this request.
                                     ______

           Prepared Statement of the Oregon Water Resources Congress

        I am Anita Winkler, executive director, Oregon Water Resources
    Congress. This testimony is submitted to the United States Senate
    Appropriations Committee, Subcommittee on Interior and Related
    Agencies, regarding the fiscal year 2009 budget for the Department of
    Interior Fish and Wildlife Service.
        The Oregon Water Resources Congress (OWRC) was established in 1912
    as a trade association to support member needs to protect water rights
    and encourage conservation and water management statewide. OWRC
    represents non-potable agriculture water suppliers in Oregon, primarily
    irrigation districts, as well as other special districts and local
    governments that deliver irrigation water. The association represents
    the entities that operate water management systems, including water
    supply reservoirs, canals, pipelines, and hydropower production.

      RE: FRIMA PROGRAM--U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE FISCAL YEAR 2009
                                    REQUEST

    Request
        The Oregon Water Resources Congress is requesting $25 million for
    the full funding in fiscal year 2009 for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
    Service Fish Restoration Irrigation Mitigation program as authorized in
    the Fish Restoration Irrigation Mitigation Act (FRIMA) in November 2000
    as Public Law 106-502 (H.R. 1444). The administration has not requested
    any funding in the fiscal year 2009 Budget submission for this program.
        FRIMA created a new Federal partnership fish screening and passage
    program in the Pacific Ocean drainage areas of Idaho, Oregon,
    Washington and western Montana, administered by the Fish and Wildlife
    Service and partnered through State fishery agencies.
        The original legislation was supported and requested by the Pacific
    Northwest Partnership, a coalition of local governmental entities in
    the four Northwest States. As one of the members of that coalition, we
    appreciate your consideration of this request.

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

    Background of Public Law 106-502
        FRIMA was enacted November 2000, creating a voluntary cost-share
    fish screen construction program for water withdrawal projects in
    Idaho, Oregon, Washington and western Montana. The Fish and Wildlife
    Service is to implement this program through the fishery agencies in
    the four States. The funding is to go to local governments for
    construction of facilities. Irrigation districts and other local
    governments that divert water for irrigation, can access the funding;
    individual irrigators can access funding through their local Soil and
    Water Conservation District. (SWC Districts are local governments
    affiliated with the Natural Resources Conservation Service).

    Funding
        The legislation calls for $25 million annually, to be divided among
    the four States, from 2001 forward. The Service has never included
    funding in its budget requests since passage of the legislation.
    Congress provided the first funding in 2001 through a write-in of $4
    million to be shared among the four States. The agency did not get the
    program up and running until late 2002, so the first monies were
    distributed then. In the following years, funding for FRIMA was
    provided as a congressional write-in in each year. OWRC appreciates
    Congress' continued funding for the FRIMA program each year. That
    funding has begun to address the need for fish screens and fish
    passages to protect sensitive, threatened, and endangered fish species
    in the States in the Northwest, but there is still significant need.
        In 2000, in its report accompanying the legislation, the
    Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated outlays of $70 million
    between 2001 and 2004. The actual appropriation was only $8.8 million
    during that time period and all of the money was a write-in. For fiscal
    year 2005, Congress provided $2 million for the program in the
    Consolidated Appropriations Act and, $2 million in fiscal year 2006.
    The fiscal year 2007 funding of $1 million was part of an appropriation
    to the Fish and Wildlife Service but was not a separate, designated
    appropriation. As you can see from the total amount of money that
    Congress has written in for the program, such amounts are woefully
    inadequate for what was anticipated for the program, yet still
    appreciated. The Administration did not request funding for the program
    for fiscal year 2009, consistent with its past budget submittals,
    despite widespread benefits from the money that Congress has provided.
        A recently produced report by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
    covering the program years fiscal year 2002-2004 provides State-by-
    State coverage of how the congressionally provided funding has been
    used in the program. The program has been extremely beneficial in the
    State of Oregon.
        Funding funneled through the Service to State fishery agencies is
    distributed on the basis of an application and approval process that is
    based on a ranking system implemented uniformly among the States,
    including the following factors:
      --fish restoration benefits;
      --cost effectiveness; and
      --feasibility of planned structure
        Each State is allocated 25 percent of the annual program funding.
    Agency administrative costs cannot exceed 6 percent of the funding.
    Project Benefits
        The project must provide improved fish passage or fish protection
    at water diversion structures and must benefit fish species native to
    and present in the area, including those listed on State or Federal
    endangered species or conservation lists.
        The project must meet applicable State and Federal requirements for
    project construction and operation. Projects will increase the survival
    of many native fish species in a relatively short period of time.
    Compared to other recovery strategies, the risks posed by these
    activities are low and the assurance of success in increasing numbers
    of fish is high. Dislocation of existing social and economic activities
    is minor. Screening and passage can make a very substantial
    contribution utilizing existing implementation mechanisms and methods
    well accepted by landowners and rural communities.

    Cost Share
        FRIMA provides for a maximum Federal cost-share of 65 percent. The
    applicant's cost-share is 35 percent plus the on-going maintenance and
    support of the structure for passage or screening purposes. Applicants
    operate the projects and the State agencies monitor and review the
    projects. For more information, see the Service's Fishery Resources
    website for the Pacific Region at http://www.fws.gov/pacific/Fisheries/
    FRIMA. This program is headquartered in the Portland, Oregon regional
    office of the Service.

    Oregon's Project Benefits
        Twenty-five fish screens or fish passage projects in Oregon have
    been funded using funding from FRIMA for part of the project since the
    start of the FRIMA program. In addition, the Oregon Department of Fish
    and Wildlife has used some of the FRIMA funding to develop an inventory
    of need for fish screens and passages in the State. In that time, the
    local match has averaged 51.5 percent, well over the amount required
    under the act. In other words, each Federal $1 invested in the FRIMA
    program generates a local investment of just over $1 for the protection
    of fish species in the Pacific Northwest.
        The following are examples of how Oregon has used some of its FRIMA
    money:
        Santiam Water Control District Project.--Fishscreen project on a
    large 1050 cfs multipurpose water diversion project on the Santiam
    River (Willamette Basin) near Stayton, Oregon. Partners are the Santiam
    Water Control District, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Marion
    Soil and Water Conservation District, and the City of Stayton. Approved
    FRIMA funding of $400,000 leverages a $1,200,000 project. Species
    benefited include winter steelhead, spring Chinook, rainbow trout, and
    cutthroat trout.
        South Fork Little Butte Creek.--Fishscreen and fish passage project
    on a 65 cfs irrigation water diversion in the Rogue River Basin near
    Medford, Oregon. Partners are the Medford Irrigation District and
    Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. Approved FRIMA funding of
    $372,000 leverages a $580,000 total project cost. Species benefited
    include listed summer and winter steelhead, coho salmon, and cutthroat
    trout.
        Running Y (Geary Diversion) Project.--Fishscreen project on a 60
    cfs irrigation water diversion in the upper Klamath Basin near Klamath
    Falls, Oregon. Partners are the Wocus Drainage District, Oregon
    Department of Fish and Wildlife, and Jeld-Wen Ranches. Approved FRIMA
    funding of $44,727 leverages a $149,000 total project cost. Species
    benefited included listed red-band trout and short-nosed sucker.
        Lakeshore Gardens Project.--Fishscreen project on a 2 cfs
    irrigation water diversion in the upper Klamath Basin near Klamath
    Falls, Oregon. Partners are the Lakeshore Gardens Drainage District and
    Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. Approved FRIMA funding of
    $5,691 leverages a $18,970 total project cost. Species benefited
    include red-band trout, short-nosed sucker and Lost River sucker.
        Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife Inventory Project.--An
    inventory to be conducted by Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife to
    identify FRIMA-eligible passage and screening projects within the Rogue
    and Klamath basins of southwestern Oregon. Approved FRIMA funding is
    $76,000. Estimated total project cost is $125,000.

                                  WHY FUND NOW

        Dollar-for-dollar, providing screening and fish passage at
    diversions is one of the most cost-effective uses of restoration
    dollars, creating fishery protection at low cost, with low risk and
    significant benefits. That is why it is important that this program be
    funded now. We urge the full authorization funding of $25 million for
    fiscal year 2009 and urge Congress' oversight in encouraging the
    Service to budget for this successful program in the future.
        Thank you for the opportunity to provide this statement for the
    hearing record.
                                     ______

             Prepared Statement of the Outdoor Industry Association

        On behalf of the Outdoor Industry Association I would like to thank
    the committee for the opportunity to present this written testimony.
    Outdoor Industry Association respectfully recommends the following
    funding levels for fiscal year 2009:
      --The U.S. Forest Service's Recreation Management, Heritage and
            Wilderness programs should be funded at $285 million; Capital
            Improvement and Maintenance/Trails program at $85 million; and
            fire suppression should be taken ``off-budget'' so that Forest
            Service leadership can undertake strategic planning for other
            important programs managed by the agency, including placing a
            needed focus on the Recreation and Travel planning that is
            occurring in forests across the nation
      --Fund the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) State Assistance
            program at $125 million
      --Fund the Bureau of Land Management National Landscape Conservation
            System (NLCS) at $70 million
      --Support the proposed operating increase ($161 million) for the
            National Park Service under the Centennial Initiative
        Outdoor Industry Association (OIA) is a national trade association
    whose mission is to ensure the growth and success of the outdoor
    industry. OIA's members include the leading manufacturers and retailers
    of outdoor recreation equipment and services such as The North Face,
    Columbia Sportswear, Timberland, Patagonia, WL Gore, Cabela's, REI, LL
    Bean and many more.
        Active outdoor recreation plays a large role in the lives of
    Americans. Three out of four Americans participate in active outdoor
    recreation each year. Popular outdoor activities such as hiking,
    biking, camping and wildlife viewing generate enormous economic power.
        The numbers tell the story. Active outdoor recreation:
      --Contributes $730 billion annually to the U.S. economy
      --Supports 6.5 million jobs across the United States
      --Generates $88 billion in annual State and national tax revenue
      --Rings up $289 billion annually in direct retail sales and services.
        In summary, active outdoor recreation touches more than $1 in every
    $12 circulating in the economy.

                              U.S. FOREST SERVICE

        The vast majority of outdoor recreation occurs on our magnificent
    public lands and in order for the recreation economy to continue to
    grow as well as for Americans to enjoy the health and spiritual
    benefits of outdoor recreation, we as a nation must invest in the
    management of these wonderful resources.
        One of USDA Forest Service's seven goals in its fiscal year 2009
    budget proposal is to ``Sustain and Enhance Outdoor Recreation
    Opportunities.'' Unfortunately, the administration's budget fails to
    provide the resources required to meet this important goal. Although
    recreation generates the greatest use and economic product of U.S.
    Forest System lands, the Recreation Program continues to be chronically
    under funded.
        The administration's budget recommends a 10 percent decrease for
    recreation which amounts to a reduction of $25.6 million. This includes
    the elimination of 296 employees.
        The Forest Service trails program is slated to be cut by 34 percent
    from $76 million to $50 million. This proposed cut will further
    increase the maintenance backlog as the Forest Service struggles to
    keep up with the 140,000 miles of trails it manages.
        Finally, the Forest Service will once again face uncertainty and an
    inability to undertake meaningful long-term planning as fire
    suppression costs dominate the budget, making planning difficult and
    distracting the leadership of the Forest Service.
        Appropriate funding will ensure that forests such as the Allegheny
    National Forests in Pennsylvania, the George Washington National Forest
    in Virginia, as well as the Mark Twain National Forest in Missouri will
    receive the proper maintenance so citizens will be able to enjoy these
    special places for years to come.
        Outdoor Industry Association strongly urges Congress to fund the
    U.S. Forest Service's Recreation Management, Heritage and Wilderness
    programs at $285 million; the Capital Improvement and Maintenance/
    Trails program at $85 million; and fire suppression taken ``off
    budget'' so that leadership can manage other programs more efficiently.

           LAND AND WATER CONSERVATION FUND STATE ASSISTANCE PROGRAM

        The Stateside Land and Water Conservation program is the
    government's primary investment tool for ensuring that kids and
    families have access to close-to-home recreation. The LWCF stateside
    program has funded over 41,000 projects including sports fields,
    outdoor recreation facilities and trails. Outdoor Industry Association
    is working to rejuvenate the program as part of its goal to bring
    quality parks and trails within 15 minutes of every child in the United
    States.
        The Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) was established by
    Congress in 1964 to meet America's needs for outdoor recreation
    opportunities, wildlife habitat conservation and open space. The LWCF
    Act directed Congress to allocate royalties from offshore oil and gas
    development for the purchase of land, waterways, wetlands, and other
    resource lands and to provide matching grant assistance for State and
    community open space and recreation projects.
        Despite this strong record of success, our Nation's need for
    recreation infrastructure continues to grow. In its 2007 Annual Report
    on the LWCF State assistance program, the National Park Service
    reported that States estimated their unmet need for outdoor recreation
    facilities and parkland acquisition at $15.6 billion. Additionally, 42
    of 50 States meet only 20 percent or less of their total estimated need
    for local outdoor recreation facilities and parkland acquisition.
    Clearly the need for matching Federal investment is profound.
        The bottom line is that Congress still has a responsibility to
    dedicate funding for stateside LWCF through the annual appropriations
    process.
        The stateside LWCF program is authorized by Congress to receive
    $450 million annually in funding, a level that has been met only once
    in its 30 year history despite a designated funding source.
        Between 2002 and 2005, the President requested, and Congress
    appropriated between $89 million and $140 million per year for the LWCF
    stateside program. In contrast, between 2006 and 2008, funding averaged
    only $27 million. Therefore we find the elimination of all funding for
    this program, as called for in the President's fiscal year 2009 budget,
    completely unacceptable.
        A few examples of successful recreational areas that were a direct
    result of the LWCF Stateside Program include: Reid Park in Riverside
    County, California; the Rio Grand Trail in Eagle County, Colorado; Sand
    Hill Park Sprayground in Chittenden County, Vermont; Harborside Park in
    Rockingham County New Hampshire; Rolling Mill Farm in Baltimore County,
    Maryland; Grand Vue Park in Marshall County, West Virginia; and Henry
    Horton State Park in Marshall County, Tennessee.
        Outdoor Industry Association strongly urges Congress to fund the
    Land and Water Conservation Fund State Assistance Program at $125
    million for fiscal year 2009.
        bureau of land management national landscape conservation system
        Over the past 50 years, recreation has clearly emerged as a major
    use of Bureau of Land Management lands. Unfortunately, staffing and
    funding for recreation doesn't match up to this reality.
        In June 2000, the National Landscape Conservation System was
    established to encompass the crown jewels of these BLM lands. The 26
    million acres that comprise the NLCS represent just 10 percent of BLM
    lands, yet account for one-third of BLM's total recreation use and
    generate one-half of the BLM's total recreation fees. However, less
    than 4 percent of BLM's funding is invested back into the Conservation
    System. A lack of funding means that vandalism, unmanaged recreation,
    increasing energy development, and neglect are harming these special
    places.
        Legislation has been recently introduced to give the NLCS
    congressional recognition which will ensure these lands remain a high
    priority for BLM and the Department of Interior. Unfortunately the
    legislation does not address budget shortfalls. The proposed funding
    level for fiscal year 2009 is set at $51.8 million, which if enacted,
    would be the lowest funding for the Conservation System since its
    creation in 2000.
        With 11 of the 15 fastest growing States in the country in the
    west, the NLCS is a new backyard for recreation and should be
    adequately funded.
        While the Conservation system is exclusively found in the Western
    part of the United States they are some of our most beautiful places.
    They include California Coastal National Monument in California; as
    well as the El Camino Real de Tierra Adentro National Historic Trail,
    the Old Spanish National Historic Trail, the Continental Divide
    National Scenic Trail, and the Kasha-Katuwe Tent Rocks National
    Monument in New Mexico.
        Outdoor Industry Association strongly urges Congress to fund the
    Bureau of Land Management National Landscape Conservation System at $70
    million for fiscal year 2009.

                             NATIONAL PARK SERIVCE

        OIA supports the administration's proposed increase of $161 million
    for the operations of the National Park Service. However, we are
    concerned that the proposed operations increase is offset by cuts to
    other important NPS programs such as recreation and preservation, land
    acquisition and maintenance.
        Outdoor Industry Association strongly urges Congress to increase
    funding for the National Park Service at the administration requested
    $161 million for fiscal year 2009.
                                     ______

              Prepared Statement of the Pacific Salmon Commission

        Mr. Chairman, and honorable members of the committee, my name is W.
    Ron Allen and I serve as an Alternate Commissioner on the Pacific
    Salmon Commission (PSC) and as the Chair of the U.S. Section's Budget
    Committee. The U.S. Section prepares an annual budget for
    implementation of the Treaty. The integrated budget details program
    needs and costs for Tribal, Federal, and State agencies involved in the
    Treaty. Under the Bureau of Indian Affairs budget, the U.S. Section
    recommends that Congress:
        Fund the tribes' program at a restored funding level of $4,800,000
    for tribal research projects and participation in the U.S.-Canada
    Pacific Salmon Treaty process, an increase of $730,500 over fiscal year
    2008, plus pay-cost adjustments for the U.S./Canada Salmon Treaty line
    item, a subcategory under the Rights Protection Implementation,
    Wildlife and Parks, Other Recurring Programs Area.
        Under U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service programs, the U.S. Section
    recommends that Congress:
        Provide base funding of $445,000 for USFWS participation in the
    Treaty process, and provide funding of $250,000 for the Pacific States
    Marine Fisheries Commission's Regional Mark Center.
        This base funding for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service will pay
    for the critically important on-going work. The funding for Pacific
    States Marine Fisheries Commission's Regional Mark Center is utilized
    to meet Treaty requirements concerning data exchange with Canada. These
    program recommendations are integrated with those of the State and
    Federal agencies to avoid duplication of effort and provide for the
    most efficient expenditure of scarce funds.
        A copy of the integrated U.S. Section Budget Justification has been
    made available to the Committee. The budget summary justifies the
    funding we are recommending today. All of the funds are needed for
    critical data collection and research activities directly related to
    the implementation of the Treaty and are used in cooperative programs
    involving Federal, State, and Tribal fishery agencies and the
    Department of Fisheries in Canada. The monetary commitment of the
    United States is matched by the commitment of the Government of Canada.
        The U.S. Section of the Pacific Salmon Commission is recommending a
    substantial adjustment to the funding for the work carried out by the
    twenty-four treaty tribes' that participate in the implementation of
    the Treaty. Programs carried out by the tribes are closely coordinated
    with those of the States and Federal agencies, but the tribes' efforts
    are now being hampered by forced staff reductions due to continuing
    reductions in funding for the Treaty program.
        We are strongly recommending maintaining base funding of $445,000
    for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service so the United States can
    maintain the critical database to implement the Treaty. We also
    strongly recommend funding of $250,000 to allow continuation of work
    carried out by the Regional Mark Processing Center. This work,
    maintaining and updating a coastwide computerized information
    management system for salmon harvest and catch effort data as required
    by the Treaty, has become even more important to monitor the success of
    management actions at reducing impacts on ESA-listed salmon
    populations. Canada has a counterpart database. The database will
    continue to be housed at the Pacific States Marine Fisheries
    Commission. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service will contract with the
    PSFMC to provide this service.
        Mr. Chairman, the United States and Canada established the Pacific
    Salmon Commission, under the Pacific Salmon Treaty of 1985, to conserve
    salmon stocks, provide for optimum production of salmon, and to control
    salmon interceptions. After more than 20 years, the work of the Pacific
    Salmon Commission continues to be essential for the wise management of
    salmon in the Northwest, British Columbia, and Alaska. For example,
    upriver Bright fall Chinook salmon from the Hanford Reach of the
    Columbia River are caught in large numbers in Alaskan and Canadian
    waters. Tribal and non-tribal fishermen harvest sockeye salmon from
    Canada's Fraser River in the Strait of Juan de Fuca and in Puget Sound.
    Canadian trollers off of the west coast of Vancouver Island catch
    Washington coastal coho salmon. In the Northern Boundary area between
    Canada and Alaska, fish from both countries are intercepted by the
    other country in large numbers. The Commission provides a forum to
    ensure cooperative management of salmon populations. In 1999, the
    United States and Canada successfully concluded lengthy negotiations to
    improve this management, including the adoption of coastwide abundance-
    based management for Chinook salmon and a framework for abundance based
    management for southern coho populations. That agreement expires at the
    end of 2008 and negotiators are diligently working to complete a
    revised agreement.
        Before the Treaty, fish wars often erupted with one or both
    countries overharvesting fish that were returning to the other country,
    to the detriment of the resource. At the time the Treaty was signed,
    chinook salmon were in a severely depressed state as a result of
    overharvest in the ocean as well as environmental degradation in the
    spawning rivers. Under the Treaty, both countries committed to rebuild
    the depressed runs of chinook stocks, and they recommitted to that goal
    in 1999 when adopting a coastwide abundance based approach to harvest
    management. Under this approach, harvest management will complement
    habitat conservation and restoration activities being undertaken by the
    States, tribes, and other stakeholders in the Pacific Northwest to
    address the needs of salmon listed for protection under the Endangered
    Species Act. The combination of these efforts is integral to achieving
    success in rebuilding and restoring healthy, sustainable salmon
    populations.
        Finally, you should take into account the fact that the value of
    the commercial harvest of salmon subject to the Treaty, managed at
    productive levels under the Treaty, supports the infrastructure of many
    coastal and inland communities. The value of the recreational
    fisheries, and the economic diversity they provide for local economies
    throughout the Pacific Northwest and Alaska, is also immense. The value
    of these fish to the twenty-four treaty tribes in Washington, Oregon,
    and Idaho goes far beyond their monetary value, to the cultural and
    religious lives of Indian people. A significant monetary investment is
    focused on salmon as a result of listings of Pacific Northwest salmon
    populations under the Endangered Species Act. Given the resources, we
    can continue to use the Pacific Salmon Commission to develop
    recommendations that help to ensure solutions that minimize impacts on
    listed stocks, especially if we are allowed to work towards the true
    intent of the Treaty: mutually beneficial enhancement of the shared
    resource.
        Mr. Chairman, that concludes my written testimony submitted for
    consideration by your Committee. I want to thank the Committee for the
    support that it has given the U.S. Section in the past. Please feel
    free to contact me, or other members of the U.S. Section, through the
    Office of the U.S. Section Coordinator to answer any questions you or
    Committee members may have regarding the U.S. Section of the Pacific
    Salmon Commission budget.

          SUMMARY OF TRIBAL AND FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE PROGRAMS UNDER THE U.S.-CANADA PACIFIC SALMON TREATY
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                          Fiscal year
                                                            --------------------------------------
                                                                2008 actual            2009          Base increase
                                                               appropriation      recommendation
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   Department of the Interior

    Bureau of Indian Affairs, Wildlife and Parks, Rights
     Implementation:
        BIA................................................         $4,069,500         $4,800,000           $730,500
                                                            --------------------------------------
                                                                2006 actual                  2007
                                                               appropriation       recommendation
                                                            --------------------------------------
    U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Anadroumous Fisheries:
        USFWS..............................................           $445,000            695,000           $250,000
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                     ______

      Prepared Statement of the Partnership for the National Trails System

        Madame Chairwoman and members of the subcommittee: The Partnership
    for the National Trails System appreciates your support over the past
    14 years, through operations funding and dedicated 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 2009 through these appropriations:
      --National Park Service.--$14.546 million for administration of 20
            trails and for coordination of the long-distance trails program
            by the Washington office. Construction: $2.095 million for the
            Appalachian, Ice Age, Overmountain Victory, Continental Divide
            and Pacific Crest Trails. Feasibility Studies & Plans: $1.061
            million for the Lewis & Clark, Overmountain Victory, and North
            Country Trails.
      --USDA Forest Service.--$4.49 million to administer four trails and
            $1 million to manage parts of 16 trails administered by the NPS
            or BLM; Construction: $2.505 million for the Continental Divide
            Trail, $1.35 million for the Florida Trail, and $1 million for
            the Iditarod Trail.
      --Bureau of Land Management.--To coordinate its National Trails
            System Program: $250,000; to administer the Iditarod National
            Historic Trail: $648,000, the Camino Real de Tierra Adentro
            National Historic Trail: $230,000, the Old Spanish National
            Historic Trail: $331,000 and $2.379 million to manage portions
            of 10 trails administered by the Park Service or the Forest
            Service; $1,640,000 for operating five National Historic Trail
            interpretive centers; Construction: $300,000 for the
            Continental Divide and $200,000 for the Pacific Crest Trails.
      --We ask that you appropriate $4.5 million for the National Park
            Service Challenge Cost Share Program and continue to direct
            one-third ($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 Conservation and Outdoor Recreation office to support
            the second year of a five-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: $16.25 million for the Pacific Crest Trail,
            $7 million for the Florida Trail; $10.645 million for the
            Appalachian Trail; $8.25 million for three National Forests for
            the North Country Trail;
      --to the Bureau of Land Management: $5 million for the Oregon Trail
            in Oregon and $2 million for the Nez Perce Trail in Montana;
      --to the Park Service: $4.75 million to grant to the State of
            Wisconsin to match state funds for the Ice Age Trail and $2
            million to grant to 7 states for the North Country Trail;
            $4.275 million for the Appalachian Trail; $1 million for the
            Overmountain Victory 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 $837,000 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 $14.546 million we request for Park Service operations includes
    increases for some 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, the $500,000 increases provided
    in fiscal year 2004, fiscal year 2005, and fiscal year 2006, and the
    $2,421,000 increase in fiscal year 2008--all provided by Congress.
        We request an increase of $727,000 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 $826,000 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 to protect them
    and to develop interpretation of them for visitors. Our requested
    increase of $298,000 for the Ala Kahakai Trail will enable the Park
    Service to work with E Mau Na Ala Hele and other community
    organizations to care for resources on the land and with the University
    of Hawaii to conduct archaeological and cultural landscape studies
    along the trail.
        The $921,000 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 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 $898,000 we request includes an $110,000 increase to enable the
    Park Service to develop and begin to implement an Interpretive Plan for
    the Ice Age Trail. The other ongoing funding will help further
    development of the Trail GIS and continue to 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.
        Feasibility and Planning Studies.--We request $250,000 to study the
    feasibility of an eastern extension of the Lewis & Clark Trail and
    $200,000 for a feasibility study of the location for a headquarters and
    visitor contact site for the Overmountain Victory Trail. We also
    request $611,000 for route planning, NEPA compliance work, a natural
    and cultural resource inventory, and community economic impact studies
    for the North Country Trail.
        Construction.--We request that you appropriate for construction and
    land stewardship projects $1.39 million for the Appalachian Trail,
    $250,000 for the Ice Age Trail, $100,000 for the Overmountain Victory
    Trail, $155,000 for the Continental Divide Trail, and $200,000 for the
    Pacific Crest Trail.
        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 2009 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
    allocating 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 $4.49
    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
    seven 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 2009 to enable the Forest Service and FTA to build 21 more miles
    and to manage 3,418 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 needed to complete the Trail. To continue
    new CDT construction, begun with fiscal year 1998 funding, we ask you
    to appropriate $2.505 million to build or reconstruct 220 more miles.

                           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 $18.2 million to provide$70
    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,
    $648,000 for the Iditarod Trail, $230,000 for El Camino Real de Tierra
    Adentro Trail, $331,000 for the Old Spanish Trail, and$2,379,000 for
    management of the portions of the 10 other trails under the care of the
    Bureau of Land Management. We request $300,000 for construction of new
    sections of the Continental Divide Trail, $200,000 for maintenance of
    the Pacific Crest Trail; $1,640,000 to operate five historic trails
    interpretive centers and $1,500,000 for exhibits for the new California
    Trail Center in Elko, Nevada.
        We ask you to add $500,000 to the Challenge Cost Share program and
    direct 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 2008 and to direct the
    Bureau to include unit-level allocations by major sub-activities for
    each of the scenic and historic trails, and wild and scenic rivers--as
    the Bureau is proposing to do for the monuments and conservation
    areas--within a new activity account for the National Landscape
    Conservation System in fiscal year 2009. Existing accounts for
    Wilderness Areas and Wilderness Study Areas should also be included in
    this new National Landscape Conservation System activity account. The
    Bureau's lack of a unified budget account for National Trails prevents
    the agency from efficiently planning, implementing, reporting, and
    taking advantage of cost-saving and leveraging partnerships and
    volunteer contributions for every activity related to these national
    resources.

                        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, below, and in Attachment #2.
        Forest Service.--The $16.25 million we request for the Pacific
    Crest Trail will continue to support the work and acquisition underway
    by the Forest Service Lands Team and the Park Service National Trail
    Land Resources Program Center, protecting 12 miles of PCT in Washington
    and taking 34 miles off of roads in southern California. The $7 million
    requested for the Florida Trail will continue another successful
    collaboration between these two agencies to protect another 13 miles of
    Trail and the $10.645 million requested will protect sections of the
    Appalachian Trail in three national forests in two States. The $8.25
    million requested for the Ottawa, Superior, and Chequamegon-Nicolet
    National Forests will protect areas adjoining the North Country Trail
    in Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin.
        Bureau of Land Management.--The $5 million requested for the Sandy
    River project will also preserve a section of the Oregon National
    Historic Trail in Oregon and the $2 million requested for the Upper
    Missouri River Breaks National Monument in Montana will preserve a
    significant site along the Nez Perce National Historic Trail.
        Park Service.--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 $12.3
    million of fiscal year 2000 fiscal year 2006 and fiscal year 2008 LWCF
    funding with $18 million to help conserve the resources of the Ice Age
    National Scenic Trail by purchasing 35 parcels totaling 6,539 acres.
    Another 40 parcels are under negotiation, appraisal or option to
    purchase. All of the LWCF funds appropriated for the Ice Age Trail 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.
        We also request $2 million to provide similar grants to the seven
    states along its route to close gaps in the North Country Trail and
    $4.275 million for the Park Service to acquire one parcel in New
    Hampshire and two in Virginia for the Appalachian Trail. The $1 million
    requested for the Overmountain Victory Trail will protect key links and
    sites in North Carolina, Tennessee, and Virginia.
        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 2007 the trail organizations fostered 720,935
    hours--an increase of 5 percent over 2006--of documented volunteer
    labor valued at $13,540,396 to help sustain the national scenic and
    historic trails. The organizations also raised private sector
    contributions of $8,064,293 to benefit the trails. These contributions
    are documented in Attachment #1.

     ATTACHMENT 1.--CONTRIBUTIONS MADE IN 2007 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...........................            196,620         $3,690,557         $3,856,000
    Camino Real Trail Association..........................              1,717             32,228              3,104
    Continental Divide Trail Society.......................          \1\ 1,500             28,155              3,000
    Continental Divide Trail Alliance......................             37,490            703,687            641,877
    Florida Trail Association..............................             69,900          1,312,023            374,296
    Ice Age Park & Trail Foundation........................             48,188            904,489            382,842
    Iditarod National Historic Trail, Inc..................              1,900             35,663         \1\ 80,000
    Amigos De Anza & others................................              6,789            127,430  .................
    Anza Trail Coalition of Arizona........................              3,232             60,665  .................
    Lewis & Clark Trail Heritage Foundation................             24,038            451,193            227,404
    Mormon Trails Association..............................              3,164             67,835              7,318
    Iowa Mormon Trails Association.........................                750             14,078          \1\ 1,820
    Nebraska Mormon Trails Association.....................                125              2,346          \1\ 2,580
    National Pony Express Association......................             34,275            643,342            146,180
    Nez Perce Trail Foundation.............................              8,250            154,852             12,256
    North Country Trail Association........................             44,000            825,880            273,000
    Old Spanish Trail Association..........................             23,718            445,187            110,024
    Oregon-California Trails Association...................             56,400          1,058,628            729,500
    Overmountain Victory Trail Association.................              8,960            168,179             19,324
    Pacific Crest Trail Association........................             62,515          1,173,406            867,000
    Potomac Heritage Trail Association.....................              3,686             69,186                820
    Santa Fe Trail Association.............................             47,115            884,349            277,626
    Trail of Tears Association.............................             36,603            687,038             48,322
                                                            --------------------------------------------------------
          TOTALS...........................................            720,935         13,540,396          8,064,293
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Estimate.

                                   ATTACHMENT 2.--PARTNERSHIP FOR THE NATIONAL TRAILS SYSTEM REQUESTED FISCAL YEAR 2009 APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE NATIONAL TRAILS SYSTEM
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    Fiscal year
                                                 ------------------------------------------------
                    Agency/Trail                       2008            2009                                                Project/programs possible with increased funding
                                                   Congressional  Administration  2009  Partners
                                                   appropriation      request         request
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    PARK SERVICE

    Ala Kahakai.................................        $420,000        $422,000        $720,000  Work with community partners to preserve resources; archaeological & cultural studies;
    Appalachian.................................       1,327,000       1,481,000       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...............................          29,000          29,000          29,000  Planning & building new trail & bridges; backlog maintenance with SCA;
    El Camino Real Tejas........................         176,000         176,000         176,000  Start up administration for new national historic trail;
    El Camino Real Tierra.......................         271,000         271,000         271,000  Full-time administrator; implement CMP with Bureau of Land Management
    California..................................         323,000         323,000         323,000  Prepare & print Four Trails Auto Tour Route Guides for Wyoming, Utah/Idaho, Nevada;
    Captain John Smith..........................         349,000         351,000         351,000  Begin administration & Comprehensive Management Plan for new national historic trail;
    Ice Age.....................................         788,000         796,000         898,000  Develop and begin to implement a Trail-wide Interpretive Plan;
    Juan Bautista de Anza.......................         505,000         510,000         510,000  Trail site protection, interpretation & development projects; Outreach to schools;
    Lewis & Clark...............................       2,026,000       2,036,000       2,036,000  Planning, coordination & support for local L&CNHT projects after the Bicentennial;
    Mormon Pioneer..............................         205,000         205,000         205,000  Prepare & print Four Trails Auto Tour Route Guide for Wyoming, Utah/Idaho, Nevada;
    North Country...............................         873,000         869,000         921,000  Provide regional services, GIS, and technical assistance for volunteers and partners;
    Old Spanish.................................         227,000         227,000         227,000  Full-time administrator; continue preparing CMP with Bureau of Land Management;
    Oregon......................................         378,000         387,000         387,000  Prepare & print Four Trails Auto Tour Route Guides for Wyoming, Utah/Idaho, Nevada;
    Overmountain Victory........................         273,000         275,000         275,000  New route signs & interpretive exhibits; Historic Preservation Study of Gilbertown;
    Pony Express................................         229,000         229,000         229,000  Prepare & print Four Trails Auto Tour Route Guides for Wyoming, Utah/Idaho, Nevada;
    Potomac Heritage............................         278,000         397,000         397,000  Assistance to local agencies & organizations for planning & educational projects;
    Santa Fe....................................         935,000         974,000       1,701,000  Preserve cultural resources; GIS mapping; produce interpretive media with SFTA;
    Selma to Montgomery.........................         584,000         699,000         699,000  Trail interpretation in collaboration with citizen support organizations & local agencies;
    Trail of Tears..............................         424,000         424,000       1,250,000  Develop GIS mapping, interpret Trail sites & provide new visitor facilities with TOTA;
    National Trails to Parks....................         837,000         837,000         837,000  Projects to connect National Scenic or Historic Trails to National Parks.
    NTS-Washington Office.......................         366,000         371,000         385,000  Program coordination and funding for special projects and training for staff & partners.
                                                 ------------------------------------------------
          National Trails System................      11,823,000      12,289,000      14,546,000  Total National Trails System operations funding
                                                 ================================================
    Challenge Cost Share........................       2,343,000       2,380,000       4,500,000  One-third of $4.5 million for the National Trails System
    Feasibility Studies, Plans & Projects.......  ..............  ..............       1,061,000  Feasibility Studies: Lewis & Clark NHT--$250,000; Overmountain Victory NHT--$200,000; Route
                                                                                                   Planning, NEPA, Studies: North Country NST--$611,000
    Trail Construction..........................  ..............  ..............       2,095,000  Appalachian NST--$1.39 million; Ice Age NST--$250,000; Overmountain Victory NHT--$100,000;
                                                                                                   Continental Divide NST--$155,000; Pacific Crest NST--$200,000;
    Interagency GIS Project.....................  ..............  ..............   \2\ 1,253,000  Development of GIS for National Trails System;

                         BLM

    Iditarod Trail..............................         599,000         248,000         648,000  Collaborative management with other Federal agencies, Iditarod Trail organizations and State of
                                                                                                   Alaska; bridges and cabins; Interpretive Plan; Iditarod Centennial activities;
    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.................................         331,000         325,000         331,000  Full-time Trail Administrator; Collaborative administration and management with National Park
                                                                                                   Service; Comprehensive Management Plan; Site interpretation;
    Continental Divide..........................         383,000         280,000         450,000  Planning 71 miles of CDNST in Idaho, Montana and New Mexico; Full-time Liaison;
    Pacific Crest...............................         189,000          65,000         100,000  PCNST maintenance in California and Oregon; Interagency management collaboration;
    Juan Bautista de Anza.......................         116,000          76,000         100,000  Interpretive exhibits for Anza Trail in Arizona and California;
    California..................................         179,000         126,000         179,000  California NHT resource inventories in Utah, Nevada and California;
    Lewis & Clark...............................         620,000         647,000         750,000  Revise Comprehensive Management Plan; Coordinate with Nez Perce NHT & CDNST;
    Mormon Pioneer..............................         307,000         227,000         250,000  Mormon Pioneer NHT resource inventories in Utah and Wyoming;
    Nez Perce...................................         179,000          76,000         190,000  Revise Comprehensive Management Plan; Develop Interpretive Plan for Trail;
    Oregon......................................          40,000          24,000         210,000  Interagency management collaboration and Oregon NHT resource inventories;
    Pony Express................................         115,000         105,000         147,000  Marking Pony Express Trail in Utah and Nevada;
    Potomac Heritage............................           3,000           3,000           3,000  ..................................................................................................
    NTS--Coordinator............................  ..............  ..............         250,000  Program coordination and funding for special projects and training for staff & partners;
                                                 ------------------------------------------------
          National Trails System................       3,076,000       2,216,000       3,838,000  Total National Trails System operations funding
                                                 ================================================
    Challenge Cost Share........................  ..............  ..............         500,000  Projects along the various national scenic and historic trails;
    Interpretive Centers........................       2,628,000       1,240,000       3,140,000  Operating California, Casper, Oregon, and Sacajawea Interpretive Centers; Includes $1.5 million
                                                                                                   for exhibits for California NHT Center in Elko, Nevada;
    Construction of:
        Pacific Crest Trail.....................  ..............  ..............         200,000  Funding for maintenance and re-construction of Pacific Crest NST in California;
        Continental Divide Trail................  ..............  ..............         300,000  Funding for construction and re-construction of 71 miles of Continental Divide NST in Idaho,
                                                                                                   Montana, and New Mexico;

                   FOREST SERVICE

    Continental Divide..........................       2,000,000       1,200,000       1,200,000  Continued support for full administrative responsibility and for consistent interagency
    Florida.....................................       1,500,000       1,000,000         650,000   collaboration for each trail; support for consistent management with trail organization and local
    Pacific Crest...............................       2,000,000       1,200,000       2,000,000   agency partners; trail brochures, signs, project planning etc.; Also $250,000 to administer new
    Nez Perce Trails............................         640,000         300,000         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.................................   \3\ 6,140,000   \3\ 3,700,000   \3\ 4,490,000
                                                 ================================================
    Appalachian, North Country, Ice Age,               1,015,000         300,000       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................  ..............  ..............       2,505,000  Trail construction projects along the Continental Divide Trail: reconstructing or building 220
                                                                                                   miles of trail in Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, Colorado and New Mexico;
        Florida Trail...........................  ..............  ..............       1,350,000  Trail construction projects totaling 21 miles of new trail, three bridges and boardwalks, two
                                                                                                   trailheads and management of 3,418 acres in 33 tracts acquired by the Forest Service for the
                                                                                                   Florida National Scenic Trail;
        Iditarod Trail..........................  ..............  ..............       1,000,000  Construction of the Southern Trek of the Iditarod NHT in the Chugach National Forest;
                                                 ------------------------------------------------
          National Trails System................       7,155,000       4,000,000      10,345,000  Total: National Trails System funding.
                                                 ================================================
    Nat. Forest System Capital Improvement &          76,365,000      50,041,000      85,000,000  Trail maintenance and new trail construction throughout the National Forest System.
     Maintenance--Trails.
    LWCF grant--FS Pacific Crest................       1,600,000  ..............      16,250,000  Forest Service acquisition of lands in southern California (Tejon Ranch & Agua Dulce), Oregon, and
                                                                                                   Washington to preserve the scenic integrity of the Pacific Crest Trail.
    LWCF grant--FS Florida......................         580,000  ..............       7,000,000  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..................       3,100,000  ..............      10,645,000  Forest Service acquisition of 10,020 acres in the Cherokee NF in Tennessee, 442 acres of Roan
                                                                                                   Highlands in the Pisgah NF in North Carolina, and 75 acres at Wesser Bald in North Carolina.
    LWCF grant--NPS Appalachian.................  ..............  ..............       4,275,000  Park Service acquisition of 4,772 acres at Mahoosucs Gateway in New Hampshire, 485 acres at New
                                                                                                   River Crossing and the 170 acre Nelson Tract in Virginia.
    LWCF grant--FS North Country................       1,000,000  ..............       8,250,000  Forest Service acquisition of 2,000 acres in the Sturgeon River Gorge Wilderness Area in the
                                                                                                   Ottawa NF in Michigan; 90 acres at Chainsaw Sisters/Wolf Island in the Superior NF in Minnesota;
                                                                                                   and 1,429 acres in the Chequamegon-Nicolet NF in Bayfield County, Wisconsin will protect
                                                                                                   viewsheds along the North Country Trail.
    LWCF grant--NPS North Country--States.......  ..............  ..............       2,000,000  Assistance provided to the States of Wisconsin, Michigan, Minnesota, New York, North Dakota, Ohio,
                                                                                                   and Pennsylvania to protect threatened North Country Trail corridor and connect trail segments
                                                                                                   across private land.
    LWCF grant--NPS Ice Age--Wisconsin \4\......       1,378,000  ..............       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......................  ..............  ..............       5,000,000  BLM acquisition of land along the Sandy River and Oregon Trail in Oregon.
    LWCF grant--NPS Overmountain Victory........  ..............  ..............       1,000,000  Park Service acquisition of land to protect key links in the Overmountain Victory Trail near North
                                                                                                   Cove in North Carolina and other sites in Tennessee and Virginia.
    LWCF grant--BLM Nez Perce...................  ..............  ..............       2,000,000  BLM acquisition of land at Cow Island (a major site along the Nez Perce Trail) in the Upper
                                                                                                   Missouri Breaks National Monument in Montana.
                                                 ------------------------------------------------
          Total.................................       7,658,000  ..............      61,170,000
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Includes $261,000 for operations of Santa Fe Park Service office, not related to the Santa Fe Trail.
    \2\ Funding request reflects budget detailed in Park Service GIS report delivered to Congress in January 2002.
    \3\ Appropriation includes: funding for administration of the Continental Divide, Florida, and Pacific Crest National Scenic Trails and the Nez Perce National Historic Trail by full-time
      administrators for each trail and land acquisition teams for the Florida and Pacific Crest Trails.
    \4\ This would be a grant to the State of Wisconsin to be matched at least 1:1.

         Prepared Statement of the Pelican Island Preservation Society

                                    REQUEST

        (1) Increase operations and maintenance funding for the National
    Wildlife Refuge System to $514 million in fiscal year 2009
        (2) Provide $2 million of LWCF funding for land acquisition at the
    Pelican Island National Wildlife Refuge in fiscal year 2009 The Pelican
    Island Preservation Society, an all volunteer friends group with over
    350 members, mission is to support the Pelican Island National Wildlife
    Refuge. Our organization is greatly concerned about the major funding
    deficit for operations and maintenance (O&M) facing the National
    Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS), and the severe impact this is having on
    the Pelican Island National Wildlife Refuge and other refuges in the
    System. Our request is that O&M funding for the NWRS be increased to
    $514 million in fiscal year 2009, an increase of $80 million over the
    fiscal year 2008 funding level.
        The Fish and Wildlife Service reacted to the current funding crisis
    by developing workforce management plans last year. That process
    identified a total of 565 positions within the Refuge System which
    would either be left vacant or eliminated by 2009. Staff reductions of
    this magnitude are of special concern since most refuges were already
    understaffed when the process began. As an example of local impacts,
    the comprehensive conservation plan for the Pelican Island Refuge calls
    for a staff of nine permanent full time employees. As part of the build
    up to the 2003 centennial celebration of the establishment of the NWRS,
    and the Pelican Island Refuge, the staff was increased to six. Since
    then two positions have been lost. The workforce plan calls for the
    elimination of two more positions by 2009. In total, this represents a
    loss of 66 percent of the staff positions since 2003, and will leave
    only two employees to manage two urban refuges (the Pelican Island
    staff also manages the Archie Carr National Wildlife Refuge). Also, as
    part of the workforce plan, these refuges have been complexed under the
    Merritt Island Refuge which is located 50 miles to the north--not an
    effective management arrangement. No one on the Pelican Island Refuge
    staff has law enforcement authority.
        These kinds of personnel losses, plus the general lack of O&M
    funding, has resulted in major impacts on the protection and management
    of our magnificent wildlife refuges. Refuges cannot absorb personnel
    reductions of the magnitude being experienced and be expected to meet
    their wildlife objectives and their obligations to the American public.
    For example, public use programs will be reduced on many refuges, and
    eliminated on others. Environmental education programs for our children
    will be reduced. Habitat management needed to improve conditions for
    wildlife will be severely diminished. Surveys needed to monitor
    wildlife populations will be reduced. The control of invasive species
    will be cut back, resulting in the degradation of wildlife habitat. The
    ability to enforce regulations concerning trespass, dumping, boundary
    encroachment, etc., will be diminished.
        We are concerned regarding the inequitable distribution of resource
    management dollars among the four major Federal land management
    agencies. On a per acre basis, funding to manage national wildlife
    refuges is significantly lower than that allocated to manage national
    forests, national parks, and BLM lands. For example, The NWRS receives
    slightly over $4 per acre while the National Parks are allocated about
    five times that amount. We are not suggesting that the funding level
    should be the same, as the missions vary; however, the current
    disparity is totally unreasonable and the Congress should restore some
    equity as it contemplates future allocations.
        Invasive species are a major continuing problem facing refuge
    managers. Despite added emphasis on identification and control,
    valuable wildlife habitat continues to be lost. We urge the
    subcommittee to continue its strong support for the control of
    invasives. There is a critical need for land acquisition at the Pelican
    Island National Wildlife Refuge. In the late 1990's the integrity of
    the refuge was threatened by the proposed development of approximately
    300 acres of private lands which were surrounded by refuge and other
    public lands. In response to the emergency, the Congress, beginning in
    fiscal year 1999, appropriated sufficient funds to acquire most of the
    acreage. Unfortunately, one key tract of 47 acres was purchased by a
    developer and could not be acquired at that time. Fortunately, the
    tract has not been developed and is now available. In its comprehensive
    conservation plan, the refuge ranked the property as its highest
    priority for land acquisition. Containing 1,500 feet of natural
    mangrove shoreline along the Indian River Lagoon, the tract will serve
    as an important wildlife corridor to other refuge and public lands. The
    property has a high potential for habitat restoration based on work on
    similar properties. A contribution of Federal and nonfederal sources
    will be used to protect the 47 acres in its entirety. A $2 million
    appropriation from the Land and Water Conservation Fund in fiscal year
    2009 will begin the acquisition of this important property.
        In summary, the NWRS is facing a severe funding crisis which must
    be addressed quickly. We ask that the Subcommittee increase O&M funding
    for the NWRS to $514 million in fiscal year 2009. Further, we ask that
    the subcommittee support the goal of reaching an O&M funding level of
    $765 million by fiscal year 2013. Also, we ask that the subcommittee
    allocate $2 million from the LWCF in fiscal year 2009 to begin
    acquisition of a key parcel adjacent to the Pelican Island National
    Wildlife Refuge.
                                     ______

          Prepared Statement of the Penobscot River Restoration Trust

        The Penobscot River Restoration Trust, a not-for-profit
    organization whose members include the Penobscot Indian Nation and six
    conservation organizations, respectfully seeks your support for the
    request from Senator Snowe (ME) and Senator Collins (ME) for $1,000,000
    from the USFWS Recovery Resource Management Account and $1,000,000 from
    the National Fish Passage Program. As part of this request, we urge you
    to restore the Fish Passage Program to its fiscal year 2008 level of
    $11 million and reject the administration's attempt to cut $6 million
    from this successful program for fiscal year 2009.
        The Penobscot River Restoration Project is a nationally
    significant, large-scale, private-public collaboration to vastly
    improve migratory access to nearly 1,000 miles of historic habitat for
    sea-run fish. Working together, industry, the Penobscot Indian Nation,
    State and Federal Government, conservation groups and a diversity of
    public and private interests seek to restore the Nation's last,
    struggling runs of Atlantic salmon and 10 other species of sea-run fish
    to the Penobscot River. The project is designed to both maintain
    hydropower generation and restore native sea run fisheries, with
    benefits to fish, people and wildlife throughout the river ecosystem to
    the sea.
        To date, more than $10 million in private funds and $15 million in
    public funds (NOAA, USFWS) have been raised for dam purchase. The
    Penobscot Trust aims to exercise its option to purchase the dams as
    soon as possible, then implement the project by removing two dams and
    installing a fish bypass around a third as key steps to open up access
    to key fisheries habitat.
        A 2004 National Academy of Sciences report specifically mentioned
    the Penobscot Project as a key step towards restoring endangered
    Atlantic salmon. The project also promises to diversify and improve
    river-based recreation and related economic opportunities, and has
    received strong support from the public, communities and businesses
    within the Penobscot watershed. This project provides the USFWS and
    other Federal partners, with an effective plan to restore Atlantic
    salmon by opening up vast amounts of their blocked spawning habitat in
    the Penobscot.
        The project will also provide unique benefits to the Penobscot
    Indian Nation; a federally recognized sovereign tribe whose Reservation
    literally consists of islands and surrounding waters in the river. The
    project will render meaningful the Tribe's federally recognized
    sustenance fishery rights and reinvigorate river-dependent cultural and
    spiritual practices.
        The Penobscot River Restoration Project was recently awarded the
    Department of Interior's 2008 Cooperative Conservation Award and has
    been hailed as a landmark project of national significance. Given its
    potential use as a national model and its far reaching benefits, we
    urge the committee to continue its strong support for the project by
    funding it in fiscal year 2009.
                                     ______

              Prepared Statement of the Puyallup Tribe of Indians

        Mr. Chairman, my name is Herman Dillon, Sr., Puyallup Tribal
    Chairman. We thank the committee for past support of many tribal issues
    and in your interest today. We share our concerns and request
    assistance in reaching objectives of significance to the Congress, the
    Tribe, and to 25,000+ 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 2009 budget and
    submits the following detailed written testimony to the U.S. Senate
    Subcommittee on the Interior, Environment and Related Agencies. We look
    forward to working with 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 355 federally recognized Tribes who utilize our services
    are included in the fiscal year 2009 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 25,000+ Native Americans from over 355 Tribes and Alaskan
    Villages. The Puyallup Nation Law Enforcement Division currently has a
    Chief of Police, 26 commissioned officers and two reserve officers to
    cover 40 square miles of reservation in addition to the usual and
    accustomed areas. Due to limited federal funding for law enforcement in
    Indian Country, only two officers are funded with Public Law 93-638
    funds. The officers are charged with the service and protection of the
    Puyallup Reservation seven 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 design and construction of a 28,000 square foot ``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 7,000 square foot, 28 cell ``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.
    The pre-planning phase for this project has been completed, an
    architectural firm has been hired to perform design services and it is
    anticipated that the Puyallup Justice Center will be completed in
    October 2009.
      --Request subcommittee support to fund the BIA Public Safety and
            Justice Law Enforcement activities at the $229 million level
            proposed in the fiscal year 2009 budget to operate law
            enforcement services. While this amount only funds 60 percent
            of law enforcement needs in Indian Country, the Subcommittee is
            encouraged to issue directive language to the BIA to include
            additional funding for law enforcement staffing in the fiscal
            year 2010 budget;
      --Support from the subcommittee on the Tribes request to the
            subcommittee on Commerce, Justice and Science for funding in
            the amount of $5.25 million to construct the ``detention''
            portion of the Justice Center. The Tribe has committed $9.75
            million in tribal revenue to construct the remainder of the
            facility;
      --Support from the subcommittee to restore proposed funding cuts to
            the Tribal Courts budget in the amount of $2.4 million for a
            total fiscal year 2009 budget of $14,447,000 and at a minimum,
            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 2010 budget.
        Fisheries & Natural Resources Management.--The Puyallup Tribe as
    steward for land and marine waters in the Usual and Accustomed fish and
    shellfish areas has treaty and Governmental obligations and
    responsibilities to manage natural resources for uses beneficial to the
    regional community. Despite our diligent program efforts, the fisheries
    resource is degrading and economic losses are incurred by Indian and
    Non-Indian fisherman, and surrounding communities. Our Resource
    Management responsibilities cover thousands of square miles in the
    Puget Sound region of the State of Washington with an obligation to
    manage production of anadromous, non-anadromous fish and shellfish
    resources. Existing levels of support are inadequate to reverse the
    trend of resource/habitat degradation. Resource management is
    constrained due to funding shortfalls. We seek support and endorsement
    in the following areas:
      --Tribal Fisheries Resource Management, Hatchery Operation and
            Maintenance funding via Public Law 93-638 contracts have not
            increased substantially since establishment of base budgets in
            1984. The demand on Puyallup Tribal Fisheries Program has grown
            exponential since the eighties and is currently faced by
            Endangered Species Act listings on numerous species. This
            demand is increased due to the urbanized setting of the Tribe's
            Usual and Accustomed treaty areas in the Pacific Northwest
            Tribe. We request Committee support to increase base contract
            funding in the amount of $350,000 for additional fisheries
            staff. We further support 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;
      --Washington Timber-Fish-Wildlife Program.--U.S./Canada Pacific
            Salmon Treaty. The TFW and the U.S./Canada Pacific Salmon
            Treaty programs has allowed for the expansion of tribal
            participation in the state forest practice rules and
            regulations and participate in inter-tribal organizations to
            address specific treaties and/or legal cases which relate to
            fishing rights, harvest and management. Tribes bring a high
            level of skills and technical capabilities that if
            appropriately funded, would greatly facilitate and enhance a
            successful outcome in forest practices, regulations and greater
            fisheries protection. However, base funding for these programs
            are eliminated in the President's fiscal year 2009 budget. We
            request Committee support to restore base funding of $1,713,000
            for TFW and $1,772,000 for U.S./Canada Pacific Salmon Treaty
            fiscal year 2009 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 2010 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 2009 budget calls for $2.2 billion to be
    allocated to the Bureau of Indian Affairs, which is $100 million less
    than the fiscal year 2008 enacted level. Specifically for the Operation
    of Indian Programs, the Budget provides $1.98 billion, which is an
    overall decrease of $60 million from current levels. For the fiscal
    year 2009 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 2009 request, at a minimum, at the enacted level in fiscal
            year 2008 of $2,047,809, an increase of $59,519,000 over the
            fiscal year 2009 President's request;
      --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 2009
    budget request is the on-going issue of contract support costs. The
    President's fiscal year 2009 budget request for contract support is for
    $147,294,000 which is the same as the enacted level in fiscal year
    2008. At a minimum, we request your support and endorsement in the
    following;
      --The Puyallup Tribe requests support by Congress to fund BIA
            Contract Support Costs for fiscal year 2009 at $186,628,000, a
            $39,334,000 increase over the President's fiscal year 2009
            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
    it's 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
    $5,317,945 million is needed to operate at this rate. The IHS Budget
    request is for $4.3 billion, an overall decrease of $21 million from
    the fiscal year 2008 enacted level. Budget analysis by the Northwest
    Portland Area Indian Health Board indicate that it will take an
    increase of $455 million to maintain current facilities and services in
    fiscal year 2009. We request congressional support for the fiscal year
    2009 IHS budget in the following areas;
      --Fund IHS Contract Support Costs at 100 percent. While the
            President's budget includes an increase of $4.238 million for
            Contract Support Costs funding, this will not fund tribe's
            actual contract support costs. It is estimated that Contract
            Support Costs shortfall has accumulated over the years in the
            amount of $158.3 million. Support from the subcommittee is
            requested to eliminate the Contract Support Costs shortfall in
            the amount of $158.3 million and fund IHS Contract Support
            Costs at $280.8 million;
      --We oppose the proposed elimination of the Urban Indian Health
            Program, which was funded at $34.547 million in fiscal year
            2008. We urge the subcommittee to restore funding in the fiscal
            year 2009 budget for the Urban Indian Health Program, at a
            minimum $34.547 million, and issue directive language to the
            Indian Health Service to include this amount in their fiscal
            year 2010 budget;
      --Fund the Puyallup Tribal Health Authority contract health care fund
            an additional $5,317,945 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 $605.7 million for fiscal year 2009;
      --We oppose the elimination of the Diabetes Grant program and request
            the Subcommittee to restore funding for this important and
            effective program in the fiscal year 2009 budget in the amount
            of $150 million;
      --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. Recently, the U.S. Senate
            passed their version of the IHCIA and the U.S. House has
            pledged to pass a companion bill this session. The Puyallup
            Tribe of Indians 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 Quinault Indian Nation

        As the President of the Quinault Indian Nation, I am submitting the
    priorities and funding requests for the 2009 Bureau of Indian Affairs
    and Indian Health Services Budgets as identified by my Tribal
    membership.
           summary of quinault indian nation tribal specific requests
      --$2.21 Million McBride Road Maintenance and Emergency Reservation
            Exit Route BIA/Roads Maintenance Program
      --$762,000 for Blueback Restoration--BIA/Natural Resource Management/
            Rights Protection
      --$529,500 Methamphetamine Initiative/Prescription Drugs--BIA/Office
            of Indian Services and IHS/Office of Behavioral Health
              regional and national requests and recommendations:
        BIA Requests:
        1. Restore Johnson O'Malley funds ($21.4 million); and Housing
    Improvement Funds ($13.6 million) to Tribal base programs,
        2. Provide $25 million General Increase to BIA Tribal Priority
    Allocation for inflationary and fixed costs,
        3. Provide $45 million increase for BIA Contract Support Cost
    (CSC), including Direct CSC,
        4. $500,000 for BIA Data Management funding of Office of Program
    Data Quality, and
        5. Support increases in the Office of Self-Governance for IT and
    Staffing.
        IHS Requests:
        6. Provide $486 million for IHS mandatory, inflation and population
    growth increase to maintain existing health care services (President's
    budget proposes a cut of $21.3 million),
        7. $152 million increase for Contract Health Services (CHS),
        8. $160 million increase for IHS for 100 percent Contract Support
    Costs (CSC), including Direct CSC,
        9. Restore $21 million for health care facilities construction, and
        10. Maintain annual funding for Special Diabetes Program for
    Indians (SDPI) at $150 million until new authority is enacted (Current
    extended authority for Special Diabetes Program for Indians will expire
    in 2009.)

                        THE QUINAULT INDIAN NATION (QIN)

        Located on the southwestern corner of the Olympic Peninsula, the
    Quinault Reservation is a land of magnificent forests, swift flowing
    rivers, gleaming lakes and 23 miles of unspoiled Pacific coastline. Our
    boundaries enclose over 208,150 acres of some of the most productive
    conifer forest lands in the United States. We were once sustained by
    the abundance of salmon runs, the land and trade with neighboring
    Tribes. The pride of our Nation is our people, our youth and our
    elders. We are the ``Canoe People'', the people of the cedar tree. The
    Quinault Indian Nation consists of the Quinault and Queets Tribes and
    descendants of five other coastal Tribes: Quileute, Hoh, Chehalis,
    Chinook and Cowlitz. There are 2,782 enrolled members of the Quinault
    Indian Nation and 1,929 living with the service area. Nearly 700
    people, both Indian and non-Indian, are employed by the Nation and its
    enterprises.

                     TRIBAL SPECIAL REQUESTS JUSTIFICATION

    $2.21 Million McBride Road Maintenance and Emergency Reservation Exit
            Route BIA/Roads Maintenance Program
        The Quinault Reservation is located in Grays Harbor County in the
    village of Taholah, Washington; a rural isolated and economically
    deprived area. The village of Taholah lies in a tsunami danger zone.
    The site of the village is barely above sea level and experts have
    determined that the sea level is rising because of global warming
    patterns. For Taholah, tsunami is a health and safety risk factor that
    we must live with everyday. The Quinault Reservation is interlaced with
    thousands of miles of roads that are left over from large logging
    contracts that ended in about 1980. Most of these roads do not have the
    required right-of-way and do not receive funding for maintenance.
        The village of Taholah is accessible via SR 109 that parallels the
    Pacific Ocean. The McBride Road, a single forest road, is the only
    escapement route available to the 1,000 community members of the
    Quinault Indian Nation living in the village of Taholah. Its state of
    disrepair necessitates that immediate action be taken to bring the road
    up to a Class B gravel road status to be used in cases of emergency.
    The cost for this project is $876,500 to repair 10.75 miles and could
    be accomplished within a 3-month time frame during dry weather
    conditions. The Project will create four new jobs in right-of-way
    acquisition and road engineering. And will impact about 400 jobs of
    timber workers, fishermen, and fishing guides that rely on these roads
    for their livelihood.
        Major portions of this route are at sea level. What is particularly
    important to understand is that the portions of this road above sea
    level are susceptible to mudslides. Two such mudslides have occurred in
    the past 2 years; the most recent occurrence was early December 2007.
    The road blocked access for 3 days. Medical needs for village people
    became an issue, while those in need of kidney dialysis were
    particularly affected. Some tribal members were able to evacuate the
    village by using another, longer alternate route. Still, this
    application is unsafe for use by the general public because the forest
    roads are not patrolled, well maintained, have limited signage and cell
    reception.
        The President's proposed budget for fiscal year 2009 has a huge
    reduction in the BIA Roads Maintenance Program indicating that Roads
    Maintenance is within the Indian Reservation Roads (IRR) provisions of
    the SAFETEA-LU. The funding for roads maintenance of the BIA Roads
    System is severely inadequate and only 25 percent of the needed IRR
    Road Construction funds can be used.

    $762,000 for Blueback Restoration--BIA/Natural Resource Management/
            Rights Protection
        The Quinault River Blueback (Sockeye Salmon) Restoration Initiative
    is planned and designed to restore the production of sockeye (blueback)
    salmon in the Quinault River to historic levels. This unique and
    valuable stock of salmon is near collapse due mostly to degraded
    habitats in the upper Quinault River basin and in Lake Quinault. This
    habitat loss has occurred over the past century due to historic timber
    harvesting, property development, and infrastructure construction.
    Natural processes on the floodplain began unraveling in the late 1800s
    and the deterioration is continuing in the present time.
        An important and necessary component to the Blueback Restoration
    Initiative is the construction and development of a wastewater and
    water treatment facility at Amanda Park, a community where Lake
    Quinault meets the headwaters of the Quinault River. The system will
    serve tribal and surrounding community residents and eliminate raw
    sewage disposed into Quinault Lake/River.
        Currently, the conditions of exposed raw sewage in Amanda Park pose
    substantial and significant health and safety risks to our natural
    resources, the residents and our children. Last year, we closed a
    portion of Lake Quinault and the Quinault River to all swimming and
    water activities due to dangerous levels of e coli. Residents have had
    to clear their sidewalks and driveways of exposed raw sewage.
        In the final analysis, the Blueback Restoration Initiative is
    designed to halt the current habitat loss and deterioration and to
    repair and restore natural habitat forming processes and sockeye
    production on the Quinault floodplain. The project will help to restore
    the natural beauty and productivity of the Quinault River Valley, thus
    making it a more attractive tourism destination. Conditions that will
    result from implementation of this program will benefit other salmon
    stocks in the system and will serve to protect private property and
    public infrastructure. In addition, the program will provide local
    construction jobs during its implementation phase, and the restoration
    program will result in conditions that will improve and sustain
    commercial and sport fishing on the Quinault River.
        The project will also benefit local residents and businesses by
    reducing the likelihood of flooding. Implementation of the restoration
    program will help to avoid the burdensome and restrictive consequences
    of having the Quinault sockeye listed as threatened or endangered under
    provisions of the Endangered Species Act. It will protect and restore
    livelihoods of 100 commercial fishermen and 25 sport fishing guides in
    Grays Harbor County and the Quinault Indian Reservation. The program
    will also contribute partial support for approximately 20 jobs in the
    fish processing industry in western Washington. The program will
    provide employment for 10-30 laborers and equipment operators in Grays
    Harbor and Jefferson counties during construction phases of individual
    projects.
        The program plan calls for formation of public and private
    coalitions and partnerships to implement restoration actions. These
    relationships are being formed with the U.S. Forest Service other
    Federal and State agencies, North American Salmon Stronghold
    Partnership, and private property owners.
        This funding request is for implementation of current habitat
    restoration program plans and will include project design, engineering
    and construction, nutrient application to selected habitat areas,
    acquisition of data and materials for further planning and
    construction.

    $529,500 Methamphetamine Initiative/Prescription Drugs--BIA/Office of
            Indian Services and IHS/Office of Behavioral Health
                QIN Facts:
      --In 2004, tribal youth accounted for more than 40 percent of the
            drug and alcohol related arrests
      --80 percent of students miss school because of alcohol or drug abuse
            problems in the home
      --An Estimated 2 of every 5 children experiment with drugs or alcohol
            by the age of 10 years old
      --The youngest self admitted user of Meth on our Reservation was 14
            years old
        The QIN is designing a methamphetamine initiative to be responsive
    to the needs of the community it serves. This project will integrate
    and strengthen existing services that help to prevent and treat
    addiction, as well as coordinate and intensify efforts to reduce the
    access to and use of methamphetamine; thus reducing the harms
    associated with drug abuse. Approximately 227 activities are scheduled
    for this project and will effectively leverage the resources of
    existing service providers in our community. Activities will occur
    within six domains including: Prevention, Education, Treatment, Support
    Services, Law Enforcement and Supply Interdiction. New programs, that
    are culturally competent, will be introduced in our community to help
    those in treatment, children affected by meth, family members and
    elders, who are often mistreated and abused by addicted family members.
    Similarly, revised tribal codes are in place to support supply
    interdiction and drug trafficking on the reservation.
        The Quinault Nation Public Safety Division is partnering with
    multiple departments within the Nation to further develop the
    methamphetamine strategic plan. To date, they are drafting a Community
    Action Plan (CAP) that will incorporate local media, local departments,
    and the justice programs to educate members about the dangerous effects
    of drugs and alcohol. In addition, the Quinault Nation Public Safety is
    planning a mass mailing to its local members with regard to Turn- In-a-
    Pusher (TIP).
        In closing, I thank you for the opportunity to submit our national
    priorities and requests. We truly appreciate the difficult position
    you're in when evaluating competing interests. We also recognize that
    you work very hard to meet the needs of every community and we trust
    that during your deliberations, you will do right by Indian Country and
    give the right level of deference to our needs. Thank you for this
    opportunity.
                                     ______

          Prepared Statement of the Red River National Wildlife Refuge

        Chairman Feinstein, ranking member Allard, and members of the
    subcommittee: I wish to thank you for providing the opportunity to
    testify regarding the fiscal year 2009 appropriations for the National
    Wildlife Refuge System. On behalf of the over 100 members of the Red
    River Refuge Alliance, the friends organization that supports the Red
    River National Wildlife Refuge in northwestern Louisiana, we request
    that the subcommittee support an overall funding level of $514 million
    for the operations and maintenance budget of the National Wildlife
    Refuge System.
        The National Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS) is vitally important to
    our Nation's wildlife and provides unparalleled opportunities to hunt,
    fish, watch wildlife, and educate children about the environment. Our
    548 refuges encompass almost 100 million acres; without increased
    funding, wildlife conservation and public recreation opportunities will
    be jeopardized. The NWRS suffers from a $3.5 billion operations and
    maintenance funding backlog. This backlog will only grow larger if
    current funding levels continue. While refuges received a substantial
    $39 million increase for fiscal year 2008, this funding level when
    adjusted for inflation still does not equal that of the refuge system
    centennial year of 2003. Because of this, refuges such as Red River
    struggle to meet basic wildlife conservation objectives. Funding
    shortfalls have led to downsizing of the refuge system workforce, the
    decline of refuge habitats and wildlife populations, aging facilities
    and infrastructure, the cancellation of many of the refuge system's
    public use programs, and increased crime on our public lands. Some
    refuges have been forced to close their doors to the public. Others
    have lost their onsite refuge managers. In many cases, one refuge
    manager has the responsibility for managing the operations and
    maintenance of multiple, often far-flung, refuges.
        According to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's 2007 Banking on
    Nature report, nearly 35 million people visited national wildlife
    refuges in the lower 48 States in fiscal year 2006, generating over
    $1.7 billion of sales in regional economies and $185 million in tax
    revenues and supporting over 27,000 private sector jobs and almost $543
    million in employment income. This economic benefit is almost four
    times the amount appropriated to the Refuge System in fiscal year 2006.
    Eighty-seven percent of all refuge visitors travel from outside the
    local area. These visitors contribute to the local economy through
    patronage of local hotels, restaurants, outfitters, and gas stations,
    to name just a few examples. Refuges as local economic engines are
    especially important in Louisiana, the sixth poorest State in the
    Nation, according to the most recent information from the U.S. Census
    Bureau.
        Our refuges are much more than economic engines and their value
    can't be measured in purely economic terms. In a world where
    development continues to encroach on what remains of our wild places,
    refuges provide havens for wildlife and places of peace and beauty
    where people can go to renew their spirits.
        Our own refuge, the Red River National Wildlife Refuge, was created
    by Congress at the request of local citizens and the act creating it
    was signed into law on October 13, 2000. The refuge was established on
    August 22, 2002. According to the legislation, the refuge shall consist
    of approximately 50,000 acres of Federal lands and waters. To date,
    only one fifth of the total area authorized, or approximately 10,000
    acres, has been acquired. These lands were made unprofitable for
    agriculture due to the construction of the Locks and Dams on the Red
    River which raised the water table in low-lying adjacent farms.
    Continuation of the land acquisition process seems the fair thing to do
    for the land owners who are willing sellers to the refuge system. Tax
    increases were imposed on land owners adjacent to the waterway to fund
    many waterway improvement projects, due to the increased value of the
    land. The longer funding is delayed for the remaining authorized
    acreage, the more costly these acquisitions will be.
        Situated at the confluence of the Central and Mississippi Flyways,
    Red River NWR is the only refuge located in northwestern Louisiana,
    serving an area with a population of over 500,000 people. The
    congressionally mandated purpose of the Red River NWR is to provide for
    the restoration and conservation of native plant and animal communities
    on suitable sites in the Red River basin; provide habitat for migratory
    birds; and provide technical assistance to private land owners in the
    restoration of their lands for the benefit of fish and wildlife.
        Currently, the refuge consists of four management units:
    Headquarters in Bossier Parish, Bayou Pierre in Red River Parish, and
    Spanish Lake Lowlands and Lower Cane River in widely separated corners
    of Natchitoches Parish. These four separate noncontiguous units are
    spread out along 100 miles of the Red River. The North Louisiana
    Refuges Complex that provides additional support for our refuge is 100
    miles from the closest refuge unit of the Red River NWR and 200 miles
    from the farthest unit. All this presents major logistical and
    maintenance challenges for Red River's refuge manager, challenges that
    have been magnified by the lack of funding for any additional personnel
    for the refuge. Recently, our refuge manager took a position in the FWS
    Southeast Regional Office and Red River Refuge currently has no staff
    at all until a new manager is selected. This situation, coupled with
    the limited resources of the Complex, which must provide support for
    four other refuges in the northeastern part of Louisiana, means that
    needed wildlife habitat maintenance and restoration, infrastructure
    maintenance, and visitor services projects are suffering.
        The Red River Refuge Alliance, which I am honored to serve as
    President, is one of more than 230 refuge Friends groups, representing
    over 40,000 individuals throughout the United States who provide
    volunteer support for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and the
    National Wildlife Refuge System. The Alliance's members are dedicated
    wholeheartedly to the Red River National Wildlife Refuge and its
    mission. Our former refuge manager often worked many hours above and
    beyond what was required of him, including working weekends and on his
    day off, to carry out the mission of the refuge. We supported him in
    his efforts in any way we could as we will continue to do with his
    successor. To that end, we have contributed major financial support and
    manpower for the complete renovation of a building on the refuge for
    use as a temporary office and visitor center at the Headquarters unit
    of the refuge. We have contributed significant volunteer hours cleaning
    and landscaping a farm house on the Bayou Pierre unit of the refuge. We
    conduct bird surveys on the refuge; conduct outreach and environmental
    education in the local community on behalf of the refuge, and sponsor
    and staff public events on the refuge. One of our members spent many
    hours last year repairing and maintaining the irrigation system, water
    control structures, and refuge moist-soil impoundments that provide
    resting areas for waterfowl and wading birds.
        Friends groups can only do so much; the refuge cannot operate
    efficiently if it is too dependent on volunteer labor and outside
    funding. In order to provide the support and management needed to
    provide visitor services and wildlife protection at Red River, there is
    currently a need to secure sufficient, permanently assigned personnel.
    The personnel needs of the refuge include an administrative assistant,
    an assistant refuge manager, an outdoor recreation specialist, a
    wildlife biologist, a refuge law enforcement officer, an engineering
    equipment operator, and a maintenance worker. In contrast with its
    needs, Red River has been operating with a staff of one, the refuge
    manager, who has had the sole responsibility for caring for the
    refuge's widely distributed 10,000 acres.
        Because of this, many programs necessary to carry out the mandates
    of the refuge have not been possible or have not been able to be
    implemented on a timely basis. For example, active moist-soil
    management for the benefit of wintering waterfowl and other birds that
    utilize this type of habitat has not been attainable to date.
    Currently, grain production is used to address the shortages to
    effectively manage moist-soil habitat on the Lower Cane River unit.
    Under current funding/staffing limitations, cooperative farming is the
    only option available to the refuge to produce crops. Cooperative
    farmers for the Spanish Lake Unit and the Bayou Pierre Unit have not
    been located. These units both have moist-soil impoundments and the
    refuge does not have the funding to plant without assistance from local
    farmers. .
        The earliest explorers of the Red River Valley characterized the
    area as a floodplain forest rich in biological diversity. Over a period
    beginning in the late 1700's and early 1800's, some of this forest was
    gradually cleared. Then, in the 1960's and 1970's, mass clearing of
    marginal bottomlands took place to make way for agriculture, mostly
    soybeans. Most of the land that is now part of the Red River NWR
    consists of these degraded former agricultural lands, some of which
    have already been replanted in bottomland hardwood trees through carbon
    sequestration partnerships. This renewed forest on refuge lands will
    remove carbon from the atmosphere, providing cleaner air, in addition
    to providing shelter and food for refuge wildlife. New funding is
    necessary to continue the reforestation where appropriate and to
    restore other types of natural habitat on refuge land, including native
    prairies, which once grew in lush abundance.
        Invasive species control has been instituted but without personnel
    and funding for adequate and consistent control, invasive species, such
    as Chinese tallow trees and kudzu, will continue to crowd out native
    vegetation, resulting in habitat degradation. Ongoing biological
    monitoring is needed to protect and preserve native species of flora
    and fauna on the refuge and the FWS has partnered with local
    universities to conduct biological studies on the refuge.
        The Red River National Wildlife Refuge is located at the confluence
    of the Central and Mississippi Flyways and, as such, is part of a
    corridor of public and private lands and waters throughout Louisiana
    that provides critical stopover habitat for migrating birds. It is
    estimated that as many as half of all land birds that breed in eastern
    North America pass through Louisiana during migration. Habitat loss is
    the primary factor in the decline of both migratory and resident birds.
    Without funding for native plant community restoration and preservation
    and control of invasive species, the refuge might fail in its mission
    to provide habitat for these birds.
        Refuge roads and the area around buildings must be mowed regularly
    and hundreds of acres of moist-soil impoundments must be mowed and/or
    bush hogged annually so that willows will not grow up in the
    impoundments; in 2007 this was able to be accomplished only with the
    major assistance of a volunteer and the impoundments had to be flooded
    for the fall influx of wintering waterfowl area with an incomplete job.
    This will make the 2008 maintenance work more difficult because the
    willows are capable of surviving flooding and will be a year older.
        There are currently no facilities open for public use on Red River
    NWR; however, funding has been secured to build an education and
    visitor center at the Headquarters unit. This facility will be located
    within the Shreveport-Bossier metropolitan area with an estimated
    population of almost 400,000 people, and has the ability to attract
    thousands more annually because of its convenient location near the
    convergence of two interstate highways. The center is planned to be an
    educational resource for all visitors and especially school children to
    learn about, experience, and appreciate the unique Red River Valley and
    the natural world. The center with associated nature trails and other
    visitor amenities is expected to be completed by late 2010. Without
    increased funding for operations and personnel, including educational
    and outdoor recreation staff, there will be no way to serve the
    thousands of visitors expected when the center opens.
        Additional staff, equipment, and funding is also needed to
    adequately maintain existing needs and develop future infrastructure
    for public use activities and habitat management, including maintenance
    and construction of new roads and trails, construction of observation
    platforms, maintenance of water control structures, levees and refuge
    facilities, and maintenance of equipment and vehicles. Some refuge
    boundaries remain unmarked, which has created a law enforcement
    problem. At a minimum, roads must be maintained for access for FWS
    personnel for habitat maintenance and law enforcement. Although
    additional funding and personnel have been allocated by the North
    Louisiana Refuges Complex in years past for very minimal maintenance, a
    total of $20,000 a year, it is far from what is needed to meet FWS
    management goals. Routine maintenance jobs go undone for the simple
    lack of anyone to oversee them.
        The Red River National Wildlife Refuge although unique in several
    ways among refuges is not unique in its struggle to survive and thrive
    with insufficient staff and funding. On behalf of the Alliance, the Red
    River National Wildlife Refuge, and the entire National Wildlife Refuge
    System, I respectfully request that members of the Subcommittee will
    agree with us and increase funding for the NWRS in fiscal year 2009 to
    $514 million. This funding is so very vital for conserving and
    maintaining America's beautiful wildlife and natural resources not only
    for our generation to enjoy, but for future generations as well. Thank
    you for all that you do to ensure this.
                                     ______

     Prepared Statement of the Rock Point Community School, Navajo Nation,
                                    Arizona
        Rock Point Community School asks you to fund the following Bureau
    of Indian Education Programs at the levels noted:

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Requested
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Indian School Equalization Formula (ISEF)...........       $382,783,800
    ISEF Program Enhancements...........................         12,000,000
    Administrative Cost Grants..........................         66,000,000
    Student Transportation..............................             ( \1\ )
    Facilities Operations...............................         67,000,000
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ $3.15 per mile.

        On behalf of the Rock Point Community School Board, I appreciate
    the opportunity to submit these views on the fiscal year 2009 budget
    request for the Bureau of Indian Education. Rock Point is a K-12 school
    responsible for the education of more than 400 Navajo children. Rock
    Point is a small community near Chinle in a remote part of the vast
    portion of the Navajo Reservation located in Arizona. For over 30 years
    the school has been operated by an elected all-Navajo school board
    through an Indian Self-Determination Act contract issued by the Bureau
    of Indian Affairs. Rock Point relies exclusively on Federal
    appropriations as the school is not part of the Arizona public school
    system.

                   INDIAN SCHOOL EQUALIZATION FORMULA (ISEF)

        The ISEF appropriation funds our educational program. But year
    after year the amount supplied is insufficient to enable our school to
    provide the quality education program we want for Navajo children. It
    was most discouraging to learn that the fiscal year 2009 request--which
    will fund our SY2009-2010 programs--does not request any boost in
    program funding; its only increase is to cover ``fixed costs.''
    Compared with the funding supplied 6 years ago, the fiscal year 2009
    request of $364.5 million is a mere 5.3 percent higher. This means that
    we are not even keeping up with inflation, so the allotment we will get
    for SY2009-2010 will effectively be less than the amount supplied 6
    years ago. Our costs, on the other hand, steadily increase. Quite
    frankly, it's as if the Federal officials who prepared this budget are
    saying that Indian children do not matter.
        Rock Point has not made Adequate Yearly Progress for the last 6
    years. The biggest impediment in our drive to meet AYP goals is our
    inability to attract and hold on to experienced, high quality teachers,
    as academic achievement must occur in the classroom or it does not
    occur at all. Without a sizeable increase in ISEF funding, we cannot
    hope to compete for staff with BIA-operated schools and public schools
    which pay far higher salaries than we are able to afford.
        For us, teacher recruitment is made even more difficult by our
    remote location. The small Rock Point community offers no housing
    market. Fortunately, some of our teachers come from Rock Point or
    nearby communities, but for those who do not we must provide housing in
    the Federally-owned quarters units on our campus. These rental units
    are very old and badly in need of repairs and upgrades, but they are
    all we have to offer. The housing units are literally crumbling and
    have become severe health hazards, as they were constructed using
    asbestos-containing materials. By most of today's construction codes,
    these units would be condemned. The substandard condition of our
    housing and the remoteness of the school from the amenities offered by
    even a small town compound our recruitment issues. Why do we continue
    to stay here despite these deplorable conditions? We believe that
    Indian children do matter. Please don't mistake the dedication we hold
    to our students as complacency with or acceptance of our situation,
    though. We continue despite our conditions because our children are
    important to us. We firmly believe that we should not be subjected to
    and persist with the conditions under which we currently live and work.
    We cannot do justice to either our staff or our students under the
    current budget constraints.
        Even a modest increase of 5 percent to the ISEF would greatly help
    Rock Point and other schools in the BIE system to meet their obligation
    to offer challenging academic programs, provide remedial education
    services for children who need extra help, and enable our students to
    achieve at the high levels we know they are capable of. We can put
    every additional dollar to use immediately--to fill chronic vacancies
    in the teaching staff, reduce staff turnover, and provide our students
    with modern educational tools.
        Our request.--We hope this committee will heed our prayers by
    increasing the ISEF budget by at least 5 percent this year and in the
    coming years as well. We need the Federal Government to make a firm
    commitment to the education of Indian children and to sustain that
    commitment over the long term. Please do not send the message that
    Indian children do not matter to you.

                           ISEF PROGRAM ENHANCEMENTS

        Rock Point applauds the committee for the ``education program
    enhancements'' funds it has supplied and strongly urges you to continue
    this funding. We cannot understand why BIE seeks to cut these
    enhancement funds by more than 50 percent.
        Our School received $150,000 in enhancement funds this year. With
    these resources and with the support of BIE program personnel, we are
    developing a Navajo reading program for our K-3 classes. Our theory is
    that by enhancing Navajo reading and literacy skills and fostering a
    love of reading in young children, their ability to become proficient
    readers in both Navajo and English will be enhanced. We hired a reading
    coach/translator who is translating reading materials into Navajo, and
    the teachers selected for the program are receiving professional
    development in the Reading First model. We are very excited about
    launching this innovative approach. But if funding for it is not
    continued in the new budget, we cannot offer the program and the
    investment we and you have made in it will have been wasted!
        Our request.--Please continue to fund ``educational program
    enhancements'' at least at the $12 million level set in the fiscal year
    2008 budget.

           ADMINISTRATIVE COST GRANTS AND BIA EMPLOYEE SEVERANCE PAY

        Once again, the BIA budget ignores the Federal law that requires
    the agency to fund the administrative costs of tribal organizations
    such as the Rock Point School Board who have taken over operation of
    schools under the Indian Self-Determination Act. The agency requests
    only level funding for these Grants--$43.4 million--despite the fact
    that five more schools will be taken over by tribes next year. This
    means that the agency thinks it is acceptable to support 130 schools
    next year with the same amount used to support 125 this year.
        As it is, BIA is only paying AC Grants at 65 percent of the level
    Federal law directs. See 25 USC Sec. 2008. When five more schools have
    to be supported from the same amount of money, the percentage supplied
    will likely fall below 60 percent. On the one hand the Indian Self-
    Determination Act encourages tribes to have direct, hands-on
    responsibility for program operations, but on the other hand, and in
    defiance of the law, BIA consistently refuses to supply administrative
    funds to make those program operations possible. This is
    unconscionable.
        It is ironic that the only budget impact the agency mentions about
    the five schools that will convert to tribal operation is the need to
    pay the severance costs of the Federal employees at those schools who
    will be laid off. The $1.5 million BIA seeks for this is an
    administrative cost to the agency. How discouraging it is that BIA
    expects full funding for its administrative obligations, but pays no
    heed to the administrative cost needs of tribes and tribal
    organizations who operate the agency's programs. We hope you will move
    the $1.5 million requested for employee severance to the AC Grant
    account instead.
        AC Grant funding is supposed to cover all aspects of administering
    the school program, such as executive direction; accounting; auditing;
    financial, personnel and property management; and contract compliance.
    Our administrative budget is already at a bare-bones level. The further
    reductions the budget request would produce will severely compromise
    tribal schools' ability to properly administer programs and maintain
    prudent internal controls.
        Our request.--Please increase the AC Grant appropriation and
    require BIA to pay our administrative costs at 100 percent. Full
    funding will require at least $66 million so we ask you to consider
    that figure.

                             STUDENT TRANSPORTATION

        We don't understand how the BIA can ask to cut $1 million from
    student transportation when it knows that the cost of vehicle fuel
    continues to escalate and it will be even higher next year when SY2009-
    2010 begins. Rock Point school buses travel approximately 600 miles
    every day; 60 percent of those miles are over rough, unpaved roads
    which means we have constant bus maintenance issues. When we do not
    receive sufficient resources to cover our transportation costs, we have
    to make up the shortfall out of our education dollars from the ISEF.
        Please increase student transportation funding to a level that
    enables us to receive $3.15/mile for our bus routes. We should not have
    to use our scarce education funds to help cover bus fuel, maintenance
    and driver salary costs.

                             FACILITIES OPERATIONS

        This is another account where BIA provides far less than the amount
    of calculated need. In the SY07-08 constrained budget, Rock Point
    received only 52 percent of the amount the facilities formula says we
    need to properly operate the buildings on our campus. Nearly every
    dollar we receive must be used to pay utility costs--which leaves very
    few dollars for other facilities operations, maintenance, and repairs.
    We are unable to conduct preventative maintenance, which poses great
    risk, as our boilers and other essential equipment are also old. We are
    so far behind in our upkeep and preventative maintenance, and we are
    getting further behind with each passing year because of insufficient
    funding and the OFMC backlog. Our school buildings, like our housing
    units, were constructed with asbestos-containing materials. We have had
    two incidents with asbestos being released at school, the most recent
    occurring the summer of 2006. Although the U.S. EPA determined in the
    90s the health risk that asbestos poses in most Navajo schools, the
    issue persists still to this day.
        We urge the committee to give this long-ignored facilities
    operations account renewed attention. It has had no meaningful increase
    in many years. Our schools are Federally-owned buildings and were built
    with Federal funds. They should be as safe, clean, well-maintained and
    comfortable for our occupants as any other Federally-owned building,
    including the Department of the Interior and Congressional office
    buildings.
        Our request.--Our suggestion is to add $10 million to the
    Facilities Operations item and fund it at $67 million.

                                   CONCLUSION

        We at Rock Point do not take pleasure in having to beg Congress for
    funding year after year. But since the BIA school system is the
    exclusive responsibility of the United States (not of any State), it is
    our obligation to tell you what our true needs are since the BIA does
    not do so. Please carry out the United States' responsibility through
    its treaty obligations and its ethical duty to properly fund this
    school system so Indian children have an equal chance as that of their
    peers to learn and succeed in their educational pursuits and compete in
    the job market.
                                     ______

            Prepared Statement of Shoreline Education for Awareness

        The United States Fish and Wildlife Service needs a minimum
    operating budget of $514 Million for the National Wildlife Refuge
    System. This funding is essential for implementing the National
    Wildlife Refuge System Workforce Plan. Many refuges are critically
    understaffed. The ability of individual refuges to deal with research,
    wildlife habitat restoration and protection, invasive species,
    encroachments, and a multitude of other issues has been greatly
    compromised due to past years budget cuts. As a result, wildlife
    populations are under stress with limited ``safe havens'' to recover.
                                     ______

         Prepared Statement of the Skokomish Tribe of Washington State

        My name is Dave Hererra, I serve as the Fish and Wildlife Policy
    Representative for the Skokomish Tribe. I am here to present testimony
    on behalf of Denese LaClair, 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 increased funding in
    areas that are key to the continuing development of tribal communities.

                       BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS PROGRAMS

        Indian Reservation Road Maintenance.--While many of the cuts in the
    President's fiscal year 2009 Budget proposal we have seen in the past,
    for the first time the administration has proposed a 50 percent
    reduction in the BIA road maintenance funds, from $26 million to $13
    million. The administration's justification for this cut is that
    SAFETEA-LU provided that 25 percent of the funding available to tribes
    for construction can now be used for road maintenance. Not only is the
    administration's proposal contrary to SAFETEA-LU but to the
    overwhelming statistics regarding the State of roads in Indian country.
    For the period between 1975-2002, while the incident of fatal crashes
    on Federal highways decreased by 2.2 percent, the number of fatal
    crashes on Indian reservations increased by 52.4 percent. The National
    Congress of American Indians has asked for the IRR maintenance program
    to be funded at $100 million. While this may not be possible, it
    certainly illustrates the absurdity of the administration's cut.
        For Skokomish, we have made road improvements and maintenance a
    high priority, because we know too well the impacts of having unsafe
    roads. Just last month, a 10-year-old boy was hit by a car riding his
    bicycle. If we had a shoulder and a sidewalk where the little boy
    entered the road, it is very likely that he would not have been hit by
    the car. However, under the administration's proposal instead of making
    these important road improvements, we will be forced to use these
    limited resources for road maintenance.
        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 $2.9 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 1 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.
        To address this, we join in the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs'
    request for a $10 million increase over the fiscal year 2008 funding
    level. We also join the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs in its
    request that this funding be allocated proportionately to BIA and
    Tribal law enforcement agencies. Currently, the BIA proposes to use any
    increase to fill BIA law enforcement personnel positions, while the
    majority of law enforcement activity (78 percent) is undertaken by
    tribally operated police agencies. Thus, we propose that at least 78
    percent of any increase should be allocated to tribal law enforcement
    agencies.
        Tribal Courts.--The administration's proposed increase for
    policing, comes at the cost of Tribal Courts. The administration
    proposes a $2.5 million cut to the tribal court program. Having a fair
    and qualified judiciary is the bedrock of any government's justice
    system. Skokomish has long understood this. In 1963, the Skokomish
    Tribe was the first Tribe in the Northwest (and one of the first in the
    country) to institute a tribal court to address fishing violations on
    the Skokomish River. The first Tribal Judge was a 33 year old nurse and
    mother of five (at that time), Anne Pavel. Mrs. Pavel was not law
    trained nor had she received any judicial training. She was simply a
    dedicated tribal member, who understood the importance of regulating
    fishing on the Skokomish River. She held her first hearing in a
    building heated by a coal stove, with her brother as her court
    reporter.
        While the responsibility and scope of tribal courts have greatly
    increased in the 45 years since Mrs. Pavel's first hearing, the Bureau
    of Indian Affairs has not provided these important institutions with
    the commensurate level of funding. Today, Tribal Courts handle huge
    criminal, civil and juvenile dockets, which could not be handled by the
    already over burdened State and Federal courts. It is a sad reality
    that many tribal courts are still housed in ramshackle buildings. Most
    of our courts cannot afford to provide public defenders and many do not
    have law trained prosecutors. Fortunately, through the dedicated work
    our Tribal leaders most of our judges are now law trained.
    Nevertheless, the administration proposes a $2.5 million cut to this
    program. We urge the committee to reject this cut and to fund this
    program to at least $15 million--which is $700,000 more than last
    year's level.
        Education.--We remain disappointed by the administration's repeated
    proposed cuts to critical education programs like Johnson O'Malley and
    Higher Education. The Johnson O'Malley program provides funding to
    local public schools to provide outreach and academic assistance to
    Indian children attending these schools. The Skokomish Tribe is equally
    disappointed that the administration proposes a $6 million cut to
    scholarships and adult education. For any of our people 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.

                        ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

        The Skokomish Tribe would like to thank the committee for your
    commitment to maintaining funding for key environmental programs and in
    particular for the State Tribal Assistance Grant provided to the
    Skokomish Tribe for the development of our wastewater system. This
    effort is the linchpin to our collaborative efforts to the restore the
    health of the Hood Canal, the jewel of the Puget Sound. The Tribe, the
    County and the PUD are now working on an amendment to our historic tri-
    party agreement, which will facilitate the implementation of the STAG
    grant.
        The Hood Canal is threatened by the Low Dissolved Oxygen levels
    (LDOL), which means this vital ecosystem is essentially suffocating.
    LDOL is caused by many things, but primarily the cause is the sewage
    that is discharged directly into the Hood Canal. LDOL has caused a
    number of fish kills in the Hood Canal and the Hood Canal to be closed
    to other seafood harvesting throughout the year. This impacts the
    economy of not only the Skokomish Tribe but the entire region. But to
    the Skokomish, it is much bigger than our economy it is our culture.
    The Hood Canal is the place where we have for centuries gathered and
    prayed. In recent times this has not always been possible. Just this
    year, one of our ceremonial women leaders had to step over dead fish to
    enter the water to pray. This is unconscionable and the dedicated
    effort to address this issue must continue.
        We urge the committee to reject the administration's proposed $134
    million cut to the Clean Water State Revolving Fund. Again, the
    Skokomish Tribe greatly appreciates the State Tribal Assistance Grant
    provided by the committee, but we have encountered a great deal of red
    tape at EPA in seeking to implement this grant, in particular with
    regard to the matching funds requirement. EPA requires that all the
    matching funds be in as we expend the EPA grant on a dollar for dollar
    basis. We would urge that that this requirement be changed so that the
    matching funds requirement be shown to have been met by the end of the
    grant. In alternative, the Tribe and the County have expended more than
    $600,000 to date in funds in planning and design of the wastewater
    system, which we would like EPA to consider as fulfilling the matching
    fund requirements.

                             INDIAN HEALTH SERVICE

        The need for increased funding for health care throughout Indian
    country is well known. Yet the administration proposes an overall net
    decrease of $21.3 million in funding for the Indian Health Service.
    This overall decrease does not even reflect the true cut that tribal
    programs will experience as a result of inflation and population
    increases. The Indian Health Service estimates that it needs a $144.1
    million increase to provide for IHS and tribal pay costs, medical
    inflation and population growth. This shortfalls will result in
    reductions in health services to patients and the reduction in health
    status for Indian people overall.
        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. 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.

                             CONTRACT SUPPORT COSTS

        For both the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Indian Health Service
    it is critical for the committee to fully fund Contract Support Costs.
    Currently IHS is facing a $110 million shortfall in Contract Support
    Cost funding and the Bureau of Indian Affairs is facing a $40 million
    backlog. This backlog has resulted in IHS refusing to enter into any
    new Indian Self-Determination Act contracts, which a Federal court has
    found to be illegal. The Indian Self-Determination Act, which allows
    tribes to take over BIA and IHS programs, is the only Federal program
    that has truly worked in Indian country. Study after study has shown
    that tribal governments operate these programs more efficiently and
    more effectively than the Federal Government. A key to this success is
    full funding for Contract Support Costs, which is to afford a tribe all
    the resources that the Federal Government would have to operate a
    program. Unfortunately year after year, Contract Support Costs are not
    fully funded and tribal programs are forced to absorb these costs
    through cuts in programs.

                     TRIBAL HISTORIC PRESERVATION PROGRAMS

        In 1995, Congress began encouraging tribes to assume historic
    preservation responsibilities as part of self-determination. There are
    currently 76 tribes in the U.S. 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; there are now more than 50 THPOs, with the
    average now receiving approximately $50,000. Paradoxically, the more
    successful the program becomes, the less each tribe receives to
    maintain professional services, ultimately crippling the programs. We
    thank the Subcommittee for the $1 million increase provided to THPOs
    last year, but more funding is needed. We ask that $13.7 million be
    provided for Tribal Historic Preservation Officers (THPOs), which would
    provide a modest base funding amount of $180,000 per THPO program.

                                   CONCLUSION

        I want to thank the subcommittee for the opportunity to present
    testimony on these important issues.
                                     ______

            Prepared Statement of the Society of American Foresters

        The Society of American Foresters (SAF), with over 14,000 forestry
    professionals located across the country in all segments of the
    profession, believes in sound and scientifically-based management and
    stewardship of the nation's public and private forests. Funding for the
    Department of the Interior (DOI) and the USDA Forest Service (USFS),
    both contained within the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies
    Appropriations bill, play particularly important roles in maintaining,
    conserving, and improving the Nation's forests.
        The 755 million acres of forests in the United States are
    undergoing constant pressures from wildfires, insect infestations, and
    other catastrophic disturbances, conversion to competing non-forest
    land uses, and the effects of climate change on forest types and
    health, as well as on wildlife habitat. Simultaneously, our Nation's
    forests are expected to provide recreational opportunities (more than
    137 million annual visits to national forests alone), as well as supply
    the economic services and goods demanded by society. However, the
    direction in which Federal budgets are moving makes resisting these
    pressures and delivering these forest goods all the more difficult--in
    large part due to the increasing percentage of the agencies' budgets
    consumed by wildfire preparedness and suppression.
        The SAF remains concerned and committed to the sustainability of
    our Nation's forests. Such sustainability implies and demands a balance
    of the social, environmental and economic values realized from
    forests--a balance that is presently at risk of being upset. To help
    resist these pressures, to ensure the sustainable delivery of forest-
    related goods and services, and to ensure the future of this critical
    natural resource, the SAF urges a focus in three funding areas and the
    range of programs within the DOI and USFS budgets that address these
    key areas (as outlined below). The SAF's key priorities are:
        1. Forest health on both public and private forests
        2. Forest research and inventory
        3. Private forest conservation

                                 FOREST HEALTH

        Today, more than 190 million acres of Federal forests and over 90
    million acres of non-federal forests are threatened by a potent
    combination of wildfire, insects, diseases, invasive species, and other
    factors. To address these ongoing threats, sufficient resources must be
    allocated to management programs capable of preparing and mitigating
    for their effects. To adequately address these issues, the SAF urges
    funding levels above the administration's fiscal year 2009 proposed
    budgets for the forest health programs and wildland fire accounts in
    both the Forest Service and the Department of the Interior as outlined
    in detail below.
        Wildfire Suppression.--The SAF remains deeply concerned over the
    rising costs of wildfire suppression efforts, and more importantly, the
    increasing percentage of the agencies' budgets devoted to that
    activity.
        The borrowing of funds from non-wildfire accounts during the course
    of each fire season presents severe challenges to the agencies' other
    programs. This leads directly to the inability to deliver the goods and
    services demanded by society, and that are crucial to the agencies'
    missions. This is no more apparent than in the case of the Forest
    Service: the percentage of the agency's budget dedicated to wildland
    fire suppression has risen to 43 percent for fiscal year 2009.
    Suppression costs in the Forest Service alone are nearly $1 billion, up
    from less that $600 million only 7 years ago. This trend is forcing the
    agency to retreat to what it considers its ``core'' missions--which
    will in turn force undesirable effects on a large portion of the
    agency's programs, and on the forests that depend on those programs.
    Congress must, therefore, both address the consumption of critical
    agency programs by the ever-expanding wildfire budget, as well as
    continue to urge the agencies to adopt cost-containment measures and
    increased accountability for wildfire suppression activities.
        Reducing Hazardous Fuels.--Any effort to address wildfire threats
    mandates addressing the accumulation of hazardous fuels on the forested
    landscape. The USFS and the DOI programs to do so are critical
    components to ensuring forest health and reducing suppression costs
    over the long-term. Efforts by the agencies to treat such fuels should
    be prioritized to focus on Condition Class 3 lands, on restoring
    natural fires regimes, on mitigating and adapting to the anticipated
    effects of climate change on fire hazards, and on protecting at-risk
    communities where appropriate. The agencies should also be encouraged
    to better coordinate the expanded use of wildland fire to meet fuel
    reduction goals where suitable. The SAF supports the fiscal year 2008
    enacted levels for hazardous fuels accounts for both the USFS and DOI,
    and suggests fiscal year 2009 funding at or above those levels.

                         FOREST RESEARCH AND INVENTORY

        With 58 million acres of forest at significant risk for insect or
    disease mortality and with the available dollars for forest-related
    research falling nationwide, it is imperative that the funding for
    research provided by both the USFS and DOI not likewise diminish.
    Investments in forestry research are investments in the future health
    and suitability of both public and private forests nationwide. The
    Nation's forestry research is conducted by a number of entities,
    including Federal agencies, universities and private industry, with the
    majority of the Federal funding focused within the USDA Forest Research
    and Development Program. USFS R&D conducts essential research on
    pressing topics such as climate change, insect infestations and
    pathogen treatments, renewable energy development and woody biomass
    conversion technology, forest products research to maintain the
    competitiveness of the U.S. industry, and in areas such as social
    science to better understand how to improve the agency's relationship
    with the public and to better meet the public's needs. SAF urges a
    moderate elevation in funding to a level of $290 million for the USFS
    Research and Development program.
        Forest Inventory and Analysis.--Though now included within the
    broader Inventory and Monitoring R&D, the USFS Forest Inventory and
    Analysis (FIA) program is the backbone of forestry knowledge in the
    United States providing the only national census of forests across all
    forest ownerships. The program forms the foundation of much of the
    analysis that is occurring on national trends affecting forest lands,
    including forest fragmentation, forest health, and climate change
    effects. Through FIA, the USFS partners with State forestry agencies
    and the private sector in a unique data sharing relationship whereby
    the Nation as a whole truly benefits from this research. We strongly
    urge Congress to fully support the administration's proposed increase
    of $1.9 million and fully fund the FIA program at $73 million in fiscal
    year 2009--any FIA decreases resulting from proposed decreases in State
    and Private Forestry should be considered so that the FIA program does
    not see a net decline in funding.

                          PRIVATE FOREST CONSERVATION

        Private forests comprise some 427 million acres in the United
    States. All of these forests face a suite of challenges: forest health
    concerns, pressures to convert to non-forest uses as land values rise,
    and changing markets for forest products and overseas competition.
    Forty-four million acres of these forests are at substantial risk of
    increases in housing density in the next 30 years. In many ways these
    private forest are some of the nation's most important, as they can be
    managed for the broadest array of outputs--they are the source of the
    majority of the nation's wood supply, and provide recreational
    opportunities, wildlife habitat, and are a source of clean air and
    water, as well as an important aesthetic component to urban, suburban,
    and exurban regions. Programs within the USFS State and Private
    Forestry help encourage private forest landowners to continue to manage
    their lands as forests, and in a sustainable fashion. Maintaining these
    forests is becoming even more critical in light of the role of forests
    in carbon sequestration, and the resultant carbon emissions when those
    forests are lost. We are deeply concerned that the administration
    proposes such a drastic cut in the programs critical to private
    landowners within the State and Private area. The SAF strongly urges
    restoring the State and Private forest program to $207.5 million.

                                             U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
                                                [In millions of dollars]
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                       Fiscal years
                                                                     -----------------------------------------------
                                 Program                                                                 2009 SAF
                                                                       2008  enacted  2009  proposed  recommendation
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    DOI Wildland Fire Management Total..............................           808.0           850.1           941.1
                                                                     -----------------------------------------------
    Preparedness....................................................           276.5           277.7           300.7
    Suppression.....................................................           289.8           335.2           350.2
    Hazardous Fuels.................................................           199.6           202.8           250.8
    Joint Fire Science..............................................             5.9  ..............             5.0
                                                                     ===============================================
    BLM Public Domain Forest Management.............................            10.6             9.5            10.6
                                                                     ===============================================
    BLM OR and CA Grant Lands Total.................................           108.5           108.3           109.0
                                                                     ===============================================
    Forest and Rangeland Research (R&D).............................           285.9           263.0           290.9
                                                                     ===============================================
    State and Private Forestry......................................           262.8           109.5           207.5
                                                                     -----------------------------------------------
    Forest Health Management--Fed...................................            54.1            45.0            50.0
    Forest Health Management--Coop..................................            44.5            10.0            40.0
    State Fire Assistance...........................................            32.6            25.0            30.0
    Volunteer Fire Assistance.......................................             5.9             5.0             5.0
    Forest Stewardship..............................................            29.5             5.0            20.0
    Forest Legacy...................................................            52.3            12.5            45.0
    Urban and Community Forestry....................................            27.7             5.0            15.0
    Economic Action Programs........................................             4.2  ..............  ..............
    International Forestry..........................................             7.4             2.0             2.0
                                                                     ===============================================
          National Forest System Total..............................         1,469.6         1,344.5         1,358.5
                                                                     -----------------------------------------------
    Land Management Planning........................................            48.8            52.6            52.6
    Inventory and Monitoring........................................           166.6           146.5           160.5
    Recreation, Wilderness & Heritage...............................           262.6           237.0           237.0
    Forest Products.................................................           322.5           322.7           322.7
    Vegetation and Watershed Management.............................           177.4           165.3           165.3
                                                                     ===============================================
          Wildland Fire Management Total............................         1,943.5         1,976.6         2,107.6
                                                                     -----------------------------------------------
    Preparedness....................................................           665.8           588.4           675.4
    Suppression.....................................................           845.6           993.9           993.9
    Hazardous Fuels.................................................           310.1           297.0           325.0
    Rehab & Restoration.............................................            10.8  ..............            10.0
    Fire Research and Development...................................            23.5            22.0            23.0
    Joint Fire Sciences Program.....................................             7.9             8.0             8.0
    NFP Forest Health--Fed..........................................            14.0            14.3            14.3
    NFP Forest Health--Coop Lands...................................             9.9            10.0            10.0
    NFP State Fire Assistance.......................................            50.0            35.0            40.0
    NFP Volunteer Fire Assistance...................................             7.9             8.0             8.0
                                                                     ===============================================
          Capital Improvement & Maintenance.........................           488.8           405.8           410.8
                                                                     -----------------------------------------------
    Facilities......................................................           121.8           119.6           119.6
    Roads...........................................................           227.9           227.0           227.0
    Trails..........................................................            76.4            50.0            55.0
    Deferred Maintenance............................................             9.0             9.1             9.1
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                     ______

      Prepared Statement of the Southern Appalachian Highlands Conservancy

        Madam Chairman and honorable members of the subcommittee: As a
    Trustee of the Southern Appalachian Highlands Conservancy I appreciate
    the opportunity to provide testimony on behalf of an important land
    acquisition funding need in the Pisgah National Forest in North
    Carolina. I am supporting an appropriation of $1.875 million from the
    Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) in fiscal year 2009 to acquire
    the 290-acre Roan/Atria parcel in the Roan Highlands.
        As you know, Mr. Chairman, this project is one of many worthy
    acquisition projects nationwide seeking LWCF funding. Unfortunately
    since fiscal year 2002, funding for LWCF has diminished by about 75
    percent, and the fiscal year 2009 Budget proposes further cuts. These
    reductions have left our national parks, refuges, and forests unable to
    acquire from willing sellers critical inholdings and adjacent lands
    that have been identified to protect and enhance recreational access,
    historic sites, wildlife habitats, scenic areas, water resources, and
    other important features. I urge the subcommittee to increase overall
    funding for this program in fiscal year 2009.
        Modern American forestry began in what is now the Pisgah National
    Forest. This ``Cradle of Forestry'' came into being when the Biltmore
    Forest School--the first American school of forestry--was opened in
    1898 on property owned by George Vanderbilt. After Vanderbilt's death
    in 1914, the area was sold to the Federal Government and became one of
    the first portions of the Pisgah National Forest. The first forest
    supervisor was Gifford Pinchot, who later became the first chief of the
    U.S. Forest Service.
        The Toecane Ranger District of the Pisgah National Forest lies
    north of Asheville between the Blue Ridge Parkway just and the
    Tennessee State line. Its name is a combination of the names of the two
    main rivers in the area, the Toe River and the Cane River. With its
    spectacular wildflowers, the Toecane Ranger District contains some of
    the most beautiful mountain scenery in the east. Some of the main
    identifying features of the district are Roan Mountain, which straddles
    the North Carolina-Tennessee border, and Mt. Mitchell, the highest
    point in North Carolina.
        The Appalachian National Scenic Trail is the Nation's oldest and
    most revered long-distance trail. Established in 1925, it was
    designated the Nation's first national scenic trail in 1968. The
    Appalachian Trail crosses six national parks, eight national forests,
    14 States, and numerous State and local forests and parks. Recreation
    opportunities along the trail include hiking, camping, hunting,
    fishing, observing wildlife, rock climbing, and picnicking. The trail
    as a whole includes lands containing more than 2,000 rare, threatened,
    endangered, and sensitive plant and animal species. The Appalachian
    Trail covers 17 miles over the Roan Highlands, which include Roan
    Mountain in the Toecane Ranger District of the Pisgah National Forest.
    This section of the trail over the Roan Highlands contains some of the
    most scenic views on the entire trail.
        The Roan Highlands are home to the best remaining examples of three
    endangered high-elevation ecosystems: grassy balds, red spruce/Fraser
    fir forests, and granite outcrops and cliffs. On the Roan massif there
    are more nationally or regionally ranked rare species then at any other
    site in the Southern Appalachians. The Roan Highlands also contains the
    world's largest natural rhododendron garden, covering 600 acres.
        The 290-acre Roan/Atria tract on Big Yellow Mountain is located
    within the Roan Highlands and makes up fifty-percent of the viewshed
    from the Appalachian Trail's Overmountain Shelter. Additionally, it is
    within the viewshed--and joins the corridor--of the Overmountain
    Victory National Historic Trail, which follows the Revolutionary War
    route of Patriot militiamen. The tract comprises much of the east slope
    of Roaring Creek Valley, which was identified as the ``Prettiest Valley
    in America'' by Backpacker Magazine in October 2007. The Roan/Atria
    tract is comprised of northern hardwood forest, old-growth beech and
    oak groves, and includes portions of the globally imperiled Southern
    Appalachian Grassy Bald ecosystem. Home to black bear, ruffed grouse,
    wild turkey, the tract is part of a critical wildlife corridor
    identified in the State Wildlife Action Plan. It also contains Sandbank
    Creek, which holds the native Southern Appalchian Brook Trout, and
    hosts the upper watershed of the North Toe River, a high quality trout
    stream. The entire tract is identified as an Audubon IBA (Important
    Bird Area.) The Roan/Atria acquisition would join 17,000 acres of
    already protected lands, including adjacent Pisgah National Forest
    lands, the Nature Conservancy's Big Yellow Mountain Preserve, and
    preserves owned by the Southern Appalachian Highlands Conservancy.
        This subject land is under immediate threat of development into
    vacation homes. The landowner has already received county approval on
    plans for 107 home lots. In fiscal year 2009, $1.875 million from the
    Land and Water Conservation Fund directed to the Pisgah National Forest
    is needed to permanently acquire and protect the Roan/Atria tract and
    preserve the Appalachian Trail viewshed for future generations. These
    funds will be matched by $1.85 million in private donations,
    significantly reducing the cost of acquisition to the federal agency.
    In addition, the funds will leverage a 150 acre donated conservation
    easement from the landowner, bringing to 442 acres the area under
    protection. The contract agreement, which is currently being reduced to
    writing, secures the site until December 31, 2008.
        Thank you again, Madam Chairman, for the opportunity to present
    this testimony in support of protecting this important property in
    western North Carolina.
                                     ______

                      Prepared Statement of Marie Springer

        Madam Chairman and Honorable Members of the Committee: I am
    grateful to have the opportunity to submit testimony for public witness
    on Department of the Interior agencies. I write to you in support of
    $1,006,500,000.00 last year's level and $38 million more than the
    $968,500,000.00 of the Presidents budget for the United States
    Geological Survey, fiscal year 2009. Their focus is on research as a
    priority for fiscal year 2009. I would like to see the Biological
    Information Management and Delivery Department be funded at $22,596,000
    at last years level with a staff of 72, this department is suffering
    staffing cuts as every other department in the USGS is. The information
    these people produce is essential to the overall well being of the
    citizens of this country, just as the Centers for Disease Control is
    essential to the health an well being of the American public. The USGS
    is the one Federal Agency that conducts and maintains data in a uniform
    consistent system available for all agencies and the general public.
        I am a Beekeeper. By now, I am sure you have all heard of Colony
    Collapse Disorder, of the Honey Bee. There have been many hearings on
    this issue and some funds have been awarded for research on this
    matter. The Honey Bee is only one pollinator of many in our country.
    Many researchers feel they are all in decline.
        Bees and wasps are a linchpin species in the ecological system,
    meaning the rest of the food chain depends on them for their food
    sources. Seventy five percent of all human food sources are pollinated
    by bees or wasps. Honey bees are just one of about two dozen introduced
    species of bees to this continent. Besides the honey bees there are
    about 800 native bees on the Eastern side of the United States and more
    than 2,000 on the West coast of our country. Wasps are another family
    that also pollinate and serve a beneficial purpose in the food chain.
    We need accurate counts on all these pollinators, in order to fully
    understand declines in populations and their influence on pollination
    of crops.
        The United States Geological Survey, with many partners, is
    conducting a Native Bee Survey, nationwide. This research sampling
    collecting and compiling is being done by the USGS, the United States
    fish and Wildlife Service, national Parks Service Army Scientists,
    Smithsonian, the American Museum of Natural History many Universities
    and their Graduate and Doctoral students, Interns as well as average
    Joe-citizen volunteers, like me.
        This research requires individuals going out into the field every
    few weeks to trap and collect bee specimens. After cleaning drying and
    pinning the specimens there are hours of identification under a
    microscope. The USGS, with its partners, have held and continue to hold
    Bee Identification courses for free in order to have enough researchers
    with the skills to identify the many bee species.
        The research is not only significant to the over all environment
    but also specifically to agriculture industry. Honey Bees will always
    be vulnerable to pathogens and parasites because they are not native
    and their immune systems are more vulnerable than native species. CCD
    has made it clear we must ready our selves with alternative sources for
    pollinating crops. The USGS is conducting that research in coordination
    with other agencies. We must perform more research on the types of bees
    and the quantities of native bee species. We need accurate numbers to
    determine if we have lost species since the last studies were performed
    40 years ago. With this information we can begin to chart what bees
    pollinate what plants. There are plant species that are also
    diminishing, we can begin to look at whether or not those plant species
    are loosing their pollinators. We also need this data to determine what
    invasive plant species are being pollinated by which bee species.
        The USGS is charged with performing Surveys and data collection
    that are used by other Federal agencies such as United States Fish and
    Wildlife, Department of Agriculture, Department of Forestry, National
    Parks, Army Corp of Engineers, Department of Defense, the Bureau of
    Land management, Department of Commerce, NASA, Water Resources, many
    non-governmental environmental organizations as well as State and local
    governments and private industry. Just as the bees are a linchpin
    species in the environment, the USGS is a linchpin in Federal Agencies
    and the source for scientific data. The USGS data collection is the
    basis for much of the scientific and environmental priorities in our
    Nation. This country is completely dependent on the research and data
    collection of the USGS. Please take this into consideration in your
    funding priorities.
        Thank you for taking the time and consideration.
                                     ______

                 Prepared Statement of the Squaxin Island Tribe

        Thank you distinguished members of this subcommittee for allowing
    me to submit my testimony on behalf of the Squaxin Island Tribe for our
    funding requests in the fiscal year 2009 Budgets for the Bureau of
    Indian Affairs (BIA) and the Indian Health Service (IHS).
                            tribal specific requests
        1. 12 percent increase in Contract Health Service in the IHS to
    address inflation and shortfall in the IHS Operating Plan.
        2. $750,000 for Public Health and Safety of the Squaxin Island
    Community in the BIA.
        3. Fulfill Puget Sound Regional Shellfish Settlement Commitment in
    the BIA.

                 SUPPORT REGIONAL REQUESTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

        1. Northwest Portland Area Indian Health Board
        2. Affiliated Tribes of Northwest Indians
        3. Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission
       support self-governance and national requests and recommendations
    Indian Health Service
        1. $160 million increase for 100 percent full funding for IHS
    Contract Support Cost
        2. $486 million increase for IHS mandatory, inflation and
    population
        3. $152 million increase for Contract Health Service in IHS to
    support total request of President and House/Senate Indian Affairs
    Committees of Jurisdiction
        4. Increase $5 million to the Indian Health Service Office of
    Tribal Self-Governance
        5. Restore funding for Urban Indian Health Program
    Bureau of Indian Affairs
        1. $25 million increase for Tribal Priority Allocations (TPA)--
    general increase for core programs
        2. $50 million increase for 100 percent full funding of direct and
    indirect contract support costs
        3. Tribal Government--Self-Governance: Restore $13.6 million in
    Housing Improvement Program (HIP) in BIA-Tribal Priority Allocation
    Account and $21.4 million in Johnson O'Malley Assistance Grants (JOM)
        4. Address 45 percent unmet need for Law Enforcement officers and
    provide annual increases in Tribal Public Safety and Health programs
    for Tribal communities
        5. Support all requests and recommendations of the National
    Congress of American Indians and National Indian Health Board
        The Squaxin Island Tribe, a signatory of the 1854 Medicine Creek
    Treaty, is located in Kamilche, Washington in SE Mason County. The 2008
    year-end Tribal member enrollment was of 930. Squaxin has an estimated
    service area population of 2,767, a growth rate of about 10 percent,
    and an unemployment rate of about 30 percent, according to the BIA
    Labor Force Report. According to the Mason County Economic Development
    Council, Squaxin is the largest employer in Mason County.

                   RESCISSIONS ON FUNDING FOR INDIAN PROGRAMS

        The Squaxin Island Tribe requests that the Committee includes
    language in the appropriations bill that will direct the Bureau of
    Indian Affairs and the Indian Health Service not to impose rescissions
    on funds for Indian programs. Funds that are already inadequate to
    address the level of need of the Tribal beneficiaries should not be
    subjected to additional reductions. However, if a mandatory rescission
    is applied to all Federal programs, we ask that Indian programs not be
    required to absorb a disproportionate loss of funds with a double
    rescission on these funds.

                    TRIBAL SPECIFIC REQUESTS JUSTIFICATIONS:

        1. 12 percent increase in Contract Health Service in the IHS to
    address inflation and shortfall in the IHS Operating Plan.--The Squaxin
    Island Tribe's Sally Salvage Clinic serves approximately 2,000 patients
    every year. Twenty-three percent of the patients are children under 18
    and about 20 percent are over age 55. The President's budget proposes a
    $9.0 million increase over the 2008 enacted level, which is still
    insufficient to address the need that exists and continues to rise in
    Indian Country. For contract health-dependent areas like the Northwest
    with no IHS hospitals in the area, we have to purchase specialists'
    services, laboratory and radiological services and hospital care at
    undiscounted rates. The proposed increase for 2009 will be less than an
    $11,000 increase in our Contract Health Services budget will not cover
    our increased costs for radiology or labs, much less the increases we
    expect to pay for hospital care.
        The Squaxin Island Tribe, despite redirecting own-source revenues
    to its health program, continues to defer needed medical care for its
    tribal members and other Indian patients. Despite innovative practices
    and the addition of a one day a week Indian Medical Doctor this year,
    the Tribe's contract health services budget is insufficient to pay for
    needed care. The Tribe would much prefer to provide care through its
    IHS program, but the reality is that many will have to forgo needed
    care, apply for hospital charity care, or see their hospital bills go
    to collections. The main reason is the 7 year deterioration in funding
    for the IHS budget, particularly the underfunding of the Contract
    Health Services line item. It is this line item that pays for the care
    we do not provide in our clinic. The Tribe supports the recommendations
    of the Northwest Portland Area Indian Health Board in its fiscal year
    2009 IHS Budget Analysis and Recommendations. That analysis finds that
    a $355 million increase is needed to maintain current services. Our
    Tribe supports that level of funding as the minimum required in fiscal
    year 2009.
        2. $750,000 for the Squaxin Island Department of Public Health and
    Safety to hire six (6) additional FTE officers for 24-hour coverage in
    order to ensure the safety of the community and a Public Defender.--
    Public Safety is a high priority for the Squaxin Island Tribe. The
    Squaxin Island Tribal Public Safety and Justice Department is dedicated
    to protecting lives, maintaining peace and ensuring that the property
    and resources of the Squaxin Island Tribe are protected through the
    enforcement of the laws and regulations set forth by the Squaxin Island
    Tribal Council. Law enforcement officers patrol the reservation, South
    Puget waterways and usual and accustomed hunting areas, protecting
    human life and natural resources upon which Tribal members rely on for
    cultural and economic sustenance.
        The Squaxin Island Public Safety and Justice Department has
    continued to operate on funding levels insufficient to meet the needs
    of this Department and our community. This has resulted in operating a
    program at minimum capacity, which has placed a negative impact on the
    service level provided to the Squaxin Island Community. The process of
    protecting the public is hampered by the lack of officers to provide
    the 24-hour coverage, which is very critical in life and death
    situations.
        The Public Safety Department successfully manages Squaxin Island
    Tribal Court, which consists of three divisions: a tribal court, an
    appeals court and an employment court. The Department also manages a
    shellfish and geoduck harvesting monitoring program. Officers are
    trained in scuba diving and assist with compliance and safety issues.
        A Public Defender is needed for the justice program. Currently the
    Tribe is under contract to provide legal representation to the
    community members. The court caseload and number of police calls
    continue to grow at an increasing rate. Current funding is inadequate
    to meet the needs of the growing community, protect natural resources
    and to fully participate in regional and homeland security programs and
    initiatives.
        The Tribe is enhancing the shellfish habitat and production
    programs, which has increased the demand on the water enforcement
    program to address issues of illegal harvesting. With current funding
    and staffing levels, it will be almost impossible to adequately protect
    the Tribe's investment in enhancing natural resources. The Squaxin
    Island Tribe is seeking both long-term and immediate assistance.
        In the long term, BIA funding for law enforcement and public safety
    programs needs to be significantly increased. According to a gap
    analysis performed by the BIA in 2006 based on the FBI's 2004 Uniform
    Crime Report (UCR), there is a 42 percent unmet need of law enforcement
    officers in Indian Country. And, the Community Oriented Policing
    Services (COPS) grant program that has benefited Tribal communities and
    law enforcement hiring and staffing needs is recommended for
    termination under the PART fiscal year 2008 Performance Budget.
        3. $5 million to fulfill Puget Sound Regional Shellfish Settlement
    Commitment.--The BIA Indian Land and Water Claim Settlements Account
    must include $7 million for the Puget Sound Regional Shellfish
    Settlement. The Federal Government is committed under terms of recently
    enacted legislation to fully fund the shellfish settlement. To complete
    the Federal obligation, $7 million is due in fiscal year 2008 and $5
    million for fiscal year 2009--fiscal year 2011.
    Squaxin Island Tribe Supports Regional Requests and Recommendations
        1. Northwest Portland Area Indian Health Board
        2. Affiliated Tribes of Northwest Indians
        3. Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission

    SQUAXIN ISLAND TRIBE SUPPORTS SELF-GOVERNANCE AND NATIONAL REQUESTS AND
                                RECOMMENDATIONS

    Bureau of Indian Affairs
        1. Restore Johnson O'Malley funds ($21.4 million); and Housing
    Improvement Funds ($13.6 million) to Tribal base programs
        2. Provide $25 million General Increase to BIA Tribal Priority
    Allocation for inflationary and fixed costs
        3. Provide $45 million increase for BIA Contract Support Cost
    (CSC), including Direct CSC
        4. $500,000 for BIA Data Management funding of Office of Program
    Data Quality
    Indian Health Service
        5. Provide $486 million for IHS mandatory, inflation and population
    growth increase to maintain existing health care services (President's
    budget proposes a cut of $21.3 million)
        6. $152 million increase for Contract Health Services (CHS)
        7. $160 million increase for IHS to fully fund Contract Support
    Cost (CSC), including Direct CSC (recent increases have been dedicated
    for new and expended Public Law 93-638 programs and will require Tribes
    to waive their rights to CSC as a condition to the award of any new
    Self-Determination or Self-Governance agreements. It is because of this
    waiver requirement that Tribes have refrained from assuming programs
    under Public Law 93-638. Further such a requirement is contrary to the
    intent of Congress and the principles of ISDEAA. We request that
    Congress intervenes and prohibits the IHS new waiver policy and address
    the funding of CSC for new initiatives)
        8. Increase $5 million to the Indian Health Service (IHS) Office of
    Tribal Self-Governance (Restore $4.7 million decrease in fiscal year
    2002 and $.3 million in shortfalls, pay costs increases and inflation.
    Self-Governance serves as a model initiative for Federal outsourcing,
    which supports the strengthening of Tribal infrastructure and provides
    quality health services to Tribal members.)
        9. Restore $21 million for health care facilities construction (Due
    to the completion of project construction stages for health care
    facilities, the administration proposes to reduce the 2008 level of $37
    million by $21 million in fiscal year 2009. These funds are critical to
    address the health facilities construction priority system that has
    been under a moratorium since 1992. Until the existing listing is
    updated and completed, the new facility construction requests comprise
    a plethora of health facilities construction needs in Indian Country.)
        10. Maintain annual funding for Special Diabetes Program for
    Indians (SDPI) at $150 million until new authority is enacted (Current
    extended authority for Special Diabetes Program for Indians will expire
    in 2009)
        On behalf of the Squaxin Island Tribal Council and Tribal members,
    thank you for this opportunity.
                                     ______

                Prepared Statement of Standing Rock Sioux Tribal

        My name is Ron His Horse Is Thunder. I am the chairman of the
    Standing Rock Sioux Tribe. I am honored to report on the conditions of
    the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe as they relate to the programs of the
    Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) in the president's fiscal year 2009
    budget. I want to thank this subcommittee, its chairman and members,
    for their steadfast support of Indian tribes. We need your continued
    vigilance to ensure that the Federal Government honors its trust
    responsibility to the Nation's First Americans.
        The Standing Rock Sioux Tribe is situated in North and South
    Dakota. The Reservation comprises 2.3 million acres, of which 1.4
    million acres is Tribally owned and Tribal owned allotted lands. About
    10,000 Tribal members and non-members reside on the Reservation in
    eight communities and in smaller towns. The Tribe's primary industry is
    cattle ranching and farming. We operate the Standing Rock Farms, two
    Tribal casinos, and a sand and gravel operation which help us
    supplement services and programs for our nearly 14,000 enrolled
    members. We are a ``direct service'' Tribe for the delivery of health
    care services from the Indian Health Service and law enforcement
    services from the BIA. While the Tribe is making its best effort to
    remediate the social and economic challenges we face, we continue to
    lag behind every national standard which measures health and prosperity
    of Americans.
        We have persistent unemployment, a high drop out rate among our
    high school students, and over 40 percent of Indian families on our
    reservation live in poverty. In 2007, over 1,000 member households on
    Standing Rock had family income of 30 percent-80 percent of median
    family income in the area. The majority of our Tribal elders suffer
    from diabetes, heart disease and hypertension. Less than 4 percent of
    our members are above the age of 65. Accidents are the leading cause of
    death among our members. Despite the well documented needs in Indian
    country for basic governmental services, the president's fiscal year
    2009 budget further reduces the Federal Government's commitment and
    trust responsibility to Native people. It is time to reverse this
    harmful trend so that Indian Tribes and our members can compete in
    today's global economy. During economic downturns, it is rural America,
    and Indian reservations in particular, which are hit especially hard.
        I will focus my remarks on my Tribe's needs in the areas of Public
    Safety, Education, Economic Development, and Natural Resources
    Development.

                              PUBLIC SAFETY NEEDS

        Last month, I traveled to Washington, D.C. with members of the
    Tribal Council to meet with our elected representatives and officials
    of the BIA to request funding to combat the breakdown in public safety
    on our Reservation. At Standing Rock, we have 10 staffed, full time
    police officers to patrol our 2.3 million acre reservation and 2,500
    miles of roads. That averages to about 2-3 officers per eight-hour
    shift. Nearly one-half of our resident Tribal members are under the age
    of 25. There is no effective law enforcement for youth offenders at
    Standing Rock, who are released if there are no facilities to house
    them. Violent crime rates are increasing. From January to June 2006,
    BIA police documented the commission of 1,247 offenses on our
    reservation, the vast majority involving alcohol and drugs. We are a
    rural community, but our crime rate parallels that of a major city.
        We sought from the BIA: (1) their assurance to increase the number
    of law enforcement officers on our Reservation, (2) funds to supplement
    Tribal and Justice Department monies to complete construction of an 18-
    bed juvenile detention center for young offenders where individual and
    family counseling can reverse destructive behavior, and (3) funds to
    conduct a staffing and a spacing needs assessment to assist us design
    and build a modern Tribal Justice Center to house Tribal Courts, the
    BIA police department, and an adult detention center. There is simply
    no money within the BIA for these programs. If the BIA will not ask for
    adequate funding, Congress must step in.
        The administration is not implementing the recommendations of a
    2006 ``Gap Analysis'' the BIA commissioned to identify and review
    current policing and detention capacity in Indian Country and to
    compare what is available to what is needed. The results are shocking.
    The report found that BIA District 1, which encompasses an eight State
    region including North and South Dakota, had 108 Law Enforcement
    Officers (LEOs), but needs over four times that amount (483 LEOs). A
    1997 Justice Department study found that Indian Country had 1.3
    officers for every 1,000 inhabitants, versus 2.9 officers in non-Indian
    jurisdictions. BIA District 1 is among the areas with the greatest
    need.
        Between 2004 and 2007, United States attorneys declined to
    prosecute 62 percent of reservation criminal cases referred to their
    offices and there has been a 27 percent decrease in Indian Country
    criminal investigations by the FBI from 2001-2006, during the period
    when violent crimes in reservation communities are increasing. This
    must change.
        We recommend that BIA Criminal Investigations and Police Services
    should be funded at $162.275 million, $25 million over the fiscal year
    2008 enacted level. BIA Detention/Corrections should be increased to
    $89 million, a $25 million increase over the fiscal year 2008 enacted
    level. We recommend the BIA Public Safety and Justice Facilities
    Improvement and Repair program be funded at $50 million above the
    fiscal year 2008 level, and we request $20 million in annual funding
    for the Tribal Justice Support program to improve Tribal Courts. These
    increases should continue each year until the recommendations of the
    Gap report are met.

                                EDUCATION NEEDS

        According to NCAI, Native Americans attain bachelor and higher
    education degrees at half the rate of their non-Indian counterparts. At
    Standing Rock, our Tribe has provided $3 million over 3 years to
    support a scholarship program to provide over 300 students with grants
    of between $3,000-$3,500/semester which allow them to pursue degrees
    from accredited colleges, universities and vocational schools. BIA
    financed scholarships total about $500,000 per year (meeting 25 percent
    of need).
        By providing scholarships to our students, they are able to remain
    in school and obtain a degree and education that can open doors to
    life-time careers. We want to break the cycle of joblessness that
    exists on our reservation. With scholarships, we monitor the progress
    of each recipient as they pursue their degree, review student degree
    plans and provide guidance if a student is not progressing toward their
    degree. We cannot do this alone and require increased funding for this
    vital program.
        We oppose the administration's fiscal year 2009 BIA education
    budget, which proposes $33.85 million in cuts for Indian education: a
    $5.9 million reduction in Scholarships and Adult Education (TPA), the
    elimination of all $5.9 million for the Tribal Technical Colleges, flat
    lining funding for Special Higher Education Scholarships; a $10.8
    million reduction in elementary and secondary BIA programs, including
    cuts in Early Childhood Development ($2.75 million reduction); and
    elimination of Johnson O'Malley funds.
        We recommend fully restoring and increasing, by an additional $50
    million, BIA funding for education as well as seeking increased funding
    for construction, operation, maintenance and repair of BIA schools. You
    cannot start early enough to instill in a child a love of learning. The
    future of Indian communities rests on their young shoulders. As the
    past president of Sitting Bull College, I know how hard Indian students
    work to succeed. They face many obstacles to achieve and excel; they
    live in two worlds--one Indian and one non-Indian. They need to succeed
    in both if they are to live up to their full potential and lead healthy
    lives. They deserve our full support.

                           ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT NEEDS

        When Indian Tribes can provide basic governmental services to their
    reservation communities--law enforcement and courts, housing, adequate
    infrastructure, including roads, potable water, electricity, and health
    services--they make possible the conditions for economic development.
        We recommend restoring the Administration's $13 million proposed
    cut and adding $10 million to the BIA Community and Economic
    Development Program, add $10 million above last year's level for the
    BIA's ``477'' Job Placement and Training Program and Economic
    Development Program so that these programs achieve their goals--to
    increase educational levels, job readiness skills, job placement, and
    to promote economic growth in Indian country.
        We also oppose reducing by half, to $13 million, funding for the
    BIA Road Maintenance Program. As a rural community, whose main industry
    is agriculture and ranching, our farmers and ranchers also need safe
    roads to get their goods to markets. The Administration's justification
    for the reduction, to reflect the increased assumption of the BIA Road
    Maintenance Program by Indian tribes, is incorrect. Tribes assume the
    ``Secretarial amount,'' the amount available to the Secretary of the
    Interior to carry out the program under the Indian Self-Determination
    Act. We contracted the program in 2007 and now face losing half our BIA
    funding. Maintaining roads is common sense.
        Standing Rock testified last summer before the Senate Indian
    Affairs Committee regarding the unacceptable high rate of traffic
    accidents and deaths on Indian Reservation Roads caused in part by poor
    road maintenance. Statistics from the Center for Disease Control (CDC)
    and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) show
    that injury and death rates among Native American motorist and
    pedestrians are two and three times the national average. We support
    the request by NCAI to increase funding for the BIA Road Maintenance
    Program to at least $100 million annually.

                            NATURAL RESOURCES NEEDS

        We are working with the Bureau of Reclamation to extend irrigation
    systems to cover 1,550 acres of 2,380 eligible acres as part of the
    Garrison Diversion Unit Reformulation Act. We have received about one-
    half of the $20 million in BOR funds required to construct irrigation
    lines for all 2,380 acres. With more lines, however, our operation,
    maintenance and repair (OM&R) costs increase. The BIA provides no funds
    for our annual OM&R costs ($750,000). Standing Rock Farms is becoming
    one of North Dakota's premier agricultural producers with a multi-
    million dollar impact on the economy. It is a producer of jobs and
    revenues on our reservation.
        The Tribe would also like to be part of a demonstration program in
    Indian Country to use satellite imaging technology to assist the Tribe
    inventory and manage Tribal resources. Using Geographic Information
    System (GIS) technologies, our Tribe would like to access satellite
    data to identify and catalogue Tribal resources to improve land
    management programs on our reservation. BIA maps are outdated
    (sometimes by decades). As revenues are generated from the increased
    use of Tribal resources, the Tribe can assume a greater share of the
    program's cost.
        As with other programs intended to benefit Native Americans, the
    Administration proposes further reductions to the BIA's Natural
    Resources Management programs. We encourage Congress to expand funding
    for BIA programs such as Natural Resources, Irrigation Operation and
    Maintenance, Agriculture and Range, Tribal Management/Development
    Program, Integrated Resources Management Plans, Water Resources, and
    Minerals and Mining Program, to improve Tribal management of our
    natural resources and promote economic development of these resources.
    We support the full restoration of the administration's proposed budget
    cut of $7 million and recommend an increase of $50 million over last
    year's funding level for these programs so that more Indian tribes can
    improve resource management techniques and practices.
        Working with Tribal governments, the United States needs to attend
    to the basics--ensure safe communities free from crime, safe homes with
    clean drinking water where children grow and learn from their parents
    and Tribal elders in a healthy environment, preventive health care to
    promote longer and healthier lives, safe roads so we do not lose
    members to preventable accidents, and modern schools where our children
    are eager to learn and where they are given the resources they need to
    succeed. If we can promote Indian family-friendly programs that help us
    maintain and strengthen the social fabric of our reservations, we will
    create a strong foundation to build upon.
        Thank you for affording me this opportunity to present my Tribe's
    views on the fiscal year 2009 budget for the Department of Interior,
    Environment, and Related Agencies.
                                     ______

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

        The State of Colorado is an active participant in Upper Colorado
    River Endangered Fish Recovery Program and the San Juan River Basin
    Recovery Implementation Program, both of which are recognized
    throughout the country as models for endangered species conservation
    and recovery. These Programs have developed collaborative solutions to
    pursue endangered species recovery while allowing water development to
    continue in our arid Rocky Mountain States.
        I am requesting your support for appropriations in fiscal year 2009
    to the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) for both of these Programs. The
    President's recommended budget for fiscal year 2009 includes FWS
    funding for these programs at the levels I am requesting. I request
    support and action by the Subcommittee that will provide the following,
    as authorized by Public Law 106-392, as amended.
        1. Appropriation of $697,000 in ``recovery'' funds (Resource
    Nianagement Appropriation; Ecological Services Activity; Endangered
    Species Subactivity; Recovery Element; $697,000 within the $68,067,000
    item entitled ``Recovery Program'') to the U.S. Fish and&ldlife Service
    (FWS) for fiscal year 2009 tp allow FWS to continue its essential
    participation in the Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery
    Program. This is the same level of funding provided to the Recovery
    Program in fiscal years 2004 through 2008.
        2. Appropriation of $475,000 in operation and maintenance funds
    (Resource Management Appropriation; Fisheries and Aquatic Resource
    Conservation Activity; National Fish Hatchery System Operations Sub
    activity; $475,000 within the $45,147,000 item entitled ``National Fish
    Hatchery Operations'') to support theongoing operation of the FWS' Our-
    ay National Fish Hatchery in Utah during fiscal year 2009.
        3. Allocation of $200,000 in ``recovery'' funds for the San Juan
    River Basin Recovery Implementation Program to the FWS for fiscal year
    2009 to meet FWS's Region 2 expenses in managing the San Juan Program's
    diverse recovery actions.
        Substantial non-federal cost-sharing funding exceeding 50 percent
    is embodied in both of these programs.
        These highly successful, cooperative programs are ongoing
    partnerships among the States of Colorado, New Mexico, Utah and
    Wyoming, Indian tribes, Federal agencies and water, power and
    environmental interests. The Programs' objectives are to recover
    endangered fish species while water use and development proceeds in
    compliance with the Endangered Species Act. These recovery programs
    have become national models for collaboratively working to recover
    endangered species while addressing water needs to support growing
    western communities. Since 1988, these programs have provided ESA
    compliance for over 1,600 Federal, tribal, state and privately managed
    water projects depleting more than 3 million acre-feet of water per
    year.
        The Upper Colorado and San Juan Programs bring a diverse group of
    people and interests together to resolve potential conflicts over
    endangered species recovery and water development. The endangered fish
    species are returning, and water development is proceeding in
    accordance with State law and interstate compacts. These arc the kinds
    of programs that I support.
        The past support and assistance of your subcommittee has greatly
    facilitated the success of these multi-state, multi-agency programs--I
    thank you for that support and request the subcommittee's assistance
    for fiscal year 2009 funding to ensure FWS' continuing financial
    participation in these vitally important programs.
                                     ______

     Prepared Statement of the State of New Mexico, Office of the Governor

        Chairman Feinstein and Senator Allard: I am requesting your support
    for appropriations in fiscal year 2009 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. The
    President's recommended budget for fiscal year 2009 includes FWS
    funding for these programs at the levels I am requesting. The State of
    New Mexico requests support and action by the subcommittee that will
    provide the following:
        1. Allocation of $200,000 in ``recovery'' funds for the San Juan
    River Basin Recovery Implementation Program to the FWS for fiscal year
    2009 to meet FWS's Region 2 expenses in managing the San Juan Program's
    diverse recovery actions.
        2. Appropriation of $697,000 in ``recovery'' funds (Resource
    Management Appropriation; Ecological Services Activity; Endangered
    Species Subactivity; Recovery Element; within the $68,417,000 item
    entitled ``Recovery'') to the FWS for fiscal year 2009 to allow FWS to
    continue its essential participation in the Upper Colorado River
    Endangered Fish Recovery Program. This is the same level of funding
    appropriated to the Recovery Program for this purpose in fiscal years
    2004 through 2008.
        3. Appropriation of $475,000 in operation and maintenance funds
    (Resource Management Appropriation; Fisheries and Aquatic Resource
    Conservation Activity; National Fish Hatchery System Operations
    Subactivity; within the $43,507,000 item entitled ``National Fish
    Hatchery Operations'') to support the ongoing operation of the FWS
    Ouray National Fish Hatchery in Utah during fiscal year 2009.
        These highly successful cooperative programs are ongoing
    partnerships among the States of New Mexico, Colorado, Utah and
    Wyoming, Indian tribes, Federal agencies, and water, power and
    environmental interests. The programs continue to meet their objectives
    of working to recover endangered fish species while water use and
    development proceeds in compliance with the Endangered Species Act. The
    Department of the Interior has recognized the Upper Colorado and San
    Juan recovery programs as national models for collaboratively working
    to recover endangered species while addressing water needs to support
    growing western communities. These programs have provided ESA
    compliance (without litigation) since 1988 for over 1,600 Federal,
    tribal, State, and privately managed water projects depleting more than
    3 million acre-feet of water per year. Substantial non-federal cost-
    sharing funding exceeding 50 percent is embodied in both of these
    programs as authorized by Public Law 106-392, as amended.
        The past support and assistance of your subcommittee has greatly
    facilitated the success of these multi-state, multi-agency programs. On
    behalf of the citizens of New Mexico, I thank the Subcommittee for your
    past assistance and again seek the subcommittee's assistance this year
    to ensure adequate FWS funding for the upcoming Federal fiscal year.
                                     ______

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

        Chairman Feinstein and Senator Allard: I am requesting your support
    for appropriations in fiscal year 2009 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. The
    President's recommended budget for fiscal year 2009 includes FWS
    funding for these programs at the levels I am requesting. The State of
    Wyoming requests support and action by the subcommittee that will
    provide the following.
        1. Appropriation of $697,000 in ``recovery'' funds (Resource
    Management Appropriation; Ecological Services Activity; Endangered
    Species Subactivity; Recovery Element; within the $68,417,000 item
    entitled ``Recovery'') to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) for
    fiscal year 2009 to allow FWS to continue its essential participation
    in the Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program. This is
    the same level of funding appropriated to the Recovery Program for this
    purpose in fiscal years 2004 through 2008.
        2. Appropriation of $475,000 in operation and maintenance funds
    (Resource Management Appropriation; Fisheries and Aquatic Resource
    Conservation Activity; National Fish Hatchery System Operations
    Subactivity; within the $43,507,000 item entitled ``National Fish
    Hatchery Operations'') to support the ongoing operation of the FWS'
    Ouray National Fish Hatchery in Utah during fiscal year 2009.
        3. Allocation of $200,000 in ``recovery'' funds for the San Juan
    River Basin Recovery Implementation Program to the FWS for fiscal year
    2009 to meet FWS's Region 2 expenses in managing the San Juan Program's
    diverse recovery actions.
        These highly successful, cooperative programs are ongoing
    partnerships among the States of New Mexico, Colorado, Utah and
    Wyoming, Indian tribes, Federal agencies, and water, power and
    environmental interests. The programs continue to be meeting their
    objectives of working to recover endangered fish species while water
    use and development proceeds in compliance with the Endangered Species
    Act. The Department of the Interior has recognized the Upper Colorado
    and San Juan recovery programs as national models for collaboratively
    working to recover endangered species while addressing water needs to
    support growing western communities. Since 1988, these programs have
    provided ESA compliance (without litigation) for over 1,600 Federal,
    Tribal, State, and privately managed water projects depleting more than
    3 million acre-feet of water per year. Substantial non-Federal cost-
    sharing funding exceeding 50 percent is embodied in both of these
    programs as authorized by Public Law 106-392, as amended.
        The past support and assistance of your subcommittee has greatly
    facilitated the success of these multi-state, multi-agency programs. We
    in Wyoming gratefully thank you for that support and request the
    subcommittee's assistance for fiscal year 2009 funding to ensure FWS'
    continuing financial participation in these vitally important programs.
                                     ______

                Prepared Statement of the Swan Ecosystem Center

        Madam Chairman and honorable members of the committee: Thank you
    for the opportunity to testify in support of continued Federal
    investment in the Swan Valley, Montana and to specifically urge a
    fiscal year 2009 appropriation of $1.92 million to the State of Montana
    from the Forest Legacy Program (FLP) and an $8.0 million appropriation
    to the U.S. Forest Service from the Land and Water Conservation Fund
    (LWCF) for the Swan Valley conservation effort. The Swan Valley is
    unique in Montana because the land is exceptionally good at growing
    trees, the rich and diverse habitat provides for a diversity of
    species, and the scenic and recreation amenities are superb. The people
    in the Swan Valley care deeply about this place and need your help
    protecting it.
        Swan Ecosystem Center formed in 1996 as an inclusive 501(c)(3)
    nonprofit watershed 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. According to surveys, most people in the Swan Valley want to
    protect forests, wildlife and public access. This request is for
    funding to fulfill a multi-stakeholder conservation strategy, in
    keeping with the Swan Ecosystem Center Mission: We, citizens of the
    Upper Swan Valley, Montana, have a self-imposed sense of responsibility
    to maintain a strong, vital community, one involved in setting its own
    destiny through partnerships that encourage sustainable use and care of
    public and private land.
        The Swan Valley conservation effort is a cooperative venture among
    private landowners, public land management agencies, public resource
    management agencies, the community, and non-governmental organizations.
    These groups are working to protect 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, three properties totaling 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. This proposal was ranked third
    priority by the USFS--Northern Region.
        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 446 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. This proposal was ranked first
    by the State of Montana ranking committee and ninth by the USFS
    national ranking committee.
        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 2009
    Interior, Environment 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 Tamarac Interpretive Association

        Madam Chairman 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 $514
    million in fiscal year 2009 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.
        Last year Congress responded to years of inadequate funding with an
    increase of $39 million, bringing funding to the National Wildlife
    Refuge System to $434 million. The Presidents proposed budget for
    fiscal year 2009 of $434.1 million represents the same level of funding
    as the current fiscal year. In order to maintain services and programs
    from the previous year, the National Wildlife Refuge System budget must
    increase by $15 million each year. The $15 million amount is derived
    from increases for cost-of-living for FWS personnel, growing rent and
    real estate costs, increasing energy prices, and other cost increases,
    while sustaining current levels of visitor services and wildlife
    management. The crisis that the Refuge System faces is that multiple
    years of stagnant budgets prior to fiscal year 2007 have resulted in a
    $3.5 billion Operations and Maintenance backlog. Backlogs, and what
    amounted to budget cuts prior to fiscal year 2007, have forced plans
    for a 20 percent downsizing of the workforce. Across the Refuge System,
    refuge visitors often show up to find roads and visitor centers closed,
    observation platforms and hiking trails in disrepair, and habitat
    restoration and school education programs eliminated. Invasive plant
    species are taking over and with a deficiency of more than 500 law
    enforcement officers, illegal activities such as poaching and trespass
    are on the rise. The $514 million target includes the required annual
    $15 million increase plus begins to address the backlog crisis so that
    the Refuge System can fulfill its responsibility to administer nearly
    100 million acres, nature programs, habitat restoration projects, and
    more.
        Focusing on the challenges in the Midwest region, a year ago, the
    20 percent workforce reductions required 71 positions to be cut,
    including 27 in Minnesota. These Minnesota lost positions included 9
    managers/resource specialists, 6 park rangers, 6 biologists/biology
    technicians, 3 maintenance workers, and 3 administrative staff. In
    addition to position cuts in the field, reductions also included Region
    Office management divisions. Minnesota's 15 refuges alone have 441
    unfunded, yet essential projects, totaling $51.5 million. In the
    maintenance area of operations for Minnesota overall, the backlog
    exceeds $64.0 million, which severely impedes refuge staff from
    protecting wildlife habitat and providing for recreational
    opportunities.
        The impact of this budgetary operations and maintenance backlog is
    also felt at Tamarac National Wildlife Refuge. The loss of one of the
    station's maintenance positions (that has yet to be refilled), has
    resulted 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, there has been
    reduced snow removal on refuge roads, parking areas, and at the Refuge
    Headquarters/Visitor Center. With public lake accesses not being plowed
    on a regular bases, ice fishermen have had a more difficult time
    getting out on the ice to fish. During the muzzleloader deer season
    some hunters were unable to access portions of the refuge because of
    snow-blocked roads where no one was available to plow. Deer hunting on
    the refuge is not just a recreational opportunity, but it is critical
    for management of the deer population and conserving a healthy habitat.
    Maintenance backlogs include the need to repave our Visitor Center
    parking lot and our Chippewa picnic area restrooms need to be updated.
    At our Visitor Center/Refuge Headquarters, continuing water leakage has
    caused an assortment of damage and problems, including the lost
    productivity from moping up water after each heavy rain.
        Our wider community, with Detroit Lakes, Minnesota, as its
    commercial and population center, is also host to Hamden Slough
    National Wildlife Refuge and the Detroit Lakes Wetland Management
    District. The budget crisis has resulted in the lost of one staff
    position at the nearby Detroit Lakes Wetland Management District
    causing the elimination of biological surveys used to influence
    wildlife habitat restoration and land protection activities. Local
    partnerships have been strained due to lack of staff. In addition, the
    entire staff of Hamden Slough National Wildlife Refuge was reassigned
    to Detroit Lakes Wetland Management District along with the elimination
    of the Hamden Slough's refuge manager position. This transfer of refuge
    staff has resulted in a diminished capacity to intensively manage
    Hamden Slough habitats. These staff reductions and reorganizations have
    also impacted Tamarac National Wildlife Refuge. Not only must Tamarac
    refuge staff deal with backlog and reduced operational funding, but
    their duties frequently now included those of Hamden Slough and the
    Detroit Lakes Wetland Management District, further decreasing wildlife
    management at Tamarac.
        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 42,724 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 the 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. These six priority public uses, set by legislation, include
    hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography, environmental
    education and interpretation.
        Banking on Nature 2006: The Economic Benefits to Local Communities
    of National Wildlife Refuge Visitation, found that national wildlife
    refuges are major economic engines for their communities. Tamarac
    National Wildlife Refuge generated final demand totaling nearly $1.6
    million with associated employment of 24 jobs, $491,200 in employment
    income and $235,600 in total tax revenue. Put another way, for every $1
    of budget expenditure there was a $2.5 economic effect.
        Public visitation at Tamarac National Wildlife Refuge continues to
    rise, going from 58,500 in fiscal year 2006 to 63,000 visitors in
    fiscal year 2007. Our Visitor Center received 6,950 visitors in fiscal
    year 2007. While the number of ``visitors'' are the actual count of
    people, the number of ``visits'' indicates the number of times people
    participate in an activity. The total estimated visits for the refuge
    in fiscal year 2007 were 87,146. Available data from fiscal year 2006,
    show 3,800 people visited the refuge for big game hunting, 1,300 for
    small game, 1,525 for migratory bird hunting, 4,000 for fishing, 31,700
    for wildlife observation, 15,000 for birding, and 6,000 for hiking
    nature trails. The Banking on Nature 2006 study determined that this
    visitation resulted in $1,211,700 of recreation expenditures, of which
    $1,045,700 were from non-residents.
        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 42,724 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. 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. With the refuge's 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. Increasing visitation makes the
    job of balancing wildlife and people evermore important; a critical
    time for needing staff and resources.
        Tamarac National Wildlife Refuge is also a key resource for area
    schools and science education. In fiscal year 2007, 4,100 school
    children participated in environmental education programs at Tamarac
    and 2,795 off-site. Other educational programs for families in 2007,
    accounted for 2,636 additional participants. For example, first graders
    from Frazee, Minnesota, come each May to plant trees, finding the
    funding themselves for the seedlings. Aida wrote back to the refuge the
    following: I learned about planting pine trees. I heard the male frogs
    singing a song to the lady frogs in the pond. I learned about ant
    hills. I learned how trees grow. I also learned about deer scat. I saw
    ducks in the pond. Last year, third graders visited Tamarac NWR from
    Moorhead, Minnesota, saw Eagles and Osprey for the first time, and
    marveled at a giant nine foot high beaver dam. The most creative were
    teachers and students from Detroit Lakes (Minnesota) Middle School that
    combined multiple subjects in completing several global positioning
    system exercises at the refuge. In addition to math, science, and
    technology, their work included writing, two examples follow: Tamarac,
    By Levi Johnson: As I stepped off the bus. To my wonder. Bright red and
    golden leaves hanging from the trees. Sun so bright. Crisp fall air.
    Crisp, crunchy leaves under my feet. Friends laughing as they walk.
    Back to the bus we go. Tamarac, By Rheanna Lind. I slowly strolled
    through the tall grasses; Hoping not to trip and fall, Listening to the
    leaves crack under my feet, watching a mouse, my heart skips a beat. I
    gaze around watching the grass sway; My director yells it's time to go
    away; I look around one last time; goodbye wildlife, goodbye Tamarac.
    Without needed refuge funding that deals with the operational deficit
    and maintenance backlog, for school groups, it could be a more
    permanent goodbye.
        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 gift shop 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 and received a grant that helped to
    equip our friend's office with needed technology and upgraded our gift
    shop cash register and inventory system, all with the goal of enabling
    to do more.
        Our friends group has no paid employees; all our time is volunteer
    time. In fiscal year 2007, 109 volunteers at the Tamarac National
    Wildlife Refuge donated 4,584 hours, up from 3,860 the year before.
    Forty-eight people volunteered regularly. Individuals assist the refuge
    with biological field studies, environmental education, facility
    maintenance, visitor center hosts, leading tours, and many other
    functions. In 2006, 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 1,376 volunteer hours and this
    fiscal year I have 978 to date. I've only been volunteering a few
    years, but then there are others who have been volunteering for many
    years. Ruth Dienst, for example, has volunteered leading refuge tours
    since 1992, and organized refuge tours from area resorts starting 16
    years earlier. Health almost stopped her volunteering, but last summer
    she was driven to the refuge for each week's refuge tour. She delights
    visitors with her knowledge of plants and wild edibles, and she always
    brings her wild jams and teas for visitors to sample. There are many
    individual stories of commitment from dozens of hours a year to
    hundreds a year. Across the refuge system in 2006, 36,169 volunteers
    contributed 1,447,421 hours with a value of $26,111,475.
        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 $3.5 billion. 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 are exceedingly grateful for the subcommittee's support of $451
    million for fiscal year 2008. As dedicated friends groups and
    volunteers, there is no greater affirmation of our work and our shared
    commitment to our Nation's refuges. We urge funding our refuge system
    in fiscal year 2009 at the $514 million level.
                                     ______

       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 2009 Interior,
    Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act.
        Teaming with Wildlife is a coalition of more than 5,500
    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 &
    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. The Wildlife
    Opportunities Action Fund is one such effort that has helped support
    over 35 initiatives in 2006 and 2007 and disbursed more than $3.2
    million to projects across all States and territories. Thanks to the
    Doris Duke Foundation and the Wildlife Conservation Society, efforts of
    this kind help to honor the commitment of the Federal Government to
    support projects on the ground in every State and territory.
        Since the beginning of the State Wildlife Grants Program, almost
    $500 million has flowed to the States for the development of their
    wildlife action plans and for on-the-ground projects to benefit native
    wildlife and their habitats. Projects providing benefits for both
    wildlife and people are underway in every State across the Nation. This
    work could not be done without support from the State Wildlife Grant
    program.
      --Henslow's sparrows and other grassland wildlife are species of
            greatest conservation need in Arkansas' wildlife action plan.
            Thanks to a State Wildlife Grants project, several unknown
            populations of breeding Henslow's sparrows were revealed in
            northwest Arkansas, with the largest in Cherokee Prairie
            Natural Area. This vital information will help biologists, land
            stewards, and conservation planners conserve important
            grassland habitat and wildlife before they become more rare and
            more costly to protect.
      --Most of the freshwater mussels in Virginia are listed as species of
            greatest conservation need in the State wildlife action plan.
            The health of freshwater mussels is often an early indicator
            for disease and pollution that affect us all. Of the 81 species
            of mussels that live in Virginia, half are federally or State
            listed as endangered or threatened species and others are
            declining at an alarming rate. State Wildlife Grants are being
            used to propagate mussels in a hatchery and then release them
            into streams to bolster and restore these declining
            populations. This is a proactive approach that will prevent
            more mussels from becoming endangered, and benefit the health
            of wildlife and people while saving taxpayer money.
        We are very pleased that the President has recognized the
    significance of this program and supported $73.8 million for State
    Wildlife Grants, which matches the level of funding provided in the
    final budget for fiscal year 2008. 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 62
    Senators have formally signed on to this commitment in the form of a
    letter to the subcommittee and we hope you will match that strong
    demonstration of support.
        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 Nature Conservancy

        Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I appreciate this
    opportunity to present The Nature Conservancy's recommendations for
    fiscal year 2009 appropriations. My name is Thomas J. Cassidy, Jr. and
    I am Director of Federal Programs at the Conservancy.
        The Nature Conservancy is an international, non-profit conservation
    organization working around the world to protect ecologically important
    lands and waters for nature and people. Our mission is to preserve the
    plants, animals and natural communities that represent the diversity of
    life on Earth by protecting the lands and waters they need to survive.
    We are best known for our science-based, collaborative approach to
    developing creative solutions to conservation challenges. Our on-the-
    ground conservation work is carried out in all 50 States and more than
    30 foreign countries and is supported by approximately 1 million
    individual members. We have helped conserve nearly 15 million acres of
    land in the United States and Canada and more than 102 million acres
    with local partner organizations globally.

                              USGS--CLIMATE CHANGE

        The Conservancy appreciates the subcommittee's leadership in
    highlighting the need for increased investments in climate change
    science through the National Global Warming and Wildlife Science
    Center. We support a robust increase in funding for this and other
    programs that will guide science-based investments necessary to meet
    the critical needs of fish and wildlife adaptation in a world whose
    climate is changing. We look forward to working with the subcommittee
    as it addresses this increasingly vital conservation challenge.

                    LAND AND WATER CONSERVATION FUND (LWCF)

        Thank you for your action last year to reverse the decline in
    funding for key conservation programs, including LWCF. We look forward
    to the subcommittee providing far greater support for this program than
    is proposed in the President's budget, one of the lowest requests for
    Federal land acquisition funding in decades.
        We recommend a funding level of $278 million for the Federal side
    of LWCF. This year, the Conservancy is specifically recommending 18
    biologically rich land acquisition projects totaling $39 million.
    Priorities include completing the BLM's portion of a large multi-year
    project in Montana's Blackfoot River Watershed and continuing large-
    scale projects in New England's Silvio O. Conte NFWR and Montana's
    Rocky Mountain Front Conservation Area. We are also supporting projects
    in Hawaii's James Campbell NWR, Washington's Willapa NWR, Georgia's
    Chattahoochee NF, New Jersey's Delaware Water Gap National Recreation
    Area, Idaho's Henry's Lake ACEC and Iowa's Driftless Area NWR. We also
    urge the subcommittee to restore funding for the State-side of LWCF.

                                 FOREST LEGACY

        For fiscal year 2009, 87 projects were submitted by States to the
    Forest Service with a total funding request of $200.5 million to
    protect nearly 400,000 acres. The huge potential of this program to
    achieve conservation goals while maintaining sustainable use of private
    lands requires a significant funding increase. We strongly support $120
    million for this program, and are specifically proposing 16 projects
    totaling $39 million. The 127,000 acre Northern Cumberlands project is
    the largest conservation deal in Tennessee since the creation of Great
    Smoky Mountains National Park. The State has provided $82,000,000
    towards this 127,000 acre project, while private equity investers and
    philanthropy have leveraged an additional $45,000,000. Other priority
    projects include California's Chalk Mountain Area, West Virginia's
    South Branch, Michigan's Northern Great Lakes Forest Maine's Machias
    River project.

                            WILDLAND FIRE MANAGEMENT

        Wildfire costs continue to rise with continued residential growth
    in forested and fire-prone areas, coupled with a lengthening fire
    season in a warmer climate. The Conservancy recommends focused
    investments in four Forest Service and Department of the Interior fire
    programs. First, increase Hazardous Fuel Reduction to $560 million to
    address the accumulation of forest fuels (USFS: $341.1 million; DOI:
    $219.6 million). Second, increase State Fire Assistance to $42.4
    million to address the need for planning, treatments, education, and
    efficient fire response in the WUI (USFS: $35.9 million; DOI RFA:$6.5
    million). Third, increase Rehabilitation and Restoration to $38.5
    million to assure native seed supplies and prevent non-native plant
    invasions in burned areas (USFS: $11.9 million; DOI: $26.6 million).
    Fourth, develop market incentives to reduce the cost of mechanical
    treatments, including $7 million for biomass utilization grants.
    Finally, the Conservancy recommends setting clear priorities for
    hazardous fuel reduction and biomass utilization funding and focusing
    mechanical treatments where fuel loads and large populations intersect
    and to use managed fire to reduce fuels where it can be managed safely.

                            FOREST HEALTH MANAGEMENT

        America's forests face a growing number of non-native pests and
    diseases. The Conservancy appreciates the subcommittee's leadership in
    consistently providing funding significantly above the President's
    request. The Forest Health Management program should receive at least
    last year's enacted level of $122.5 million so that it may effectively
    address economically and ecologically damaging pests, including the
    Asian Longhorned Beetle, Emerald Ash Borer, Hemlock Woolly Adelgid,
    Sudden Oak Death and Laurel (or Redbay) Wilt.

                        FOREST SERVICE RESEARCH PROGRAM

        We recommend an increase of $3 million above the request for the
    ``Invasives R&D'' line item within the Forest Service Research program.
    This would permit maintaining at current levels research to improve
    detection and control methods for the Emerald Ash Borer, Hemlock Woolly
    Adelgid and other non-native forest pests and diseases.

                               ENDANGERED SPECIES

        The Conservancy supports an increase for the FWS's Cooperative
    Endangered Species Conservation Fund (CESCF) to at least $96.2 million.
    Our requested increase reflects the unmet public funding needs of the
    CESCF, and recognizes the important role States, municipalities, and
    non-Federal partners play in conserving threatened, endangered and at-
    risk species on non-federal lands. The Conservancy and its partners,
    including multiple State and county governments, have used the Habitat
    Conservation Plan (HCP) and Recovery Land Acquisition Programs to
    secure key habitat for numerous threatened, endangered and at-risk
    species. In recent years, CESCF funds have been used to provide
    permanent habitat protection for California's Ramona Grasslands,
    ensuring intact habitats remain in place for numerous listed species.
    Washington's Tieton River Canyon and Montana's Blackfoot Valley have
    also been the focus of attention for fee-title and conservation
    easements under the CESCF program. The Conservancy has also worked with
    States to develop and implement HCP Plans funded by this program,
    including an ongoing multi-partner HCP effort in North Carolina's
    coastal region to protect the red-cockaded woodpecker and other native
    species. We also support the Administration's proposed funding for the
    Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program, recovery funds
    for the San Juan River Basin Recovery Implementation Program, and
    $475,000 for fish hatchery needs associated with the recovery plans in
    this region. We also support funding for the Platte River Recovery
    Implementation Program.

                             STATE WILDLIFE GRANTS

        The Conservancy strongly endorses the Teaming with Wildlife
    Coalition's funding recommendation of $85 million. This continues to be
    a critical phase for implementation of the 56 approved Wildlife Action
    Plans. Strong Federal investments remain essential to ensure strategic
    actions are undertaken by State and Federal agencies and the
    conservation community to conserve wildlife populations and their
    habitats. We also support the continuation of a $5 million competitive
    grant program as a subset of the State Wildlife Grant Program. We
    encourage the subcommittee to provide direction to the Service on the
    use of these funds, including on-the-ground habitat restoration work on
    private lands, as well as climate change resiliency and adaptation
    needs identified as priorities by the States in their comprehensive
    wildlife conservation plans.

                        NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE SYSTEM

        The Conservancy applauds the subcommittee's significant increases
    in last year's budget for operations and maintenance of the National
    Wildlife Refuge System, a cornerstone of our commitment to fish and
    wildlife resources throughout the Nation. We urge sustained investments
    in these key accounts to reverse the loss of permanent refuge staff
    positions and capacity to maintain the refuge system. We also strongly
    support the $400,000 increase in the Refuge budget for the Palmyra
    Atoll National Wildlife Refuge and Palmyra Atoll Research Consortium.

                            MIGRATORY BIRD PROGRAMS

        The Conservancy supports increasing funding for the North American
    Wetlands Conservation Act (NAWCA) to $50 million. NAWCA is one of the
    Nation's most successful conservation programs prompting more than
    3,500 partners to match $836 million in Federal funds by leveraging
    $2.5 billion in partner contributions in order to protect 23 million
    acres of wetlands and associated upland habitats. The Conservancy also
    supports $15.1 million in funding for the Joint Ventures. We also
    support the Administration's Birds Forever proposal, particularly
    increases in funding to the Joint Ventures and Migratory Bird
    Management Program with an emphasis on reversing declines in bird
    populations through conservation and monitoring of focal bird species.

                            COOPERATIVE CONSERVATION

        We support the fiscal year 2008 funding levels, at least, for both
    the FWS Coastal Program ($14 million) and the Partners for Fish and
    Wildlife Program ($50 million). The Conservancy supports the
    Administration's request of $5.2 million for the National Fish Habitat
    Initiative and the continued work of the Service to facilitate the
    development of Fish Habitat Partnerships and implementation of high-
    priority projects. Further, the Conservancy encourages the Subcommittee
    to increase funding for the FWS Fisheries Program to implement the Open
    Rivers Initiative/Fish Passage Program at the fiscal year 2008 enacted
    level of $11 million.

                             INTERNATIONAL PROGRAMS

        The Conservancy, as part of an alliance of major international
    conservation groups, supports the International Conservation Budget,
    which calls for $12 million to the FWS' Multinational Species
    Conservation Fund. This includes funds for the African and Asian
    Elephant funds, the Great Apes fund, the Marine Turtle fund, and the
    Rhinoceros/Tiger fund. We and the alliance also strongly support $20.4
    million for the FWS office of international affairs which includes
    Wildlife Without Borders; $6 million for the FWS' Neotropical Migratory
    Bird Conservation Fund; and $12 million for the U.S. Forest Service's
    International Programs.

                            HEALTHY LANDS INITIATIVE

        The Conservancy supports funding equal to or greater than the
    President's request of $21.9 million to be used by BLM, FWS and USGS to
    landscape scale planning initiatives to improve wildlife habitat, water
    quality, invasive species control, and more informed management and
    planning activities. Agencies should be encouraged to use existing data
    sets so that funding can be focused on data gaps rather than creating
    duplicitous data sets.

                             USGS--WATER RESOURCES

        We support $34 million for the National Streamflow Information
    Program and $70 million for the Cooperative Water Program. These
    programs provide scientific data needed by multiple public and private
    water managers and their partners. We support the administration's
    Water for America Initiative, however, we urge restoration of funding
    to programs reduced to enhance the Initiative. As climate change,
    drought and population growth increase the demands on our Nation's
    water resources, it is critical to invest in the integration of State
    and Federal water resource data and to better understand the water
    needs of both human communities and the environment. We recommend that
    $3 million be provided to support improved management of Federal
    reservoirs by increasing the scientific understanding of downstream
    river ecosystem needs.

                           OFFICE OF INSULAR AFFAIRS

        We support $1 million for the Coral Reef Initiative.

                        ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

        The EPA Geographic programs provide critical leadership, technical
    support and funding for on-the-ground actions to improve water quality
    and restore ecosystems. In particular, we support $10 million for the
    EPA Gulf of Mexico Program, which has been a catalyst in efforts to
    restore the Gulf of Mexico, as well as the President's request for the
    Great Lakes and Chesapeake Bay programs. We also support $30 million to
    support development and implementation of the Puget Sound Partnership's
    Action Agenda for restoration efforts in the Puget Sound. We strongly
    support restoring funding, at a level of $20 million, for the Targeted
    Watersheds Grants program proposed for elimination by the
    administration. Finally, we support $800 million for the Clean Water
    State Revolving Fund.
        Payments in Lieu of Taxes and Refuge Revenue Sharing programs
    provide payments to counties where land has been taken off the local
    property tax rolls and put into Federal ownership. In some counties,
    protection of significant natural resources impacts the tax base that
    funds local government services, including schools and public safety.
    We urge the Committee to provide full funding for these programs and
    honor the Federal commitment to local communities.
        Thank you for the opportunity to present The Nature Conservancy's
    recommendations for the Interior, Environment and Related Agencies
    appropriations bill.
                                     ______

                Prepared Statement of The Trust for Public Land

        Chairman Feinstein, ranking member Allard, and distinguished
    members of the subcommittee: Thank you for this opportunity to present
    this testimony. My name is Alan Front, Senior Vice President of The
    Trust for Public Land (TPL), a national nonprofit land conservation
    organization. I am pleased to offer our views on a number of critical
    land conservation programs that the subcommittee will be considering as
    you draft your fiscal year 2009 bill.
        We recognize that the subcommittee will face a variety of big-
    picture challenges, including a scarcity of dollars, in meeting the
    broad range of priority needs in the Interior and Environment bill this
    year. Recognizing as well the longstanding leadership and vision of
    Chairmen Byrd and Feinstein--and the effective balance that they,
    Ranking Member Allard, and other members of the subcommittee have
    managed in the past--we remain very hopeful that the fiscal year 2009
    bill will provide enhanced funding for conservation programs.

                 LAND CONSERVATION IN AMERICA--OUR PERSPECTIVE

        From our Nation's threatened national parks, wildlife refuges, and
    forests to our vital State and local parklands and natural areas, The
    Trust for Public Land has seen firsthand just how important these
    programs are. Since 1972, TPL has worked in communities across the
    country to assist national, State, and local public agencies, private
    landowners and concerned citizens working to protect our country's
    heritage of natural, cultural, recreation and other vital resource
    lands. Our work runs the spectrum of conservation initiatives: creating
    community gardens to help revitalize urban neighborhoods; preserving
    working forests with public and private partners; maintaining wildlife
    corridors and enhancing public recreation opportunities in State parks;
    and acquiring critical inholdings in the magnificent landscapes that
    lie within Federal boundaries.
        In total, TPL has completed more than 3,500 land conservation
    projects that together have protected some 2.3 million acres in 47
    States. Roughly one-third of these special places were conserved either
    through outright Federal acquisition of lands or easements, or through
    critical Federal assistance to State and local governments. Given the
    importance of non-Federal public dollars for conservation, since 1994,
    TPL has helped States and localities craft and pass over 300 ballot
    measures, generating almost $25 billion in new conservation-related
    funding.
        In partnership with concerned civic groups, willing seller
    landowners and public lands agencies, TPL brings practical conservation
    real estate expertise to help achieve land and resource protection.
    Given the limited public conservation funding at all levels of
    government, these transactions often require a creative blending of
    funding sources. TPL works to leverage limited Federal land acquisition
    dollars, bringing to bear private philanthropic support as well as
    State and local funding sources to forge workable solutions to complex
    conservation funding challenges.
        But for the remarkable and gratifying efforts of many members of
    this Committee and other conservation leaders in Congress to maintain
    funding for land acquisition programs--and in particular to fund
    specific `now-or-never' projects--successful land protection simply
    would not be possible. As we continue that work, and as the committee
    drafts its fiscal year 2009 bill, TPL respectfully requests that you
    maintain your commitment to Federal land conservation accounts.
    Specifically, we urge an increase in funding levels for the Land and
    Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) and the Forest Legacy Program, two key
    programs that have lost ground in recent years and that the President's
    Budget woefully underfunds in fiscal year 2009, and a renewed
    commitment to land conservation funding through the Cooperative
    Endangered Species account, the North American Wetlands Conservation
    Act, and the State and Tribal Wildlife Grants account.

                        LAND AND WATER CONSERVATION FUND

        The subcommittee is of course well aware of the imminent threat to
    our Federal public lands from incompatible development. Each day the
    news media reports on development encroaching upon our national parks,
    or subdivisions being built on checkerboard timberlands, contributing
    to dramatically escalating fire hazard and suppression costs. In our
    experience, private landowners within or adjoining our Federal public
    lands often are amenable to a conservation solution. Faced with
    uncertainty about the availability of Federal land acquisition dollars,
    however, they often determine that they cannot afford to pursue that
    win-win public disposition. The reasonable expectation of Federal land
    acquisition funding is critical to the ability to protect the nation's
    public lands heritage when these time-sensitive opportunities arise.
        For over 40 years, LWCF has been the cornerstone that sustains our
    Federal public lands heritage. To preclude the loss of key inholdings,
    TPL, as part of the broad coalition of national, State and local groups
    working together as the Land and Water Conservation Task Force,
    recommends that you fund the annual Federal LWCF program at $278
    million, with an additional $125 million for the LWCF State grants.
    These figures obviously fall far below LWCF's $900 million annual
    authorization, but they represent the minimum required to secure
    crucial inholdings that might otherwise be lost to private sale and
    development this year.
        Among these immediate conservation needs is an historic opportunity
    to connect the two disjointed halves of Virgin Islands National Park by
    acquiring 207 acres of historic Estate Maho Bay, a magnificent expanse
    of white sand beach and forested hillsides. In the Sierra Nevada in
    California, TPL is working to consolidate the fragmented checkerboard
    ownership pattern to preserve recreational access and mountain wildlife
    habitat. Securing access for river recreation along the Arkansas River
    in central Colorado is a focus of an effort between TPL and the Bureau
    of Land Management. In New Mexico, BLM and TPL have joined with local
    landowners to acquire the sensitive Canyon River Ranch within the La
    Cienega Area of Critical Environmental Concern. Lakefront inholdings
    within the Chequamegon National Forest in northern Wisconsin have been
    prioritized for acquisition by the Forest Service's Wisconsin Wild
    Waterways program. These are just a few of the many urgent land
    acquisitions that must be funded this year to stave off incompatible
    development.
        In these and other areas, TPL is proud to join forces with
    extraordinary partners who dedicate significant resources to protection
    of the places of their hearts and heritage. In Maine's Rachel Carson
    National Wildlife Refuge, a coalition of land trusts, public agencies,
    and advocacy groups is working to protect 110 acres at Timber Point; in
    fiscal year 2009 this coalition is requesting $3.5 million in LWCF
    funds and is raising $3.5 million in private matching funds that will
    be donated to the Federal acquisition effort. Groups including the
    Association for the Preservation of Cape Cod are working with us to
    protect the last large-acreage inholding at that National Seashore,
    where $2 million in fiscal year 2009 will complete funding of a key
    campground property whose public-spirited owner has endured financial
    hardship for 3 years while waiting for purchase funds to be assembled.
    In North Carolina a key tract in the beautiful Roan Highlands along the
    Appalachian Trail can be protected with just $1.875 million in LWCF
    funds, to be matched by almost $3 million in private funding and land
    value, thanks to a partnership that includes a generous landowner, the
    Appalachian Trail Conservancy, the Southern Appalachian Highlands
    Coalition and others.
        LWCF's stateside program also faces an array of conservation
    opportunities and threats in fiscal year 2009. Since 1965, the
    stateside program has provided 41,000 grants to States and local
    communities for park protection and development of recreation
    facilities. This program reaches deep into communities across our
    nation, supporting citizen-led efforts to conserve places of local
    importance, many with TPL's help. In 2006, LWCF stateside funding
    contributed to the protection of the 225-acre tidal estuarine park on
    Hawaii's Ka'u Coast. Last year, a stateside LWCF grant helped the Town
    of Dunstable, MA to protect 149 acres of rolling forestland and an
    adjoining historic home. Stateside funds also were essential to a
    conservation easement over 37,000 acres of Maine's famed 100-Mile
    Wilderness, the northernmost and wildest stretch of the Appalachian
    Trail. To meet needs such as these as they continue to arise in all 50
    States and in U.S. territories, we urge the restoration of funding to
    this program at the $125 million level.

                             FOREST LEGACY PROGRAM

        The U.S. Forest Service Forest Legacy Program has provided
    extraordinary assistance to States and towns seeking to preserve
    working forests in their communities. Each Forest Legacy project tells
    a story of land or resource protection and collaboration among Federal,
    State, and local partners. Each also includes significant State, local
    and/or private matching funds and a long-term commitment to non-Federal
    management. Since its inception in 1990, the Forest Legacy Program has
    protected over 1.5 million acres of forestland. Despite this
    subcommittee's best efforts, the funding trend for this program is
    incrementally downward. For fiscal year 2009, 82 conservation projects
    were submitted (by 41 States and three territories) to the Forest
    Service; the requests total $202 million in Forest Legacy Program need
    to protect 400,000 acres of forestlands valued at almost $400 million.
    Yet the President's budget recommends only $12.5 million for three
    projects. Our continued inability to meet demand has a long-term impact
    on the multiple public benefits that derive from forests--clean water,
    wildlife protection, public access to recreation, economic development
    and sustainable forestry.
        In fiscal year 2009, Forest Legacy project requests include
    checkerboard forestlands in Montana's north Swan Valley that are
    threatened with conversion to subdivision. Another project will protect
    almost 20,000 acres of Katahdin Forest adjacent to Maine's Baxter State
    Park and within the viewshed of the Appalachian Trail, ensuring
    wildlife habitat protection and access for snowmobilers and other
    recreationists. A third initiative--Eden Forest--seeks to protect 5,000
    acres of prime wildlife and recreation lands that represent the missing
    puzzle-piece in a 30,000-acre block of conserved land near the Long
    Trail Corridor in Vermont's Northern Forest. Yet another project will
    ensure the conservation of working ranchlands in Utah. To support these
    and other important fiscal year 2009 project needs, I urge your support
    for this important program at the level of $120 million in fiscal year
    2009.

          FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE--LAND CONSERVATION GRANT PROGRAMS

        We are grateful for the subcommittee's continuing efforts to
    support U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service grant programs. While funding
    has remained relatively stable in recent years, these conservation
    programs are consistently oversubscribed and unable to meet the
    overwhelming demand for cooperative grants. Through your continuing
    leadership and commitment, funding for the Cooperative Endangered
    Species Conservation Fund--leveraged by State and private funds--has
    protected threatened and endangered species habitat across the nation.
    Support provided through the Fund's Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP)
    Land Acquisition grants are allowing for huge gains in habitat
    consolidation. In Washington State, for instance, these grants were key
    to the protection of lands along Interstate 90 that provide a wildlife
    corridor for five federally listed land species and help conserve the
    Yakima River's bull trout and steelhead populations. Also supported
    through the Fund, Recovery Land Acquisition grants are fostering
    resource-saving partnerships and are leveraging considerable non-
    Federal funds. In Arizona, for example, $2.25 million in grants were
    matched by over $4 million in non-Federal funds to allow the State to
    protect 4,300 acres of the most ecologically significant habitat on the
    historic Salero Ranch, sparing these sensitive lands from imminent
    development. We urge your support for funding of this program at the
    increased level of $96.2 million in fiscal year 2009.
        Regarding other FWS grant programs, the North American Wetlands
    Conservation Act (NAWCA) provides much-needed matching grants to carry
    out wetlands conservation, restoration and enhancement projects in the
    United States, Canada, and Mexico. Since 1990, over $836 million in
    grants has leveraged about $1.6 billion in matching funds and $946
    million in additional support to protect approximately 23.8 million
    acres of wetlands and associated uplands. TPL joins our many partners
    in utilizing these funds for wetlands conservation across the country.
    We commend your leadership in supporting continued level funding for
    this program at $42.6 million, as included in the President's budget.
    Finally, we urge you to consider an increase for the State and Tribal
    Wildlife Grants Program to a funding level of $85 million in fiscal
    year 2009. This strategic funding program supports grants aimed at
    preventing wildlife from becoming threatened and endangered through
    strategic conservation investments in every State and territory.

                             FOR THE FUTURE'S SAKE

        These programs determine the fate of our most treasured public
    lands. Just as much, they make a real difference in the lives of
    countless Americans. Whether we walk in a local park, cross-country ski
    through a national forest, or canoe across a lake or a bayou, our daily
    lives are healthier and reinvigorated by the public land experiences
    these programs foster. Those experiences span the generations. A South
    Carolina middle school student, working with his classmates and teacher
    to create an outdoor classroom at Congaree National Park, put it this
    way: ``I would like some day to maybe take my grand kids there. I would
    love to see their faces when they see that beautiful forest.''
        The Trust for Public Land continues to invest its resources, in
    concert with the Subcommittee, to protect our Nation's natural,
    cultural and recreational heritage. As ever, we are deeply thankful for
    the subcommittee's recognition of the importance of these efforts. We
    urge you to renew the investment in these programs and stand ready to
    work with you to accomplish great things. Thank you for help and
    support, and for your consideration of our requests.
                                     ______

           Prepared Statement of the Town Manager, Millinocket, Maine

        Madam Chairman and honorable members of the subcommittee: Thank you
    for the opportunity, Madam Chairman, to present this written testimony
    in support of the appropriation of $5.1 million from the Forest Legacy
    Program to conserve more than 19,600 acres of forestland in north
    central Maine.
        I also urge your support, Madam Chairman, for a significant
    increase in funding for the Forest Legacy Program in fiscal year 2009
    to enable the protection of more forest resource projects than are
    identified in the President's Budget. The Budget for this year proposes
    a cut of 75 percent and sets aside funds for only three Forest Legacy
    projects nationwide out of 82 submitted by the states. Without
    additional funds, the program will not be able to continue its
    successful partnerships with States, local communities, and landowners
    to protect valuable forestlands, while retaining, in many cases,
    private ownership.
        With over 15 million acres of forestland, Maine remains one of this
    Nation's most heavily forested States. The white pine, spruce, fir, and
    northern hardwoods that characterize the Maine woods are a critical
    component in two of Maine's largest industries--forestry and tourism.
    They provide incredible recreational opportunities, including hiking,
    hunting, snowmobiling, fishing, camping, boating, and numerous other
    activities. This landscape also sustains valuable fish and wildlife
    habitat for many different animal species.
        One of the greatest challenges facing Maine's forests is the
    fragmentation of ownership and the conversion of lands to non-forest
    uses. With most of Maine's woods being privately owned, the State of
    Maine and its nonprofit partners have been working to protect critical
    areas using a combination of Federal, State, local, and private funding
    to purchase targeted fee lands and large-scale conservation easements.
    In the past 8 years, these efforts have resulted in the conservation of
    almost 2 million acres of forestlands, providing Maine with permanent
    protection of valuable natural resources, public access to renowned
    recreation lands, and continued harvesting of timber resources in a
    sustainable fashion.
        Continuing its focus on protecting strategically important lands
    for recreation, the State of Maine has proposed the 19,647-acre
    Katahdin Forest Expansion project for Forest Legacy Program funding in
    fiscal year 2009. The Katahdin Region, which is anchored by Baxter
    State Park, contains Maine's largest block of contiguous conservation
    lands: over 500,000 acres, stretching from the north end of Seboeis
    Lake, along the 100-Mile Wilderness, across Baxter State Park, and up
    the Allagash Wilderness Waterway. This project seeks to add five
    critical parcels to these conservation holdings. All five properties
    have traditionally been under active commercial forest management and
    are key contributors to the local wood-products industry, upon which
    nearby communities, such as Millinocket and Brownville, are heavily
    dependent. In addition, the properties contain critical wildlife
    habitat, including nesting areas for 29 loons on Seboeis Lake and a
    major deer-wintering area west of Northwest Pond. There is also
    extensive wading bird and waterfowl habitat both along the lakeshore as
    well as in open wetlands away from the lake. Recreation has always been
    a focus on these properties, and protection through the Forest Legacy
    Program would ensure not only recreational opportunities for sportsmen
    and anglers, but also opportunities for those who enjoy motorized
    recreation, including snowmobiling. Maine's popular snowmobile trail,
    ITS 85, runs across the properties and would otherwise be closed if
    this project falls through. These lands are also critical because they
    are part of the viewshed from the peak of Mount Katahdin, the northern
    terminus of the Appalachian Trail, and spectacular views of that iconic
    mountain can be seen from these properties as well.
        The three northern tracts (Millinocket Forest, Lookout Mountain,
    and Hunt Farm) total over 11,600 acres and are located east of Baxter
    State Park on or near the East Branch of the Penobscot River. The East
    Branch has been described as the most spectacular wilderness river in
    the Northeast, having falls and gorges interspersed with majestic views
    of the Baxter Park mountains. In addition to protecting uplands along
    this popular whitewater river, acquisition of the East Branch tracts
    will secure critical portions of ITS 85.
        The landmark 1982 Maine Rivers Study found that the East Branch had
    high ecological, hydrologic, scenic, and recreational resource values.
    The Maine Department of Environmental Protection also classified it as
    AA, its top water-quality rank. The East Branch supports fisheries for
    brook trout, landlocked salmon, and smallmouth bass, offering many
    different fishing experiences. The Millinocket Forest property has an
    expansive wetland with diverse cover types, such as spruce-fir swamp,
    dwarf shrub bog, mixed fern, alder swamp, and emergent marsh.
    Additionally, there are two major stream drainages, Sandy Stream and
    Mud Brook. One-third of the property is inland wading bird and wildlife
    habitat, home to species like Virginia rails, black ducks, American
    bitterns, and great blue herons. Lookout Mountain includes uplands that
    command a spectacular view of Mount Katahdin and offers opportunities
    for both motorized and non-motorized recreation.
        The two other tracts, totaling over 8,000 acres, are on the
    southern edge of the protected Katahdin Region lands surrounding
    Seboeis Lake, which is a wilderness lake with outstanding views of
    Mount Katahdin. The Seboeis tracts, Seboeis South and West, include 19
    miles of shore and island frontage and will complete Maine's
    conservation ownership around Seboeis Lake. Five of the 19 miles of
    shoreline are wetlands that have been determined to be of ``special
    significance'' by the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and
    Wildlife. Maine's ``Wildlands Lake Assessment'' rated Seboeis Lake to
    be of ``statewide significance'', the highest ranking, due to its
    significant fisheries, wildlife, scenery, and cultural values. In terms
    of wildlife habitat, there are two known bald eagle nesting sites
    located just off the Seboeis West tract, and the protection zone around
    one of the nests extends onto the property.
        The Katahdin Forest Expansion project area is under critical threat
    of development or other conversion to non-forest uses. As recently as 5
    years ago, most land in townships bordering the east side of Baxter
    State Park was owned by two industrial forest owners, but there have
    since been more than a half-dozen transactions that have left these
    lands fragmented and sold to non-forest interests. All the available
    properties have access to I-95 and Bangor International Airport. They
    are emblematic of the Maine wilderness experience that is in such high
    demand in today's market. While Seboeis Lake is still remarkably
    pristine, Schoodic Lake, immediately to the west of Seboeis, has over
    400 camps, illustrating the demand for shorefront in the area. The
    current owner of the northern properties has indicated that barring
    acquisition by the State, future management will exclude forestry,
    hunting, and motorized access (including snowmobiling). This would have
    a significant negative impact on the local economy, which depends in
    large degree on forestry and tourism.
        In fiscal year 2009, $5.1 million in needed from the Forest Legacy
    Program to protect the Katahdin Forest Expansion properties from
    conversion to non-forestry uses. Supporting parties include the
    Appalachian Mountain Club, the Millinocket Town Council, Katahdin Area
    Working Group--Connect ME Committee, the Millinocket Town Manager, the
    Northern Timber Cruisers, The Wilderness Society, the Katahdin Area
    Chamber of Commerce, and the Natural Resources Council of Maine.
        Thank you again, Madam Chairman, for the opportunity to submit this
    testimony in support of the Katahdin Forest Expansion project.
                                     ______

               Prepared Statement of the Town of Ophir, Colorado

        Madam Chairman, Senator Allard, and honorable members of the
    subcommittee: Thank you Ms. Chairman for the opportunity to present
    public testimony in support of continued funding for the Ophir Valley
    Project and protection of important Federal lands. As the Mayor of the
    Town of Ophir, I am respectfully requesting the allocation of $2.5
    million to the U.S. Forest Service's fiscal year 2009 budget from the
    Land and Water Conservation Fund for the Ophir Valley Project. These
    funds will be used for the third phase of public acquisition of 1,200
    acres of privately owned forest service in-holdings in the Ophir
    Valley.
        The Ophir Valley Project represents an enthusiastic partnership of
    private land owners, regional communities, not-for-profit
    organizations, State and Federal agencies, and most importantly, the
    general public. Located on the San Juan Skyway Scenic Byway, Ophir
    Valley offers pristine alpine scenery, abundant recreational
    opportunities, and valuable habitat for threatened and endangered
    species. Easy public access is currently available for hiking, biking,
    rock climbing, hunting, camping, skiing, jeep touring, motorized
    recreation, and wildlife viewing. Due to the checkerboard pattern of
    privately owned patented mining claims, the Ophir Valley Project seeks
    to acquire these private in-holdings and consolidate U.S. Forest
    Service lands to insure permanent public access to Federal lands.
        The Town of Ophir has actively pursued a comprehensive, valley-wide
    land conservation program since 1992. Besides acquiring over 230 acres
    of mining claims and investing over $500,000.00 locally, the Town of
    Ophir has nurtured important relationships with private land owners and
    State and Federal agencies. The Pauls family has proven to be an
    invaluable resource and visionary partner with the Town of Ophir by
    supporting Ophir's land conservation goals and working with the Trust
    for Public Land. Now, after 16 years of dedicated land conservation
    efforts, the Pauls family is offering the last significant private land
    holdings in Ophir Valley for U.S. Forest Service acquisition.
        The Ophir Valley Project protection effort is the natural extension
    of the successful Red Mountain project, located just to the north and
    east of Ophir Valley. Federal funding for the Ophir Valley Project is
    complementing many regional projects along the 236 mile San Juan Skyway
    Scenic Byway (one of only 27 All American Roads in the National Scenic
    Byway program). The State's Great Outdoors Colorado Legacy Project
    program has pledged $5.7 million in grant funding to match local
    efforts to improve recreational opportunities and protect important
    lands along the San Juan Skyway.
        The requested funding for the Ophir Valley Project will produce the
    following benefits:
        1. Protect public access to many thousands of acres of U.S. Forest
    Service lands for diverse recreational opportunities;
        2. protect habitat for the Canadian Lynx, a federally listed
    threatened species; protect the endangered Uncompahgre Fritillary
    butterfly; and protect the headwaters for the San Miguel River, which
    sustains native cutthroat trout;
        3. improve U.S. Forest Service land management by consolidating
    ownership;
        4. leverage Federal funding support with over $10 million in State
    and local funding for regional recreation and land protection projects
    along the San Juan Scenic Byway;
        5. protect the historic character of this 1881 mining camp-town;
    and,
        6. protect the rugged alpine scenery of this pristine mountain
    valley.
        Thank you for your support and leadership in conserving Colorado's
    land and water resources. Land and Water Conservation Funding for the
    Ophir Valley Project will ensure future generations can enjoy this very
    special place in Colorado.
        Thank you for your consideration of this request.
                                     ______

                   Prepared Statement of The Wildlife Society

        The Wildlife Society appreciates the opportunity to provide
    comments on the proposed fiscal year 2009 budget for the Department of
    Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies. The Wildlife Society
    represents nearly 8,000 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, 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 $73.8 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 remaining habitats,
    limitations, and 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. As
    part of the Teaming with Wildlife coalition, we recommend that $85
    million be appropriated for State Wildlife Grants in fiscal year 2009.
        Equally essential for Wildlife Action Plan implementation is the
    Landowner Incentive Program (LIP), which acts in a unique way to bring
    a source of funds to landowners 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. TWS urges you to restore the Landowner Incentive Program
    to $23.7 million, the fiscal year 2007 enacted level.
        The Wildlife Society is an active member of the Cooperative
    Alliance for Refuge Enhancement (CARE), a diverse coalition of 22
    wildlife, sporting, conservation, and scientific organizations
    representing over 14 million members and supporters. A comprehensive
    analysis by CARE determined that the National Wildlife Refuge System
    needs $765 million in annual operations and maintenance funding by 2013
    to properly administer its nearly 100 million acres, educational
    programs, habitat restoration projects, and much more. Many years of
    stagnant budgets have increased the Operations and Maintenance backlog
    to $3.5 billion, and forced plans for a dramatic 20 percent downsizing
    of the workforce. Refuge visitors often show up to find roads and
    visitor centers closed, observation platforms and hiking trails in
    disrepair, and habitat restoration and education programs eliminated.
    Invasive plant species are taking over and with a deficiency of more
    than 500 law enforcement officers, illegal activities such as poaching
    and trespass are on the rise. We are grateful for the much-needed
    budget increase that Congress provided the Refuge System for the
    current fiscal year, and we urge the Congress to build upon this
    important step in the fiscal year 2009 budget. We request that you
    provide $514 million in fiscal year 2009 for the Operations and
    Maintenance of the National Wildlife Refuge System.
        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 2009.
        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 $6 million in fiscal year 2009.
        The Wildlife Society supports adequate funding levels for all
    subactivities within the Endangered Species Program, and is concerned
    with the proposed 2 percent budget reduction. Endangered species
    recovery efforts can ultimately lead to delisting actions that result
    in significant benefits to species through State management efforts.
    Currently, all subactivities are understaffed, as the costs for
    management of listed species continue to rapidly escalate. We recommend
    that Congress restore this program to the fiscal year 2008 level of
    $150.5 million.
        The Wildlife Society is very disappointed that funding for the
    Science Excellence Initiative has zeroed out for a second year in a
    row. Discontinuing funding for this office will prevent FWS from
    expanding its on-the-ground scientific capacity in adaptive resource
    management (ARM), structured decision analysis, and 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
    Science Excellence Initiative at $493,000 in fiscal year 2009.
        A detailed peer review of the Draft Spotted Owl Recovery Plan by
    The Wildlife Society indicated the plan does not adequately avail
    itself of the depth and breadth of the extensive information available
    upon which to build a scientifically credible recovery plan. The result
    is a seriously flawed plan for recovery that weakens virtually every
    provision already in place for northern spotted owls. The Society
    recommends that FWS start over with a fundamental commitment to using
    the best available science and find real solutions to threats faced by
    spotted owls and their habitats. In doing so, FWS should reconstitute
    the membership of the recovery team so that it emphasizes biologists
    and ecologists with extensive expertise in the biology of the spotted
    owl and the ecology and management of Pacific Northwest forests.

                           BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

        The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) manages more public land than
    any other Federal agency. However, its programs to manage fish and
    wildlife are chronically understaffed: BLM has only one biologist per
    591,000 acres. The agency needs at least $60 million annually to simply
    keep up with actions assigned to it by recovery plans for listed
    species.
        The proposed budget for BLM's Wildlife Management Program is
    $31.443 million, a $719,000 increase over fiscal year 2008. However,
    this includes $6.0 million for the Healthy Lands Initiative. Therefore,
    an increase of $5.281 million is required to simply maintain the
    program at fiscal year 2008 levels. However, given the significant
    underfunding of the BLM's wildlife programs, combined with the
    tremendous expansion of energy development across the BLM landscape, an
    increase to $52.086 million for the BLM Wildlife Management Program is
    warranted. This will allow BLM to maintain and restore wildlife and
    habitat by monitoring habitat conditions, conducting inventories of
    wildlife resources, and developing cooperative management plans.
        BLM's Threatened and Endangered Species Management Program would
    suffer a significant cut under the administration's request of $20.552
    million in fiscal year 2009. The current budget is woefully inadequate
    for BLM to meet its conservation responsibilities in endangered species
    recovery plans that identify more than $300 million of recovery tasks
    to be accomplished by BLM in the next 5 years. In addition, the
    administration's 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. In view of this gross inequity between resource
    needs and funding levels, we strongly encourage Congress to increase
    overall funding for the BLM endangered species program to $33.453
    million.

                             U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

        As a member of the USGS Coalition, The Wildlife Society supports
    $1.3 billion in funding for USGS in fiscal year 2009. This would enable
    USGS to meet new challenges while continuing to provide essential data
    for land-use management, sustainable natural resource development, 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.
        The Wildlife Society is concerned that the proposed budget includes
    only 82 percent of uncontrollables for the Biological Resources
    Discipline (BRD). We strongly recommend that Congress increase the
    fiscal year 2009 budget for BRD to a level that fully funds
    uncontrollables in order to prevent further erosion to essential
    programs and services.
        We are also concerned about the proposed $2,940,000 reduction to
    NBII funding and the impacts that this reduction may have on research
    focused on the critical issues of wildlife disease, invasive species,
    fire ecology, and migratory birds. The Wildlife Society recommends that
    Congress fund NBII at the fiscal year 2008 enacted level of $22.422
    million.
        We also support increased funding for the Cooperative Fish and
    Wildlife Research Units (CFWRUs). The CFWRUs are a jointly funded
    Federal/State partnership, where the Federal Government provides the
    funding for personnel and States provide funding to establish the units
    at a university. At funding levels proposed for fiscal year 2009, the
    Federal Government will not be able to meet its commitments outlined in
    existing agreements with States, and closure of one or more CFWRUs is a
    distinct possibility. fiscal year 2001 was the last time Congress fully
    funded the CFWRUs, allowing unit productivity to rise to record levels.
    Since then, budgetary shortfalls have caused an erosion of available
    fiscal resources, resulting in a current staffing vacancy of 23
    researcher positions, nearly one quarter of the professional workforce.
    In order to fill current scientist vacancies, restore seriously eroded
    operational funds for each CFWRU, and enhance national program
    coordination, the fiscal year 2009 budget for the CFWRUs should be
    increased to $19.174 million. This 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 staffing agreed to with partners, so
    that the return on their continuing investment in the CFWRUs is
    realized and fully leveraged.
        The CFWRUs are crucial to successfully addressing the natural
    resource management challenges posed by climate change, energy
    development needs, invasive species, infectious diseases, and wildfire.
    These challenges also include replacing the unprecedented number of
    natural resource professionals who will be retiring over the next 10
    years. To begin meeting these high priority research and training needs
    in fiscal year 2009, we ask that you establish a competitive, matching
    fund program within existing CFWRU legislative authority that would
    make available $5 million annually in new funds beyond base operational
    costs.
        The Wildlife Society appreciates the funding for the National
    Global Warming and Wildlife Science Center, which in fiscal year 2008
    provided up to $2.5 million for the Center's establishment. This center
    will play a pivotal role in addressing the impacts of climate change on
    fish and wildlife. Additional funding is needed in fiscal year 2009 to
    continue establishment of the Center, begin to fund key research
    priorities, and enable USGS and its partners to develop a plan for
    moving forward. The Wildlife Society recommends that the National
    Global Warming and Wildlife Science Center be funded at $10 million in
    fiscal year 2009.

                              U.S. FOREST SERVICE

        The Wildlife Society is deeply concerned that the President's
    budget proposes a 10 percent reduction for the Wildlife and Fisheries
    Habitat Management Program. We urge Congress to restore $36.4 million
    to this program, for a total of $154 million in fiscal year 2009.
        Thank you for considering the recommendations of wildlife
    professionals. We are available to work with you and your staff
    throughout the appropriations process.
                                     ______

                  Prepared Statement of The Wilderness Society

        The Wilderness Society (TWS) appreciates this opportunity to
    provide recommendations and comments on the fiscal year 2009
    appropriations for wildfire management for 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 we will
    address: (1) Wildfire Suppression Funding; (2) Wildland Fire Use (WFU)
    and Appropriate Management Response; (3) insufficient funding for
    community fire assistance programs and (4) Hazardous Fuels funding
    language.

                          WILDFIRE SUPPRESSION FUNDING

        Federal fire suppression costs have increased significantly in
    recent years, exceeding $1 billion in five of the last 7 years. The
    increasing cost of suppression is a result of a number of factors,
    including prolonged drought, past suppression policy (resulting in the
    build-up of hazardous fuels) and the explosive growth of communities
    into wildlands. As suppression activities continue to increase, so does
    the suppression budget since it is based on a 10-year rolling average.
    Because the agencies' budgets are essentially flat year to year, to
    off-set these increases funding for critical programs has been
    significantly reduced and more and more of the land management
    agencies' budgets are being used for wildland fire management (the
    largest component of which is suppression). For example, the Forest
    Service's fire funding has gone from 13 percent of their budget in
    fiscal year 1991 to a staggering 48 percent projected for fiscal year
    2009. This has severely compromised the agencies' ability to carry out
    their other mission duties.
        While appropriated suppression funds are significant, they have
    still fallen far short in recent years. To make up the difference, the
    agencies have depended on Congress to provide them additional emergency
    funding through supplemental appropriations and they have had to borrow
    money from other programs, often those very programs--hazardous fuels
    reduction and community assistance--that help bring down the costs
    associated with wildland fire. Recognizing that past borrowing caused
    project cancellations, strained relationships with partners, and
    disruptions in management, Congress has provided funding for a
    suppression reserve account for both the Forest Service and the
    Department of the Interior in prior years. The reserve account has
    helped reduce the negative impacts associated with transferring funds
    and, while TWS has appreciates the subcommittee's leadership in
    securing these funds, it is a short-term solution; a long-term solution
    to dealing with this problem is needed.
        TWS recommends a three-prong approach: (1) agency commitment to
    cost containment; (2) investment in 21st century fire management and
    forest restoration; and (3) fixing fire suppression funding. While some
    of the factors that have contributed to increasing suppression costs
    will be largely unaffected by cost containment strategies, the Federal
    agencies still can, and should, take measures to bring suppression
    costs down. The agencies have taken important steps in the right
    direction by pursuing numerous cost containment strategies, the most
    important of which is a new way of managing fires, called ``risk-based
    suppression'' or ``Appropriate Management Response (AMR)''--an approach
    to firefighting that treats each fire individually, accounting for
    threats to lives and property first, but also weighing factors like
    ecology and landscape and then applying the appropriate response--which
    can include the full range of tactical responses from monitoring to
    aggressive attack. The Wilderness Society applauds the agencies for
    undertaking cost containment measures and embracing the AMR approach
    and encourages the subcommittee to support them as they continue to
    make this difficult transition in fire management. It is important to
    recognize, however, that, while important, cost control measures alone
    will not be enough to solve this problem. As such, it's critical that
    the agencies not only strive to contain costs where they can, but also
    fully invest in 21st century fire management and forest restoration.
    That means maintaining their commitment to an AMR fire management
    strategy and fully implementing the 1995 Federal Fire Policy and its
    2001 Update, which includes a recognition that natural fire is
    important in maintaining our natural ecosystems and that natural fire,
    through the Wildland Fire Use (WFU) tool, should be used to protect,
    maintain, and enhance resources and, as nearly as possible, be allowed
    to function in its natural ecological role. That also means pursing all
    of the goals of the 10-Year Comprehensive Strategy, including community
    fire assistance and restoration of fire-adapted ecosystems. These
    changes will lead to healthier landscapes and less costly fire seasons
    in the future. To accomplish these goals, Congress and the agencies
    must invest in a 21st Century fire management force and invest in
    forest restoration--investments that must be on par with the one made
    in hazardous fuels reduction. A key aspect of this investment must be
    funding designated specifically for training and staffing in Wildland
    Fire Use. TWS recommends designating at least $10 million specifically
    for increasing staffing for and training in Wildland Fire Use.
        Unfortunately, skyrocketing suppression costs will not be
    completely alleviated by these actions. A new long term funding
    strategy is also needed. A new suppression funding structure that
    creates a separate flexible suppression spending account (usually
    referred to as ``partitioning'') for unanticipated large fire events
    from the already constrained Federal wildland fire budgets is required
    to free up funds to be invested in other key agency mission areas. The
    partition should be based on the true cost driver of suppression
    expenditures, extremely large fires. In general, a small percentage of
    wildfires burn most of the acres and consume a majority of total
    suppression funds. These fires are truly above and beyond normal
    budgeting processes, truly ``emergencies'' and should be paid for
    differently. Two key complements to this separate account are
    necessary: first, the agencies' normal suppression budgets must remain
    robust, reflecting current suppression needs for the remainder of fires
    and the fact that increased suppression costs are here to stay; and
    second, funds must be redistributed back into those programs that have
    been reduced because of increasing suppression costs (programs like
    land acquisition, recreation and wilderness, wildlife and fisheries,
    and inventory and monitoring). This ``partitioned'' suppression budget
    must also be closely tied to appropriate sideboards, cost containment
    controls, and line officer incentives to ensure that the agencies
    continue momentum to streamline costs and maintain their commitment to
    21st century fire management. This means there must be requirements the
    agencies must meet before they can access the account. These
    requirements should include, for example, that the fires for which this
    account is used meet certain minimum criteria--like size, severity, and
    values at risk. In addition, the agencies must be able to demonstrate
    that they remain committed to cost containment, that they are
    continuing to pursue an AMR fire management strategy, and that they are
    expanding their WFU programs before they can access this account. In
    addition, incentives should be put in place to limit the use of this
    account and to reward the agencies for not drawing down the account.
    Lastly, to ensure accountability, the agencies should annually report
    to Congress on how they spend the funds in this separate account. While
    it is important to alleviate the extreme budgetary pressures that have
    been placed on the agencies in the last few years due to escalating
    suppression costs, it is just as important that the agencies continue
    to demonstrate cost containment and accountability and movement towards
    a robust fire management strategy that includes incorporating fire back
    into its natural place on the landscape, as is required by the Federal
    Fire Policy.

                            WILDLAND FIRE USE (WFU)

        The default response to most fires, even those burning in remote
    areas, has been to fight them; contributing to skyrocketing suppression
    costs. 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 pledges to continue to pursue an
    expanded WFU program in their fiscal year 2009 Budget. They are also
    taking an important step forward by proposing a change in the way they
    ``count'' hazardous fuels treatment acres. As a follow-up to a
    recommendation made by the USDA IG, the agency will develop a
    ``science-based methodology to evaluate non-catastrophic acres burned
    in wildfire incidents as acres treated toward desired conditions.'' The
    agency notes that this change will ``encourage the cost-effective
    practice of using unplanned wildfires to reduce hazardous fuels when
    appropriate.'' TWS applauds the agency for taking this step forward and
    hopes the subcommittee will support this change. While we recognize
    that 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 at least $10 million in funding from the suppression or
    preparedness line items to increase training and staffing for WFU at
    DOI and USFS; (2) monitor the agencies as they move forward in making
    fire policy changes that allow a wildland fire to be managed for both
    suppression and WFU and ensure these changes are finalized.

                           COMMUNITY FIRE ASSISTANCE

        To successfully reduce suppression costs and restore forests, we
    must approach fire management on the terms dictated by fire itself--
    across ownership boundaries. Safe communities and healthy landscapes go
    hand-in-hand. 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 over 51,000
    communities at risk. The scope of the problem is clearly enormous--and
    growing. Experts predict that almost 8 million new homes will be built
    in the wildland-urban interface (WUI) between 2005 and 2010. Increased
    population in the WUI is one of the primary reasons suppression costs
    have skyrocketed to over $1 billion per year. Communities that are
    ``firesafe'', or well-prepared for fire, are key to reducing these
    suppression costs--and ultimately restoring functional, and fire-
    resilient, wildlands. However, funding for the programs that help
    communities meet this goal has trended downward since fiscal year 2001
    and that trend continues with the administration's fiscal year 2009
    Budget request, which proposes to slash these programs even further--by
    27 percent. 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; last year TWS 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
    2009 Budget proposes reducing the already woefully underfunded State
    Fire Assistance program by 25.5 percent (from $80.6 million to $60.0
    million). Volunteer Fire Assistance, which targets rural communities
    with populations under 10,000, is proposed for a 6 percent reduction--
    from $13.8 million to $13 million. The BLM's Rural Fire Assistance
    program was also once again proposed for elimination. Compounding these
    cuts is a drastic 58 percent reduction to the State and Private
    Forestry budget as a whole, an additional blow to private landowners.
    The National Association of State Foresters estimates SFA funding needs
    at a minimum of $145 million--the program's fiscal year 2009 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 historic average
    for SFA, resulting in a $144 million appropriation that would meet
    projected needs. TWS also recommends that BLM's Rural Fire Assistance
    program be restored to $10 million.

                        HAZARDOUS FUELS FUNDING LANGUAGE

        As already noted, fire management must take place across
    jurisdictions, at a landscape scale, to be successful. An important
    tool for accomplishing this has been the ability of the Forest Service
    to use up to $15 million of its Hazardous Fuels funding on non-Federal
    lands directly adjacent to active hazardous fuels treatment projects on
    National Forests to mitigate risks of hazardous fuels conditions on
    non-Federal lands in the WUI. This legislative language has been in
    place since it was added to the 2002 the Interior and Related Agencies
    Appropriations bill. Numerous agency partners on the ground have
    emphasized the importance of these funds in helping them carry out
    projects, in concert with the Forest Service, that help them build
    defensible space around their communities. In the President's fiscal
    year 2009 Forest Service Budget this previous authorization is proposed
    for deletion. TWS recommends that the subcommittee retain this
    language.
                                     ______

                  Prepared Statement of The Wilderness Society

        The Wilderness Society (TWS) represents more than 310,000 members
    and supporters across the United States who support our mission to
    protect wilderness and inspire Americans to care for our wild places. I
    thank the committee for the opportunity to submit comments on the
    fiscal year 2009 Department of the Interior and Related Agencies
    Appropriations bill.
        Last year, the Federal allocations reversed the near decade-long
    pattern of severe funding cuts to numerous conservation programs. We
    applaud Congress for increasing appropriations for essential public
    land conservation activities, particularly the boosts for wildlife
    refuges and national parks. Despite this progress, these and other
    indispensable conservation programs continue to suffer from years of
    under-funding. To avoid the slow, steady collapse of our public land
    conservation systems, we ask that you take bold, immediate action in
    making additional investments for fiscal year 2009. As a minimum step
    toward adequate funding of our public land programs and to meet new
    challenges associated with climate change, TWS recommends:

                        LAND AND WATER CONSERVATION FUND

        As a Federal side program with a State matching grant program, the
    Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) has been this Nation's single
    most effective tool for creating new parks and open spaces, protecting
    wild lands and wetlands, preserving wildlife habitat, and enhancing
    recreational opportunities. The Federal program provides funds to
    purchase land and water resources for national parks, forests, wildlife
    refuges, and other public lands. The State matching grants program
    provides funds to assist in the acquisition of urban open space and
    creation of local recreation facilities. For fiscal year 2009, the
    administration's budget proposal slashes LWCF funds by more than $110
    million, reducing the funding level to nearly $43 million. TWS' fiscal
    year 2009 recommendation for the LWCF is $403 million ($278 million for
    Federal and $125 million for stateside), an increase of $248.7 million
    over fiscal year 2008 enacted level of $154.3 million.
        A Sampling of TWS LWCF and Forest Legacy Acquisition Priorities for
    fiscal year 2009:
      --AZ--Las Cienegas National Conservation Area. LWCF Request: $550,000
      --CA--California Desert Wilderness. LWCF Request: $500,000; Santa
            Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains National Monument. LWCF Request:
            $2.58 million
      --CO--Canyons of the Ancients National Monument. LWCF Request: $3
            million
      --GA--Silver Lake--Forest Legacy Request: $4.5 million
      --ID--Idaho Wild & Scenic River--Morgan Ranch. LWCF Request $2.2
            million; Upper Snake/South Fork Snake River ACEC/SRMA. LWCF
            Request: $300,000
      --NC--Appalachian National Scenic Trail--Roan Highlands. LWCF
            Request: $1.8 million
      --MN--Upper Mississippi River NWR (includes WI, IA, and IL). LWCF
            Request $500,000
      --NH--Lake Umbagog NWR. LWCF Request: $1 million
      --NM--Kasha-Katuwe Tent Rocks National Monument. LWCF Request:
            $502,000
      --OR--Cascade Siskiyou National Monument. LWCF Request: $3.6 million
      --SC--Congaree National Park--1,840 acres Riverstone tract. LWCF
            Request: $5.3 million
      --TN--Rocky Fork, 10,000 acres located along the Appalachian Trail
            Corridor on the NC-TN line. LWCF Request: $9 million; North
            Cumberland Conservation Area. Forest Legacy Request: $8.1
            million
        Bureau of Land Management (BLM).--Once again, the President's
    budget makes oil and gas drilling its top priority, funding a $22
    million increase in the program, while reducing allocations for such
    programs as fisheries management, cultural resources management,
    threatened and endangered species management, and resource protection
    and law enforcement. In addition, the administration has asked that
    Congress delete the prohibition on use of appropriations to finalize a
    commercial oil shale leasing program and on holding commercial oil
    shale lease sales. We recommend a reduction in the allocation for the
    oil and gas program, the imposition of a ``due diligence fee'' on the
    more than 30 million acres of idle onshore Federal oil and gas leases,
    similar to section 7224 of H.R. 3221 passed by the House last year, and
    a reallocation of funds to programs such as fisheries management,
    cultural resources management, threatened and endangered species
    management, and resource protection and law enforcement. We also
    strongly urge retention of the prohibition on the use of funds to
    finalize a commercial oil shale leasing program because the BLM simply
    does not have enough information upon which to design and implement an
    appropriate commercial oil shale leasing and development program at
    this time.

                  BLM'S NATIONAL LANDSCAPE CONSERVATION SYSTEM

        The Bureau of Land Management's (BLM) National Landscape
    Conservation System, comprising some 26 million acres of
    congressionally and presidentially designated lands and waters, such as
    national monuments and national conservation areas, represents some of
    the best places where one can experience the history and wild beauty of
    the West. The System provides innumerable recreational opportunities,
    critical wildlife habitat, clean water, wilderness, and open space near
    fast-growing cities. The President's budget request represents a needed
    $2.6 million increase over his 2008 request, though it is still more
    than $3.5 million below last year's enacted level of $55.3 million.
    This year, the President's budget did add a budget category for the
    System's national monuments and national conservation areas, providing
    more transparency and improving managers' ability to plan for and track
    funding; however, additional clarity is still needed. TWS' fiscal year
    2009 recommendation is $70 million for the Conservation System, an
    increase of $14.7 million over fiscal year 2008 enacted level.

                              NATIONAL PARK SYSTEM

        Our National Park System, comprised of 387 units, includes some of
    our Nation's most beautiful landscapes and culturally significant
    areas. Increased funding for operations of the National Park System can
    help ensure that visitors have safe, enjoyable, and educational
    experiences in the park system. The President's budget provides $2.4
    billion for the Park Service and would increase the operations budget
    by $161 million to $2.1 billion. This money can be invested in
    interpretation, enforcement, and natural resource protection staff.
    Unfortunately, this increase comes at the expense of other critical
    Park Service funding, including a $46 million cut from the construction
    account. The request of $172 million for construction is a mere half of
    what was provided 5 years ago. These construction funds are badly
    needed to help the Park Service reduce its staggering parks maintenance
    and construction backlog.

                        NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE SYSTEM

        The National Wildlife Refuge System, with its 548 refuges on nearly
    100 million acres of land, helps protect critical wildlife habitat,
    ensuring that wildlife protection remains a priority of these lands.
    There is a wildlife refuge in every State and within an hour's drive of
    most American cities. More than 35 million people visit refuges
    annually, generating nearly $1.7 billion for local economies and
    supporting almost 27,000 private sector jobs. Last year's operations
    and maintenance appropriation increase of nearly $39 million brought
    funding to a level that is close to what the Refuge System needed to
    keep pace with inflation costs over the past 5 years. This significant
    investment helped stem severe staff losses and program cuts. But years
    of stagnant funding fueled a spiraling backlog of $3.5 billion in
    operations and maintenance projects and a loss of more than 300
    positions since 2004. The Refuge System needs $765 million in annual
    funds to adequately address its operations and maintenance needs of the
    Refuge System. The President's budget request of $434 million fails to
    take into account annual inflation adjustments, which will cost the
    system nearly $15 million. TWS' fiscal year 2009 recommendation for the
    Refuge System is $514 million. This represents an increase of $79.9
    million over the fiscal year 2008 enacted level of $434.1 million.

                             NATIONAL FOREST LANDS

        We believe a proposed cut of 2,707 full time employees in the
    Forest Service, with almost 1,200 cuts in the National Forest System
    alone, could jeopardize many key functions that the Forest Service
    normally performs. In particular, TWS believes the potential
    elimination of the wilderness director and other leadership positions
    from the Forest Service program that manages 35 million wilderness
    acres would result in an inadequate organizational and management
    structure.
        Although the Forest Service cites the loss of open space as one of
    its top tier concerns, the President's proposed budget ignores this
    worry entirely. A proposed 58 percent cut to the State and Private
    Forestry program from the fiscal year 2008 enacted level of $262.6
    million--requesting just $109.5 million for fiscal year 2009--would
    jeopardize the Forest Service's ability to protect open spaces. Under
    the State and Private Forestry program, Forest Legacy would receive a
    drastic 76 percent cut from its fiscal year 2008 enacted level of $52.3
    million to $12.5 million under the President's budget. The Urban and
    Community Forestry program would also be cut to $5 million, which is an
    82 percent drop from last year's enacted level of $27.7 million. TWS'
    recommendation for fiscal year 2009 is that Forest Legacy be funded at
    $125 million and Urban and Community Forestry be funded at minimum $30
    million.
        In addition, TWS is concerned that the Forest Service has not moved
    toward a more serious and consistent approach to managing its
    increasingly deteriorating road system. The Forest Service should not
    only work to limit the construction of new roads, until it reaches a
    sustainable level of miles, but also prioritize decommissioning roads
    that are unneeded and causing environmental problems. The Forest
    Service can begin reaching this goal by maintaining and funding the
    Legacy Road and Trail Remediation Program at TWS' recommended level of
    $75 million. Additionally, the Roads Maintenance Program should be
    funded at a level that will help to maintain necessary roads. The
    Forest Service estimates a need of $649 million to meet its annual road
    maintenance needs. TWS recommends this program receive $325 million,
    half of these funds should be allocated to roads maintenance in those
    forests where a roads analysis, identifying the unnecessary and
    problematic roads that should be decommissioned, is completed.
        Recreation is the largest of the forest uses, making it critical
    that the Forest Service encourage recreation that is environmentally
    sound, including actions to help Americans adapt to a more climate-
    responsible method of recreation. The Forest Service's ``travel
    management rule'' requires designating roads and trails that minimize
    impacts to visitors, waterways, and wildlife habitats. Although the
    Forest Service was instructed to pull dollars from several programs to
    fund the travel management projects, all of the funds to date have been
    derived from the Recreation program, thus constraining other Recreation
    programs. Therefore, TWS recommends a $115.8 million increase to the
    Recreation, Heritage and Wilderness program for travel management
    planning and implementation for fiscal year 2009. An additional
    increase of $30 million is recommended for the Wilderness and Wild &
    Scenic Rivers program.

                        STATE AND LOCAL FIRE ASSISTANCE

        In 2001, the Forest Service and the Department of the Interior
    identified over 11,000 communities adjacent to Federal lands that are
    at risk from wildland fire. State Foresters conservatively estimate
    45,000 communities at risk. The scope of the problem is enormous--and
    growing. Experts estimate that almost eight million new homes will be
    built in the wildland-urban interface (WUI) between 2005 and 2010.
    Increased population in the WUI is one of the main reasons suppression
    costs are skyrocketing. State Fire Assistance is the primary Federal
    program that helps communities prepare for fire by funding firefighter
    training, hazardous fuels reduction near communities, and Community
    Wildfire Protection Planning. TWS' fiscal year 2009 recommendation for
    State Fire Assistance is $144 million, an increase of $63.4 million
    over the fiscal year 2008 enacted level of $80.6 million.

                          WILDFIRE SUPPRESSION FUNDING

        Wildland fire will account for 48 percent of the Forest Service's
    budget in fiscal year 2009, overwhelming other agency mission areas.
    Moreover, experts are predicting that a changing climate will only
    increase the length of the fire season. To address this problem,
    Congress must: (1) fix the suppression funding structure; and (2)
    invest in a 21st century fire management force. A new suppression
    funding structure should create a separate fund for unanticipated large
    fire events, freeing up constrained Federal wildland firefighting
    budgets to be invested in the goals of the National Fire Plan and the
    10-Year Comprehensive Strategy. A robust commitment to new fire
    management strategies, like risk-based suppression and Wildland Fire
    Use, is also needed. This change will lead to healthier landscapes and
    less costly fire seasons in the future. TWS recommends implementing a
    new budget funding structure for wildland fire suppression and
    designating $10 million from suppression funding to increase Wildland
    Fire Use staffing and training.

                         LAND SALES AND ARCTIC DRILLING

        The administration once again proposes to sell BLM lands and to
    drill in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge for deficit reduction and
    other purposes. Similar proposals included in previous administration
    budgets have been rejected by Congress. We urge the subcommittee to
    once again omit from its bill and report any language that would amend
    existing law to provide for such land sale and drilling provisions.
                                     ______

                    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) for fiscal year 2009. We continue to believe that the
    USGS budget request is below the amount 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 $1.3 billion in
    fiscal year 2009.
        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 2009 budget request for the USGS is
    $969 million, which is $38 million or 4 percent below the fiscal year
    2008 enacted budget. The USGS budget has declined in real dollars for 7
    consecutive years and it would decline for an eighth year if the fiscal
    year 2009 budget request were 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
    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.

        Over the past several years, natural hazards have negatively
    affected communities across the country, including flash floods and
    forest fires in California, and hurricanes in Florida and the Gulf
    Coast region. Forest fires burned a total of 9,321,326 acres of land in
    the United States in 2007. These fires are not limited to western
    States. Virginia experienced a 16 percent rise in wildfires. 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
        Providing the information necessary to mitigate the impacts of
    natural disasters 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. Data from the USGS network of stream gages
    enables the National Weather Service to issue flood warnings. The USGS
    and its Federal partners monitor seasonal wildfires, provide maps of
    current fire locations and the potential spread of fires. 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 jeopardize human lives and cost billions of
    dollars in damages every year.
        Equally important, the USGS plays a critical role in bioinformatics
    and managing natural resources, essential to our economy, security, and
    environment. Baseline data about our Nation's biology and how it is
    changing is needed to understand and address climate change. The USGS
    provides fundamental scientific data that informs management of natural
    resources (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 monitoring of wildlife diseases (e.g.,
    Highly Pathogenic Avian Flu, Chronic Wasting Disease) that can cause
    billions of dollars in agricultural losses.
        The USGS is uniquely positioned to address many of the Nation's
    environmental and security challenges, including energy independence,
    climate change, water quality, and conservation of biological
    diversity. Efforts to make the Nation more energy-independent requires
    recurring USGS assessments of previously unexploited mineral and
    emerging energy resources, including geothermal resources, and
    renewable energy sources such as biofuels.
        USGS research that spans the biological, geological, geographical,
    and hydrological sciences are essential for understanding potential
    impacts that could result from global climate change or from land
    management practices. These studies provide critical information for
    resource managers as they develop adaptive management strategies for
    restoration and long-term use of the Nation's natural resources.
        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 decision-
    makers.

                              USGS BUDGET REQUEST

        The USGS Coalition urges Congress to increase the budget of the
    U.S. Geological Survey to $1.3 billion in fiscal year 2009, which is
    necessary for the agency to continue providing critical information to
    the public and to decision-makers 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 (e.g.,
    substantial reductions in the Mineral Resources program, Water
    Resources Research Institutes, National Water-Quality Assessment
    Program, earthquake hazards research grants, Toxic Substances Hydrology
    program, and National Biological Information Infrastructure),
    accelerate the timetable for deployment of critical projects (e.g., the
    National Streamflow Information Program and the multi-hazards
    initiative), and launch science initiatives that address new
    challenges.
        The President's fiscal year 2009 budget request would cut funding
    for the USGS by approximately $38 million or 4 percent to $969 million
    compared with the fiscal year 2008 enacted budget of $1.006 billion.
    The USGS budget request would provide funding for several initiatives,
    including Water for America, Ocean and Coastal Frontiers, Healthy
    Lands, and Birds Forever. These initiatives deserve the support of
    Congress.
        The USGS budget request would cut $24.6 million from the Mineral
    Resources program, a decrease of 48 percent that would decimate the
    program and necessitate buyouts of hundreds of Federal workers. The
    budget request would also eliminate all funding ($6.3 million) for the
    Water Resources Research Institutes, which are located in all 50
    States. Congress has repeatedly rejected similar proposed cuts to these
    programs in recent years and we urge Congress to reject these proposed
    cuts again this year.
        The President's budget request for fiscal year 2009 also proposes
    large cuts in other programs, including a $9.8 million reduction in the
    National Water-Quality Assessment Program, a $3 million cut in
    extramural research grants on earthquake hazards, a $3 million
    reduction in the Toxic Substances Hydrology program, and a $2.9 million
    cut in the National Biological Information Infrastructure (NBII). The
    proposed cut in the NBII would result in a 70 percent reduction over 3
    years, significantly impairing the agency's core capacity to provide
    access to high quality, integrated biological data that informs
    resource management decisions. The budget request also includes many
    smaller budget cuts. 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
    account for approximately $500 billion in the U.S. economy. 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
    decision-making. 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.
        The USGS Coalition is grateful to Congress for its leadership in
    restoring past budget cuts and strengthening the U.S. Geological
    Survey. 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 Geological Society of America
    (cschiffries@geosociety.org).
                                     ______

           Prepared Statement of the United Tribes Technical College

        For 39 years, United Tribes Technical College (UTTC) has provided
    postsecondary career and technical education, job training and family
    services to some of the most impoverished Indian students from
    throughout the Nation. We are governed by the five tribes located
    wholly or in part in North Dakota. We have consistently had excellent
    results, placing Indian people in good jobs and reducing welfare rolls.
    Bureau of Indian Education (BIE) funds constitute about half of our
    operating budget and provide for our core instructional programs. We do
    not have a tax base or State-appropriated funds on which to rely. The
    requests of the United Tribes Technical College Board for the fiscal
    year 2009 BIE budget are:
      --$4.5 million in BIE funds for UTTC, which is $500,000 over the
            fiscal year 2008 level.
      --We ask for the committee's continued support for a Memorandum of
            Understanding between the BIA and UTTC concerning training and
            certification of BIA law enforcement officers.
      --A 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 2009
            request for Job Placement and Training is $8,864,000 with an
            additional $2,011,604 under TPA adult education for a total of
            $10.9 million. This is a $429,396 reduction from fiscal year
            2008. The fiscal year 2009 amount is far less than the fiscal
            year 1970 appropriation of $60 million for this program. There
            is little BIA/BIE leadership or advocacy for job training or
            vocational/technical education at the central or regional
            office levels.
        The administration, for the seventh straight year, has requested no
    funding for United Tribes Technical College or for Navajo Technical
    College. Thankfully, Congress understands the value of investing in
    tribal postsecondary education and has restored the funding each year.
        This crass, outrageous and irresponsible proposal, if carried out,
    would irreparably harm Indian students who often have no other chance
    for improving their lives but through UTTC and Navajo Technical
    College. The administration's request represents a failure to
    understand our educational mission and the nature of the populations we
    serve.
        Our students are disadvantaged in many ways. They often come from
    impoverished backgrounds or broken families. They may be overcoming
    extremely difficult personal circumstances as single parents. They
    often lack the resources, both culturally and financially, to go to
    mainstream institutions. UTTC provides a set of family and culturally-
    based campus services, including: an elementary school for the children
    of students, housing, day care, a health clinic, a wellness center,
    several on-campus job programs, student government, counseling,
    services relating to drug and alcohol abuse and job placement programs
    that enable our students to start on the road to realizing their
    potential.
        The administration states that UTTC has other sources of funding to
    carry out its mission. This is not correct. Our present Bureau of
    Indian Education and Perkins funds (also cut entirely from the
    President's fiscal year 2009 budget) provide for nearly all of our core
    postsecondary educational programs. Almost none of the other funds we
    receive can be used for core career and technical educational programs;
    they are supplemental and help us provide the services our students
    need to be successful. Moreover, these other programs are competitive,
    which means we have no guarantee that such funds will be available to
    us in the future. We cannot continue operating without BIE funds.
        The administration's stated view that because there other tribal
    colleges in North Dakota and that the Navajo Nation has Dine College
    that UTTC and NTC do not need BIE funding is specious at best. We
    educate Indian students from throughout the Nation, many from tribes
    which do not have tribal colleges. We need more capacity at UTTC and
    NTC and the other tribal colleges, not less, because the demand from
    Indians for higher education is there.
        Below are some important facts about United Tribes Technical
    College.
        UTTC Performance Indicators. UTTC has:
      --An 81 percent retention rate
      --A placement rate of 94 percent (job placement and going on to 4-
            year institutions)
      --A projected return on Federal investment of 20-to-1 (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. We are also the only tribal college
            accredited to offer accredited on-line (Internet based)
            associate degrees.
      --More than 20 percent of our students go on to 4-year or advanced
            degree institutions.
        Law Enforcement Training.--We ask for the continued support of
    Congress in obtaining 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. While we
    have received assurances from the Assistant Secretary for Indian
    Affairs that the MOU is under consideration, we need to know that this
    effort will continue into the next administration. We appreciate the
    language regarding the MOU in the fiscal year 2008 Senate
    appropriations report and ask that this language be included in the
    fiscal year 2009 committee report.
        The committee is concerned about the need for additional law
    enforcement officers in Indian country and to that end supports an
    articulation agreement between the BIA and United Tribes Technical
    College that would establish reciprocity between UTTC and the Bureau
    for training and certification of BIA law enforcement officers. (S.
    Rpt. 110-91, p. 38).
        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
        The demand for our services is growing and we are serving more
    students. For the 2007-2008 year we enrolled 1,122 students (an
    unduplicated count), nearly four times the number served just 6 years
    ago. Most of our students are from the Great Plains, where the Indian
    reservations have a jobless rate of 76 percent (Source: 2003 BIA Labor
    Force Report), along with increasing populations. The need for our
    services will continue to increase at least for the next 5 to 10 years.
        In addition, we are serving 248 students during school year 2007-
    2008 in our Theodore Jamerson Elementary school and 252 children, birth
    to 5, are being served in our child development centers.
        UTTC course offerings and partnerships with other educational
    institutions. We offer 15 vocational/technical programs and award a
    total of 15 two-year degrees (Associate of Applied Science (AAS)) and
    six 1-year certificates, as well as a 4 year degree in elementary
    education in cooperation with Sinte Gleska University in South Dakota.
    We are accredited by the North Central Association of Colleges and
    Schools for the longest accrediting period provided of ten years.
        Licensed Practical Nursing.--This program has one of the highest
    enrollments at UTTC and results in the greatest demand for our
    graduates. Our students have the ability to transfer their UTTC credits
    to the North Dakota higher educational system to pursue a 4-year
    nursing degree.
        Medical Transcription and Coding Certificate Program.--This program
    provides training in transcribing medical records into properly coded
    digital documents. It is offered through the college's Exact Med
    Training program and is supported by Department of Labor funds.
        Tribal Environmental Science.--Our Tribal Environmental Science
    program is supported by a National Science Foundation Tribal College
    and Universities Program grant. This 5-year project allows students to
    obtain a 2-year AAS degree in Tribal Environmental Science.
        Community Health/Injury Prevention.--Through our Community Health/
    Injury Prevention Program we are addressing the injury death rate among
    Indians, which is 2.8 times that of the U.S. population, the leading
    cause of death among Native Americans ages 1-44, and the third leading
    cause of death overall. This program has in the past been supported by
    the Indian Health Service, and is the only degree-granting Injury
    Prevention program in the Nation.
        Online Education.--We are continuing to create increased
    opportunities for education by providing web-based and Interactive
    Video Network courses from our North Dakota campus to American Indians
    residing at other remote sites as well as to students on our campus.
    Online courses provide the scheduling flexibility students need,
    especially those students with young children. We offer online fully
    accredited degree programs in the areas of Early Childhood Education,
    Community Health/Injury Prevention, Health Information Technology,
    Nutrition and Food Service and Elementary Education. Over 50 courses
    are available online. We are currently teaching 30 online courses with
    170 course seats, including those in the Medical Transcription and
    Coding program.
        Another significant online course is suicidology--the study of
    suicide: its causes, prevention and the behavior of those who threaten
    or attempt suicide. Suicide in Indian country dramatically affects our
    communities, particularly our youth. According to the IHS, suicide
    rates in Indian Country are 6-8 times the national rate. We also
    provide an online Indian Country Environmental Hazard Assessment
    program, offered through the Environmental Protection Agency. This is a
    training course designed to help mitigate environmental hazards in
    reservation communities.
        Computer Information Technology.--This program is at maximum
    student capacity because of limitations on resources for computer
    instruction. In order to keep up with student demand and the latest
    technology, we need more classrooms, equipment and instructors. We
    provide all of the Microsoft Systems certifications that translate into
    higher income earning potential for graduates.
        Nutrition and Food Services.--UTTC helps 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. (Source: fiscal year 2009 Indian
    Health Service Budget Justification).
        As a 1994 Tribal Land Grant institution, we offer a Nutrition and
    Food Services AAS degree in order to increase the number of Indians
    with expertise in nutrition and dietetics. Currently, there are very
    few Indian professionals in the country with training in these areas.
    Our degree places a strong emphasis on diabetes education, traditional
    food preparation, and food safety. We have also established the United
    Tribes Diabetes Education Center that assists local tribal communities,
    our students and staff to decrease the prevalence of diabetes by
    providing educational programs, training and materials. We publish and
    make available tribal food guides to our on-campus community and to
    tribes.
        Business Management/Tribal Management.--Another critical program
    for Indian country is business and tribal management. This program is
    designed to help tribal leaders be more effective administrators and
    entrepreneurs. As with all our programs, curriculum is constantly being
    updated.
        Job Training and Economic Development.--UTTC continues to provide
    economic development opportunities for many tribes. We are a designated
    Minority Business Development Center serving South and North Dakota. We
    administer a Workforce Investment Act program and an internship program
    with private employers in the region.
        We cannot survive without the core career and technical education
    funds that come through the Department of Interior. These funds are
    essential to the operation of our campus. Our programs at UTTC continue
    to be critical and relevant to the welfare of Indian people throughout
    the Great Plains region and beyond. Thank you for your consideration of
    our request.
                                     ______

          Prepared Statement of the Weber County Commission, Ogden, UT

        Madam Chairman and honorable members of the subcommittee: Thank you
    for the opportunity to present this testimony in support of an
    appropriation of $1.5 million for the Forest Service to acquire the
    150-acre North Ogden property for the Bonneville Shoreline Trail.
        As you know, Madam Chairman, this project is one of many worthy
    acquisition projects nationwide seeking LWCF funding. Unfortunately
    since fiscal year 2002, funding for LWCF has diminished by about 75
    percent, and the fiscal year 2009 Budget proposes further cuts. These
    reductions have left our national parks, refuges, and forests unable to
    acquire from willing sellers critical inholdings and adjacent lands
    that have been identified to protect and enhance recreational access,
    historic sites, wildlife habitats, scenic areas, water resources, and
    other important features. I urge the subcommittee to increase overall
    funding for this program in fiscal year 2009.
        For years, the residents of Salt Lake, Weber, Davis, Utah, and
    Cache Counties have benefited from their unique geographical location
    along the slopes of the Wasatch Range, which provides recreational
    opportunities, an escape from urban pressures, and a sense of community
    pride and identity. Development pressure poses the most serious threat
    to this valuable resource and will increase as the Wasatch Front
    population doubles within the next 10 to 25 years. This population
    growth and increased public use of these lands have raised issues of
    landowner liability and put pressure on these property owners either to
    sell their land or to restrict access to the trails, raising the
    possibility that this vital public recreational system could be
    impaired or lost.
        In 1990, representatives of the Wasatch-Cache National Forest,
    Weber County, the City of Ogden, the Boy Scouts, the Girl Scouts, the
    Convention Bureau, and other citizens groups concerned about the
    fragile thread that holds the trail system together, began meeting in
    an effort to protect and expand the trail corridor along the foothills
    of the Wasatch Mountain Range. As a result, the Bonneville Shoreline
    Trail (BST) project was developed, with a broad goal of extending the
    existing but threatened trail corridor already in place in the city of
    Ogden south to Provo, following the prehistoric shoreline of Lake
    Bonneville within the national forest. This partnership has been so
    successful that the communities in Cache and Box Elder County have
    worked to extend the trail north.
        Available for acquisition in fiscal year 2009 is the 150-acre North
    Ogden property in Weber County, a high priority for protection by the
    U.S. Forest Service. The property serves as important habitat for deer
    and elk and as an important buffer for fire protection for the rapidly
    developing area along the Wasatch Front. The property also provides
    watershed protection for neighboring areas in addition to key
    recreational resources.
        The North Ogden program is a partnership effort to provide a new
    stretch of the BST along the northern boundaries of North Ogden and
    Pleasant View, within the boundaries of the national forest. In 2005, a
    5-mile stretch of the BST along North Ogden and Pleasant View was
    secured through a trail easement along an existing utility corridor
    granted to the nonprofit Weber Pathways. The property available for
    protection this year is critical to the North Ogden program because it
    will bring Forest Service ownership to this stretch of the BST and add
    critical trail access to the citizens in this area of the State.
    Protection of this property will also protect beautiful views of the
    foothills of the Wasatch Front and Ben Lomond Peak, one of Weber
    County's most important landmarks, while conserving important wildlife
    habitat and winter range along this rapid growth area.
        In fiscal year 2009, $1.5 million is needed to acquire this BST
    property that is critically important to furthering the goals of the
    trail. If not protected, this area will be developed. Public access to
    this portion of the BST could be lost forever, and adjacent forest and
    wilderness lands would also be put at risk.
        Thank you for the opportunity to present this testimony.
                                     ______

           Prepared Statement of the Western Coalition of Arid States

        The Western Coalition of Arid States (WESTCAS) is submitting this
    testimony regarding the Presidents fiscal year 2009 budget request for
    the United States Environmental Protection Agency.
        WESTCAS is a coalition of approximately 125 water and wastewater
    districts, cities and towns and professional organizations focused on
    water quality and water quantity issues in the States of Arizona,
    California, Colorado, Idaho, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon and Texas. Our
    mission is to work with Federal, State, and Regional water quality and
    quantity agencies to promote scientifically-sound laws, regulations,
    appropriations and policies that protect public health and the
    environment of the arid West.
        Protection of the public health and the environment is a high
    priority of citizens of the United States from all walks of life. As
    water services providers and professionals we hear from our citizens
    every day regarding the importance of safe drinking water, protecting
    habitat and wildlife and being stewards of the environment. The
    projects we work on and activities we conduct are driven by rules,
    programs and policies that have been developed due to past
    environmental legislation and appropriations that have accompanied
    them. As examples, we acknowledge the successes of the Safe Drinking
    Water Act, Clean Water Act, Clean Air Act, the Resource Conservation
    Recovery Act and others. As the lead agency for developing and
    implementing the programs and policies needed to achieve the goals of
    environmental legislation, The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
    (EPA) conducts research, establishes monitoring and reporting programs,
    establishes mechanisms to enforce rules and allocates funds to assist
    the regulated community in meeting requirements.
        The arid West is the fastest growing region in the United States.
    The combined challenges of constructing and maintaining the
    infrastructure and treatment facilities necessary to meet new demands
    for water and wastewater services, rehabilitating and replacing aging
    infrastructure, and meeting increasingly stringent regulations will be
    insurmountable without local, State, and Federal commitments to
    financing the necessary infrastructure. WESTCAS, is concerned about the
    19 percent ($134 million) decrease in the Clean Water State Revolving
    Fund from the fiscal year 2008 enacted budget, being proposed in the
    President's fiscal year 2009 Budget. Increased construction costs have
    further eroded the value of the funding levels. WESTCAS supports
    funding the CWSRF to greater than the fiscal year 2008 level.
        Water Pollution Control (Clean Water Act section 106) Grants
    provide funding for States to carry out many programs including the
    development of water quality standards and Total Maximum Daily Loads.
    It also provides funding for monitoring activities. WESTCAS supports
    funding these programs at no lower than the fiscal year 2008 proposed
    levels rather than the fiscal year 2008 enacted levels. WESTCAS
    supports funding for enhanced monitoring activities, as this monitoring
    provides the basic data for the water quality standards and assessment
    programs.
        Primary enforcement authority for safe drinking water and clean
    water programs has been delegated by EPA to most of the WESTCAS States.
    With severe budget constraints, the ability of State agencies to
    respond to existing and emerging public health and environmental issues
    is becoming more challenging. Inspections, permitting and enforcement
    activities will be adversely impacted by decreases in Federal support.
    Without additional funding, inaccurate EPA databases that are critical
    for evaluating compliance and providing information to the public will
    continue to hinder EPA's ability to enforce regulations, create
    potential conflict between the regulatory agencies and the regulated
    community, and lower public confidence in both utilities and regulatory
    agencies. WESTCAS supports increasing State grant programs from the
    fiscal year 2008 levels in order to maintain regulatory programs and to
    bolster public confidence by eliminating inaccuracies in EPA's
    databases.
        WESTCAS has long been a proponent of sound science in developing
    water quality standards, especially for ephemeral and effluent
    dependent waters in the arid West. Water quality standards should be
    based on the characteristics of the specific aquatic communities that
    exist in the water bodies and public health-based uses of those waters.
    Therefore, WESTCAS is concerned about the almost $3 million reduction
    in the Clean Water Research Program and requests that those funds be
    restored.
        There has been recent media attention regarding pharmaceutically
    active compounds, personal care products and endocrine disrupting
    compounds in the Nations' waters. Response to the news articles by
    water utilities has been challenging in the face of little information
    on environmental impacts and especially human health effects. In the
    West, water supply and drought plans continue to grow increasingly
    dependent on the direct and indirect reuse of reclaimed water, making
    the need for additional research on the health effects of these
    compounds more urgent. WESTCAS requests that the approximate $3.6
    million in reductions to research on human health and ecosystems and
    toxics review and prevention associated with endocrine disruptors in
    the proposed fiscal year 2009 budget be restored and enhanced to
    include research associated with long-term exposure of humans to very
    low levels of pharmaceuticals and personal care products. Funding for
    the development of analytical methods to accurately and reliably
    determine the concentrations of these compounds is also critical.
    Finally, if health effects are identified, research is needed on
    treatment technologies capable of reducing these compounds to safe
    levels.
        WESTCAS appreciates the difficulty that Congress faces in providing
    funding for the many needs of the Nation and appreciates your
    consideration of these requests. We hope you agree that we as a nation
    cannot afford to compromise protection of public health and the
    environment in response to fluctuating economies.
                                     ______

           Prepared Statement of the Western Pennsylvania Conservancy

        Ms. Chairman, Senator Feinstein, and distinguished members of this
    subcommittee, I am grateful for the opportunity to submit testimony
    today on behalf of the board of directors, staff, and members of
    Western Pennsylvania Conservancy.
        Western Pennsylvania Conservancy (WPC) is Pennsylvania's oldest
    regional 501(c)3 non-profit conservation organization. During the past
    76 years, we have partnered with hundreds of community groups,
    conservation organizations, government agencies and individuals in more
    than 45 counties stretching from Pennsylvania's western reaches across
    the State to Harrisburg and beyond. We have approximately 9,400 member
    households and involve more than 5,000 volunteers every year in
    community conservation initiatives.
        In accordance with our mission, WPC conserves land of ecological,
    scenic, and recreational significance. We seek to use science-driven
    land conservation planning supported by engagement with communities,
    businesses and government partners to develop conservation approaches
    that work for all involved.
        WPC's land conservation initiatives have had a significant impact
    on the communities and landscapes of western Pennsylvania. Our work has
    enabled the permanent protection and stewardship of important natural,
    scenic and recreational assets. Since 1932, we have protected 225,000
    acres. Most of that land is now publicly owned and makes up some of our
    State's premiere parks, forests, game lands, and natural areas. They
    include lands integral to and within Allegheny National Forest in north
    central Pennsylvania, over 40 miles of riverbank land along the Clarion
    River now designated scenic and recreational under the National Wild
    and Scenic Rivers Act, numerous scenic and recreational areas in the
    Laurel Highlands of southwestern Pennsylvania, and six of
    Pennsylvania's State parks. These assets are enjoyed by millions of
    residents and tourists, and will be permanently preserved for enjoyment
    by future generations of Pennsylvanians.
        Today, our work is perhaps more urgent and necessary than ever
    before. The past four decades of suburban sprawl have changed our
    natural landscapes and reduced our open spaces. We are now beginning to
    clearly witness the negative repercussions of wholesale land use
    changes. In 2005, the U.S. Forest Service cast a spotlight on these
    threats in its Forests on the Edge report, which identified the top 15
    watersheds in the United States that would see the most serious
    development pressure over the coming decades. The publication predicts
    that 44 million acres of private forest nationwide will be converted to
    non-forest uses in the next 22 years.
        Given these stresses, it is concerning that less than 20 percent of
    eastern forests are permanently conserved or protected for future
    generations. Without a robust investment of both private and public
    funding, our landscapes will very likely transform and become
    unrecognizable in a very short time.
        This year were were alarmed to learn of the drastic cuts to two
    important land conservation programs in the President's fiscal year
    2009 budget request. The Land and Water Conservation Fund and Forest
    Legacy Program, our Nation's two flagship programs for investment in
    land conservation, are recommended for funding at irresponsibly low
    levels.
        Established in 1965, the Land and Water Conservation Fund has
    served the national interest as the primary source of funding for
    Federal land conservation efforts. Through this fund, every State has
    preserved critically important lands comprising our national forests,
    wilderness areas, historic and cultural sites, significant battlefields
    and recreation areas. In addition, the stateside portion accounts for
    the creation of thousands of local park and recreation projects such as
    ballfields and community parks.
        Established in the 1990 farm bill, the Forest Legacy Program is a
    partnership program which, according to the USFS web site,``protects
    `working forests' . . . those that protect water quality, provide
    habitat, forest products, opportunities for recreation and other public
    benefits.'' As of February 2008, Forest Legacy Program has suceessfully
    protected over 1.5 million acres of forestland in 37 States. Moreover,
    every Federal dollar spent is matched by private or non-Federal
    Government funding, making it a sound use of public resources.
        In every State in the Nation, LWCF or Forest Legacy Program funds
    have ensured that all Americans have access to lands where they can
    hunt, fish, play ball, hike, bird watch, paddle a canoe or ride a bike.
    Working only with landowners who are willing sellers, Federal, State,
    and local agencies are attempting to protect the best of what remains
    so that future generations can also reap the benefits of access to
    outdoor recreation, America's unique historic and cultural sites and
    protected wildlife.
        As a proud member of the Eastern Forest Partnership, the Western
    Pennsylvania Conservancy supports all of the specific projects named in
    their fiscal year 2009 publication, Open Space for America.
        Quoting from this report, these include:

                  FISCAL YEAR 2009 FOREST LEGACY OPPORTUNITIES

        Highlands.--The forested ridgelines of the 3 million-acre Highlands
    region form a greenbelt from Philadelphia to Hartford that is also the
    water supply for more than 15 million Americans. Tree Farm, Adams
    County (PA) will conserve 2,500 highly threatened acres adjacent to
    State lands and the Appalachian Trail. Passaic/Ramapo Watershed II (NJ)
    will conserve 1,400 acres of critical watershed and recreation lands
    that provide missing links among 18,000 acres of existing State land.
        Northern Forest.--Northern Forest communities and non-profit
    organizations have formed creative partnerships to conserve key forest
    tracts. Machias River, Phase III (ME) will conserve 33,000 working
    forest acres around the existing Farm Cove Community Forest, connecting
    key pieces of a 1.3 million-acre conservation area. Eden Forest (VT)
    will conserve 5,700 acres of working forest within a 30,000-acre forest
    block adjacent to Vermont's famed Long Trail.
        Quabbin to Cardigan (Q2C).--The Quabbin to Cardigan Partnership is
    a landmark bi-state effort to conserve 600,000 interconnected acres.
    Crotched Mountain (NH) will help the Crotched Mt. Rehabilitation Center
    conserve lands and universally accessible forest trails that are key to
    its nationally recognized programs. Southern Monadnock Plateau, Phase
    II (MA) will conserve important interior forest tracts along the
    Monadnock to Metacomet Trail that traces the Q2C corridor.
        Southern Forests.--Southern forests have the Nation's most diverse
    and globally significant forest types. Cumberland Plateau (TN) will
    match $135 million in State and private funding to conserve 130,000
    acres of highly productive forestland across this ecologically rich
    landscape. Triple H (NC) will complement new Uwharrie NF acquisitions
    to conserve interior forests and recreation lands in the Piedmont
    region, one of the Nation's fastest growing areas. Chowan River
    Headwaters (VA) will conserve over 4,000 acres of rare coastal forest
    types and important riparian lands as part of the bi-state Southern
    Rivers Conservation Area.

        FISCAL YEAR 2009 LAND AND WATER CONSERVATION FUND OPPORTUNITIES

        Northern Forest.--The Connecticut River watershed and Mahoosuc
    region are top landscape conservation priorities in the Northern
    Forest. Silvio Conte NWR (VT/NH/MA/CT) will enable conservation of
    vital habitat areas throughout the 7.2 million-acre CT River watershed,
    including the refuge's first major acquisition in CT. Success Twp/
    Appalachian NST (NH) will protect 4,000 acres along the most
    challenging and famed section of the entire Appalachian Trail as it
    passes through Mahoosuc Notch.
        Highlands.--The Highlands Conservation Act authorized $10 million
    of Federal funding annually for Highlands conservation projects
    selected by the four Highlands States. In fiscal year 2009, PA, NJ, NY,
    and CT are seeking HCA matching funds to conserve seven priority areas,
    including Ethel Walker Woods (CT) and Sterling Forest/Great Swamp (NY)
    that protect water supplies for Hartford and New York City,
    respectively.
        Southern Appalachians.--Recent LWCF funding shortfalls have created
    a backlog of historic conservation opportunities in the Southern
    Appalachians. Cherokee NF (TN) will conserve the Rocky Fork tract,
    10,000 acres of pristine watershed lands and scenic mountains adjacent
    to the Sampson Mt. Wilderness. Chattahoochee/Oconee NF (GA) will
    conserve key water supply lands around Macon and Atlanta at a time when
    drinking water supplies are under pressure across the South. Pisgah NF
    (NC) will conserve a Roan Highlands tract that contains three
    endangered high-elevation ecosystems adjacent to the Appalachian Trail.
    Talladega NF (AL) will conserve rare pine forests on Rebecca Mt. and
    complete the Pinhoti Trail within the forest.
        Southern Coastal Forests.--The rich bottomland hardwoods and
    diverse softwood forests of the southern coast are an economic and
    ecological treasure. Congaree NP (SC) will conserve almost 2,000 acres
    of the largest remaining bottomland hardwood forest in the Nation.
    Rappahannock River NWR (VA) will conserve important riparian lands and
    migratory bird habitat on a major Chesapeake Bay tributary.
        We would like to express and convey our strongest support for the
    Land and Water Conservation Fund and the Forest Legacy Program. As you
    continue the process of creating the fiscal year 2009 Interior,
    Environment and Related Agencies Appropriations bill, we urge you to
    provide $120 million for the LWCF State grants program, $278 million
    for the Federal LWCF program and $120 million for the Forest Legacy
    Program. While these numbers may appear large, especially when compared
    with the President's budget request, they truly represent the best
    levels required to meet the outstanding need and urgent demand.
        All across our country, communities, organizations and individuals
    are stepping up to identify and protect priceless lands from
    conversion. This challenge will require partnerships and programs that
    can provide the necessary tools and matching funds. The Federal
    commitment expressed through the Forest Legacy and LWCF programs is
    essential to their success.
        We understand the difficult decisions that the subcommittee faces
    in a tough budget climate. However, we are confident you will agree the
    LWCF and Forest Legacy Program are wise investments of our taxpayer
    dollars, providing a return on investment through invaluable
    recreational opportunities, water quality, wildlife habitat and open
    space.
                                     ______

           Prepared Statement of the Wyoming State Engineer's Office

        This statement is sent in support of fiscal year 2009 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 to engage in land management
    activities that will accomplish salt loading reduction in the Basin.
        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 describing the Program's
    components, including specific salinity control projects to remove salt
    from the River system. 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 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 basin-wide Water
    Quality Standards for Salinity's 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
    continued success of the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Program.
    The BLM's fiscal year 2009 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 of 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 2009 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 2009 Budget Justification document.
    At its recent October 2007 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 2009 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 2009.
        As one of the five principal Soil, Water and Air Program priorities
    identified by the BLM, projects directly accomplishing Colorado River
    salinity loading reductions should be funded. In the past, the BLM has
    used Soil, Water and Air Program funding for specific salinity control
    project proposals submitted to BLM's salinity control coordinator by
    BLM staff in the seven Colorado River Basin States. Through this
    competitive proposal consideration process, 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). The Colorado River Basin Salinity Control
    Forum's testimony to this subcommittee requests designation of
    $1,500,000 for this purpose. As Wyoming's Forum members, we 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.
                                     ______

              Prepared Statement of the Wyoming Water Association

        On behalf of the members of the Wyoming Water Association, I am
    requesting your support for appropriations in fiscal year 2009 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. The President's recommended budget for fiscal
    year 2009 includes FWS funding for these programs at the levels we are
    requesting. We request support and action by the subcommittee that will
    provide the following, as authorized by Public Law 106-392, as amended.
        1. Appropriation of $697,000 in ``recovery'' funds (Resource
    Management Appropriation; Ecological Services Activity; Endangered
    Species Subactivity; Recovery Element; within the $68,417,000 item
    entitled ``Recovery'') to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) for
    fiscal year 2009 to allow FWS to continue its essential participation
    in the Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program. This is
    the same level of funding appropriated to the Recovery Program for this
    purpose in fiscal years 2004 through 2008.
        2. Appropriation of $475,000 in operation and maintenance funds
    (Resource Management Appropriation; Fisheries and Aquatic Resource
    Conservation Activity; National Fish Hatchery System Operations
    Subactivity; within the $43,507,000 item entitled ``National Fish
    Hatchery Operations'') to support the ongoing operation of the FWS'
    Ouray National Fish Hatchery in Utah during fiscal year 2009.
        3. Allocation of $200,000 in ``recovery'' funds for the San Juan
    River Basin Recovery Implementation Program to the FWS for fiscal year
    2009 to meet FWS's Region 2 expenses in managing the San Juan Program's
    diverse recovery actions.
        Founded in 1933, the Wyoming Water Association is a Wyoming non-
    profit corporation and voluntary organization of private citizens,
    elected officials, and representatives of business, government
    agencies, industry and water user groups and districts. The
    Association's objective is to promote the development, conservation,
    and utilization of the water resources of Wyoming for the benefit of
    Wyoming people. The WWA provides the only statewide uniform voice
    representing all types of water users within the State of Wyoming and
    encourages citizen participation in decisions relating to multi-purpose
    water development, management and use.
        The Wyoming Water Association is a participant in the Upper
    Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program. That program, and its
    sister program within the San Juan River Basin, are ongoing
    partnerships among the States of Colorado, New Mexico, Utah and
    Wyoming, Indian tribes, Federal agencies and water, power and
    environmental interests. The programs' objectives are to recover
    endangered fish species while water use and development proceeds in
    compliance with the Federal Endangered Species Act. The Department of
    the Interior continues to recognize these programs as national models
    demonstrating that collaboratively partnerships can successfully work
    to recover endangered species while addressing water needs to support
    growing western communities in a manner that fully respects State water
    law and interstate compacts. Since 1988, these programs have provided
    ESA Section 7 compliance (without litigation) for over 1,600 Federal,
    tribal, State, and privately managed water projects depleting more than
    3 million acre-feet of water per year.
        The past support and assistance of your subcommittee has greatly
    facilitated the success of these multi-State, multi-agency programs. On
    behalf of the members of the Wyoming Water Association, thank you for
    that support and request the subcommittee's assistance for fiscal year
    2009 funding to ensure the Bureau of Reclamation's continuing financial
    participation in these vitally important programs.
                                     ______

                 Prepared Statement of Yavapai County, Arizona

        Madam Chairman and honorable members of the subcommittee: Thank
    you, Madam Chairman, for the opportunity to present this testimony in
    support of an appropriation from the Land and Water Conservation Fund
    to enable the Forest Service and the Coconino National Forest to
    acquire the 139-acre Packard Ranch property in Yavapai County.
        As you know, Madam Chairman, this project is one of many worthy
    acquisition projects nationwide seeking LWCF funding. Unfortunately
    since fiscal year 2002, funding for LWCF has diminished by about 75
    percent, and the fiscal year 2009 Budget proposes further cuts. These
    reductions have left our national parks, refuges, and forests unable to
    acquire from willing sellers critical inholdings and adjacent lands
    that have been identified to protect and enhance recreational access,
    historic sites, wildlife habitats, scenic areas, water resources, and
    other important features. I respectfully request the subcommittee to
    increase overall funding for this program in fiscal year 2009.
        Within the boundaries of the Coconino National Forest is the
    56,000-acre Sycamore Canyon Wilderness area. This protected area is
    noted for the variety of its scenic landscapes--colorful cliffs, pine
    and fir forests, and a rare desert riparian area. The canyon winds for
    over 20 miles along Sycamore Creek, stretching seven miles from rim to
    rim at some places. Carved walls reveal layers of spectacular red
    sandstone, stark white limestone, and rugged brown lava. The water of
    the creek allows a rich habitat to flourish, including sycamores,
    walnuts, and cottonwoods.
        Adjacent to the Sycamore Canyon Wilderness and available for
    acquisition is the 139-acre Packard Ranch property, located upstream
    from the towns of Clarkdale and Cottonwood. The Verde River and
    Sycamore Creek are perennial streams that provide habitat for several
    endangered and threatened fish species and are important sources of
    drinking water for the Phoenix Metropolitan area. Both flow through the
    property. Existing nests of breeding bald eagles can be found nearby
    while other key wildlife (including the yellow-billed cuckoo, common
    black-hawk, peregrine falcon, and many bat species) are found on the
    property.
        Both Sycamore Creek and a section of the Verde River have been
    identified as potentially eligible for listing as wild and scenic
    rivers. The property contains portions of the area's desert riparian
    ecosystem and provides scenic views of red rock vistas in Sycamore
    Canyon. The area in which this property is located also has
    archeological resources of national and international importance.
        Packard Ranch includes an important trailhead providing access to
    the Sycamore Canyon Wilderness. Both the Parson's and Packard hiking
    trails are entered exclusively from this property. Although the public
    has traditionally been permitted to use this trailhead, there is no
    permanent guarantee of access. Properties with riparian frontage in
    Arizona are at a premium for development, and without permanent
    protection, it is conceivable that Packard Ranch could be developed. If
    this were to happen, the character of the landscape could change
    dramatically, and the public could lose access to the trails and
    wilderness area.
        With its strategic location within the Coconino National Forest,
    the acquisition of the Packard Ranch property will protect vital
    habitat, ensure continued public access to trails, and preserve the
    unique scenic vistas of Sycamore Canyon.
        Thank you, Madam Chairman, for the opportunity to present this
    testimony.
                                     ______

           Prepared Statement of the Yellowhawk Tribal Health Center

        Honorable Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein, ranking member Wayne Allard,
    and members of the committee: I am Shawna Gavin, Chair of the
    Yellowhawk Tribal Health Center Health Commission, Confederated Tribes
    of the Umatilla Indian Reservation (CTUIR). Thank you for the
    opportunity to testify on the very important issues related to tribal
    health funding and the Administration's proposed decreases in the
    Indian Health Service Budget.
        Once again the proposed Indian Health Services budget falls far
    short of providing adequate health care for our people. In fact, the
    proposed budget does not live up to meeting the trust responsibilities
    the federal government has to Tribes.
        Yellowhawk Tribal Health Center currently manages an active Compact
    with the Federal government. In that, we have assumed the government of
    the United States' responsibility to provide health care and wellness
    services to the people of the CTUIR. For us to accomplish this in an
    effective, efficient and responsible manner we must be appropriately
    funded. We currently are unable to provide all necessary critical
    services let alone basic preventative care. Federal spending for Indian
    health care continues to lose ground compared to spending for the U.S.
    population at large. Tribal health care facilities are forced to
    prioritize care delivery and compete for non-existent funds to address
    facility shortcomings. Furthermore, Indians living on reservations
    still suffer the health effects of poverty at a much higher level than
    the national average. Incidences of diabetes, HIV, substance abuse,
    addiction and suicide continue to far exceed that of the rest of the
    country. While we work to address these shortcomings as a self-
    governance facility, we cannot succeed without adequate funding.
    Passage and funding of the long neglected Indian Health Care
    Improvement Act reauthorization would go a long way toward this end and
    sets the stage for improving the health and wellness of our people now
    and into the future. Our people and all Indian people deserve access to
    high quality health care.
        With respect to the Indian Health Services budget, the Health
    Commission would like to address issues beyond the total amount of
    funds that are being proposed. These include:
      --Contract Health Services funding shortfalls,
      --Perpetual under funding of Contract Support Costs,
      --Extension of the Special Diabetes Program for Indians,
      --Decreases in Annual Funding Agreement, and
      --Lack of funding for new facility construction.
        The Health Commission recommends that the IHS budget be increased
    by $455 million in order to maintain current services. This is based on
    an early analysis of the 2009 budget by the Northwest Portland Area
    Indian Health Board, which indicates a proposed $21.3 million cut to
    the 2009 IHS budget.
        Specific concerns include:

                  CONTRACT HEALTH SERVICES FUNDING SHORTFALLS

        Funding for services purchased outside of Tribal and Indian Health
    facilities have continually failed to keep pace with industry standard,
    medical inflation and the true need for delivery of adequate
    preventative and diagnostic health care. A major issue of concern is
    the proposed decreases to Alcohol and Substance Abuse funding. These
    cuts would not only reduce the number of treatment beds available to
    our Tribal members but reduce the funding available to pay for those
    beds at other facilities. Also of major concern are continued
    Catastrophic Health Emergency Fund (CHEF) shortfalls. These funds
    continue to be exhausted long before the budget year ends. This forces
    proactive Tribal facilities to protect these funds in order to account
    for the inevitable high dollar cases that present between the time the
    CHEF funds run out and the beginning of the next fiscal year. When
    forced to protect ourselves against this funding shortfall we have no
    choice but to prioritize and ration necessary, but routine health care.
    Many times we are left to fund only life saving health care procedures.
    This cycle will never allow a proactive approach to early disease
    detection, prevention or long term health and wellness.

               PERPETUAL UNDER PAYMENT OF CONTRACT SUPPORT COSTS

        In 1996 Yellowhawk Tribal Health Center, in good faith, contracted
    with the Federal Government to assume the responsibilities of health
    care delivery for the CTUIR: In 2004 we negotiated and completed a
    compacted agreement to continue this business arrangement. Since the
    inception of this agreement with the federal government we have been
    under funded. In fact, to date, the amount owed to the Yellowhawk
    Tribal Health Center as we make good on the responsibilities of the
    Federal Trust, exceeds $3.1 million and continues to increase. Fiscal
    year 2008 demonstrates a more than $16,000 decrease in contract support
    funding from fiscal year 2007. Again, these funding shortfalls put the
    quality of our health care delivery at risk by compromising our ability
    to recruit and retain quality employees and our ability to purchase and
    maintain modern health care equipment.

          EXTENSION OF THE SPECIAL DIABETES PROGRAM (SDPI) FOR INDIANS

        Inadequate past and present funding have left the Yellowhawk Tribal
    Health Center dependent on grant funding to address diabetes treatment
    and prevention. The SDPI Grant is scheduled to expire in the summer of
    2009. If it is not extended the impact on the Umatilla Reservation
    community, diabetic and non-diabetic, will be considerable. If we were
    to lose the more than $160,000 a year we receive from SDPI, we would
    have no choice but to eliminate many diabetes prevention initiatives
    that are just now demonstrating their benefit to our community's health
    and wellness. Further, the loss of the SDPI Grant would eliminate
    funding of approximately $80,000 currently committed to diabetic
    pharmaceutical purchases. Our pharmacy program cannot sustain this
    expense in addition to all other necessary pharmaceutical costs. Again
    we will be forced to prioritize treatment delivery perpetuating a cycle
    where preventative and diagnostic care models will be deemed of a
    lesser priority so that critical health care needs can be met.

                     DECREASES IN ANNUAL FUNDING AGREEMENT

        Annual funding agreements under our Compact with the Federal
    government have failed to keep pace with medical inflation, cost of
    living and increases in patient demand. Consequently we have no choice
    but to access reserve funds to maintain any level of quality care
    delivery and to meet the payroll for a skilled and talented staff
    Because we are expending every dollar of our annual funding agreement
    and significant dollars from reserve accounts, our future health care
    delivery is jeopardized. We cannot sustain augmentation of our annual
    funding agreement with reserve funds. We must do more to protect our
    community's health and wellness future and will be forced to scale back
    spending which will ultimately impact access to preventative and
    diagnostic health care services. Reauthorization of the long overdue
    Indian Health Care Improvement Act legislation is a necessity to assure
    adequate funding of critical needs as well as industry standard
    diagnostic and preventative health care.

                 LACK OF FUNDING FOR NEW FACILITY CONSTRUCTION

        The CTUIR is in need of a new health care facility. The current
    structure has existed since 1976 and has been remodeled, modified and
    enlarged no less than seven times since then. Our patient demographic
    continues to age and grow and has resulted in an exponential increase
    in demand for health care services. Unfortunately there is no more
    ability for facility expansion. The facilities HVAC systems cannot keep
    up with facility demands as it is currently configured and has become
    so substandard that architects and engineers recommend against any
    additional expansion or renovation. This inability to grow severely
    impacts access to care, patient flow and the way in which health care
    is delivered. It also significantly effects recruiting and retention of
    quality employees. This is particularly the case with physicians and
    dentists. Again, the reauthorization of the Indian Health Care
    Improvement Act legislation is our only hope for a near term solution
    to our critical need for a suitable facility with modem treatment and
    health care delivery spaces.
        To reiterate, we are recommending at a minimum, a $455 million
    increase in Indian health care funding to address unavoidable increases
    in medical and general inflation, salary costs, additional staffing,
    and population growth. Minimum funding should also be provided to
    prevent the elimination of Urban Indian Health Programs.
        More importantly, this committee would do well to advance any and
    all Indian health care legislation and initiatives. These many years of
    funding shortfalls reflect political neglect and it is within your
    authority to address this in a proactive fashion.
        Thank you for your serious consideration.

           LIST OF WITNESSES, COMMUNICATIONS, AND PREPARED STATEMENTS

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page

    Alamo Navajo School Board, Inc., prepared statement..............   221
    Aleutian/Pribilof Islands Association, Inc., prepared statement..   222
    Alexander, Senator Lamar, U.S. Senator from Tennessee............    53
    Allard, Senator Wayne, U.S. Senator from Colorado:
        Opening statements.......................................2, 50, 161
        Questions submited by.......................................45, 203
    Alliance:
        For Community Trees, prepared statement......................   224
        To Save Energy, prepared statement...........................   225
    American:
        Association of Petroleum Geologists, prepared statement......   227
        Forest:
            Foundation...............................................   224
            Paper Association, prepared statement....................   229
        Forests, prepared statement..................................   224
        Geological Institute, prepared statement.....................   232
        Hiking Society, prepared statement...........................   234
        Indian Higher Education Consortium, prepared statement.......   237
        Institute of Biological Sciences, prepared statement.........   240
        Nursery & Landscape Association, prepared statement..........   224
        Society:
            For Microbiology, prepared statement.....................   244
            Of Agronomy, prepared statement..........................   241
    Animal Welfare Institute, prepared statement.....................   247
    Appalachian:
        Mountain Club, prepared statement............................   253
        Trail Conservancy, prepared statement........................   251
    APS a Subsidiary of Pinnacle West Capital Corporation, Colorado
      River District, prepared statement.............................   256
    ASME Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Task Force of the ASME
      Environmental Engineering Division, prepared statement.........   260
    Association:
        Of State:
            And Interstate Water Pollution Control Administrators,
              prepared statement.....................................   259
            Drinking Water Administrators, prepared statement........   256
        To Preserve Cape Cod, prepared statement.....................   250
    Audubon:
        Connecticut, prepared statement..............................   264
        Society of New Hampshire, prepared statement.................   265

    Bennett, Senator Robert F., U.S. Senator from Utah...............   120
    Blue Goose Alliance, prepared statement..........................   267
    Bodine, Susan Parker, Assistant Administrator, Office of Solid
      Waste and Emergency Response, Environmental Protection Agency..     1
    Bonneville Shoreline Trail Committee, prepared statement.........   269
    Bristol Bay Area Health Corporation, prepared statement..........   270

    California State Coastal Conservancy, prepared statement.........   273
    Cascade Land Conservancy, prepared statements..................275, 276
    Cason, James, Associate Deputy Secretary, Office of the
      Secretary, Department of the Interior..........................   159
    Center for Plant Conservation, prepared statement................   277
    Central Utah Water Conservancy District, prepared statement......   256
    Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma, prepared statement...................   279
    Chugach Regional Resources Commission, prepared statement........   281
    Citizens Committee to Complete the Refuge, prepared statement....   283
    Clark, Michael S., prepared statement............................   284
    Cochran, Senator Thad, U.S. Senator from Mississippi, questions
      submitted by...................................................   218
    Colorado River:
        Basin Salinity Control Forum, prepared statement.............   286
        Commission of Nevada, prepared statement.....................   288
    Confederated Tribes of the:
        Colville Reservation, prepared statement.....................   288
        Umatilla Indian Reservation, prepared statement..............   290
    Cooperative Alliance for Refuge Enhancement, prepared statement..   299
    Corps Network, prepared statement................................   301
    Council of:
        Energy Resource Tribes, prepared statement...................   304
        Western State Foresters, prepared statement..................   305
    Craig, Senator Larry, U.S. Senator from Idaho....................    54
    Crop Science Society of America, prepared statement..............   241

    Dance/USA, prepared statement....................................   307
    Defenders of Wildlife, prepared statement........................   309
    Delaware Highlands Conservancy, prepared statement...............   312
    Denver Water, prepared statement.................................   256
    Domenici, Senator Pete V., U.S. Senator from New Mexico:
        Questions submitted by.......................................    46
        Statement of.................................................    52
    Dzilth-Na-O-Dith-Hle Community Grant School, prepared statement..   313

    Emissions Control Technology Association, prepared statement.....   316
    Endangered Species Coalition, prepared statement.................   319
    Environmental Council of the States, prepared statement..........   321

    Feinstein, Senator Dianne, U.S. Senator from California:
        Opening statements.......................................1, 49, 159
        Questions submitted by......................................41, 142
    Fond du Lac Band of Lake Superior Chippewa, prepared statement...   325
    Fort River Partnership, prepared statement.......................   329
    Friends of:
        Back Bay National Wildlife Refuge, prepared statement........   330
        Blackwater National Wildlife Refuge, prepared statement......   331
        Boundary Waters Wilderness, prepared statement...............   333
        Buenos Aires National Wildlife Refuge, prepared statement....   334
        Congaree Swamp, prepared statement...........................   335
        Hyde Farm, prepared statement................................   336
        Potomac River Refuges, prepared statement....................   337
        Rachel Carson National Wildlife Refuge, prepared statement...   339
        Virgin Islands National Park, prepared statements..........327, 340
        Wallkill River National Wildlife Refuges, prepared statement.   342
        Wertheim National Wildlife Refuge, prepared statement........   345
        Willamette Valley National Wildlife Refuge Complex, prepared
          statement..................................................   346

    Gathering Waters Conservancy, prepared statement.................   347
    Georgia River Network, prepared statement........................   348
    Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission (GLIFWC),
      prepared statement.............................................   349
    Green Mountain Club, prepared statement..........................   352
    Gregg, Senator Judd, U.S. Senator from New Hampshire, question
      submitted by...................................................   158
    Grumbles, Benjamin H., Assistant Administrator, Office of Water,
      Environmental Protection Agency................................     1

    Hanover County Board of Supervisors, Hanover County, Virginia,
      prepared statement.............................................   353
    Hawaii Audubon Society, prepared statement.......................   354
    Haze, Pam, Director, Office of Budget, Office of the Secretary,
      Department of the Interior.....................................   159
    Highlands Coalition, prepared statement..........................   355

    Independent Tribal Courts Review Team, prepared statement........   364
    Inter-Tribal Bison Cooperative, prepared statement...............   361
    Interstate Mining Compact Commission, prepared statement.........   358
    Irrigation Association, prepared statement.......................   364
    Izaak Walton League of America, prepared statement...............   366

    Jamestown S'Klallam Tribe, prepared statement....................   369
    Jicarilla Apache Nation, prepared statement......................   256
    Johnson, Hon. Stephen L., Admininstrator, Environmental
      Protection Agen-
      cy.............................................................     1
        Prepared statement...........................................     5
        Summary statement............................................     4

    Kempthorne, Hon. Dirk, Secretary, Office of the Secretary,
      Department of the Interior.....................................   159
        Prepared statement...........................................   166
        Summary statement............................................   163
    Kern County Valley Floor Habitat Conservation Plan, prepared
      statement......................................................   372
    Kimbell, Abigail, Chief, Forest Service, Department of
      Agriculture....................................................    49
        Prepared statement...........................................   112
        Summary statement............................................   111

    Lac du Flambeau Tribe of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians, prepared
      statement......................................................   374
    Lago, Lenise, Budget Director, Forest Service, Department of
      Agriculture....................................................    49
    Lamoille County Natural Resources Conservation District and
      Nature Center, prepared statement..............................   377
    League of American Orchestras, prepared statement................   378
    Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe, prepared statement....................   380
    Lummi Indian Nation, prepared statement..........................   382

    Michigan United Conservation Clubs, prepared statement...........   224
    Mother Lode Chapter, Sierra Club, prepared statement.............   384

    National:
        Association of:
            Abandoned Mine Land Programs, prepared statement.........   386
            Clean Air Agencies, prepared statement...................   388
            Forest Service Retirees (NAFSR), prepared statement......   391
            State:
                Energy Officials, prepared statement.................   394
                Foresters, prepared statement........................   224
                Universities and Land-Grant Colleges (NASULGC), Board
                  on Natural Resources (BNR), prepared statement.....   397
        Conference of State Historic Preservation Officers, prepared
          statement..................................................   399
        Congress of American Indians, prepared statement.............   401
        Cooperators' Coalition, prepared statement...................   405
        Environmental Services Center, West Virginia University,
          Morgantown, WV, prepared statement.........................   406
        Federation of Federal Employees Local 1957, prepared
          statement..................................................   407
        Fish and Wildlife Foundation, prepared statement.............   408
        Plant Board, prepared statement..............................   224
        Wildlife Refuge Association, prepared statement..............   415
    Natural Science Collections Alliance, prepared statement.........   413
    Navajo Nation, prepared statement................................   256
    Nelson, Senator Ben, U.S. Senator from Nebraska, questions
      submitted by...................................................   203
    New Mexico:
        Department of Game and Fish, prepared statement..............   417
        Interstate Stream Commission, prepared statement.............   418
    Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District, prepared statement.   256
    Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission, prepared statement........   420

    Ohio State University, Department of Entomology, prepared
      statement......................................................   224
    OPERA America, prepared statement................................   423
    Oregon Water Resources Congress, prepared statement..............   425
    Outdoor Industry Association, prepared statement.................   427

    Pacific Salmon Commission, prepared statement....................   430
    Partnership for the National Trails System, prepared statement...   431
    Peacock, Marcus C., Deputy Director, Environmental Protection
      Agency.........................................................     1
    Pelican Island Preservation Society, prepared statement..........   440
    Penobscot River Restoration Trust, prepared statement............   441
    PNM/San Juan Generating Station, Tri-County Water Conservancy
      Distict, prepared statement....................................   256
    Pueblo Board of Water Works, prepared statement..................   256
    Purdue University, Department of Entomology, prepared statement..   224
    Puyallup Tribe of Indians, prepared statement....................   441

    Quinault Indian Nation, prepared statement.......................   444

    Red River National Wildlife Refuge, prepared statement...........   447
    Reed, Senator Jack, U.S. Senator from Rhode Island, questions
      submitted by...................................................    43
    Reid, Senator Harry, U.S. Senator from Nevada, questions
      submitted by...................................................    47
    Rey, Hon. Mark E., Under Secretary for Natural Resources and
      Environment, Forest Service, Department of Agriculture.........    49
        Prepared statement...........................................   108
        Summary statement............................................    56
    Rock Point Community School, Navajo Nation, Arizona, prepared
      statement......................................................   450

    San Juan Water Commission, prepared statement....................   256
    Shoreline Education for Awareness, prepared statement............   452
    Skokomish Tribe of Washington State, prepared statement..........   452
    Society of American Foresters, prepared statements.............224, 455
    Soil Science Society of America, prepared statement..............   241
    Southern:
        Appalachian Highlands Conservancy, prepared statement........   458
        Ute Indian Tribe, prepared statement.........................   256
    Southwestern Water Conservation District, prepared statement.....   256
    Springer, Marie, prepared statement..............................   459
    Squaxin Island Tribe, prepared statement.........................   460
    Standing Rock Sioux Tribal, prepared statement...................   462
    State of:
        Colorado, Office of the Governor, prepared statement.........   465
        New Mexico, Office of the Governor, prepared statement.......   466
        Wyoming, Office of the Governor, prepared statement..........   466
    Swan Ecosystem Center, prepared statement........................   467

    Tamarac Interpretive Association, prepared statement.............   468
    Teaming With Wildlife National Steering Committee, prepared
      statements...................................................471, 472
    The:
        Conservation System Alliance, prepared statement.............   292
        Hardwood Federation, prepared statement......................   224
        Nature Conservancy, prepared statement.......................   224
        Wildlife Society, prepared statements.................481, 484, 487
    Town:
        Manager, Millinocket, Maine, prepared statement..............   479
        Of Ophir, Colorado, prepared statement.......................   480

    Union of Concerned Scientists, prepared statement................   224
    United Tribes Technical College, prepared statement..............   493
    University of Georgia, Center for Invasive Species & Ecosystem
      Health, prepared statement.....................................   224
    USGS Coalition, prepared statement...............................   490
    Utah Water Users Association, prepared statement.................   256

    Weber County Commission, Ogden, UT, prepared statement...........   495
    Western:
        Coalition of Arid States, prepared statement.................   496
        Pennsylvania Conservancy, prepared statement.................   497
    Wyoming:
        State Engineer's Office, prepared statement..................   500
        Water Association, prepared statement........................   501

    Yavapai County, Arizona, prepared statement......................   502
    Yellowhawk Tribal Health Center, prepared statement..............   502

                                 SUBJECT INDEX

                                  ----------

                           DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

                                 Forest Service

                                                                       Page

    Appropriate Management Response (AMR)--Success Stories...........    64
    Aviation Efficiencies and Contracting............................    66
        Success Story................................................    67
    Capital Improvement & Maintenance................................   115
        Current PART Rating--Results Not Demonstrated................   140
    Chief's:
        Initiative...................................................    77
        Principle Representative (CPR)...............................65, 66
    Cohesive Fuels Strategy..........................................   139
    Continuing Transitional Support to Rural Communities through
      Extension of Secure Rural Schools Payments.....................   109
    Draft Fire and Aviation Management Year Review--Fiscal Year 2007.    57
    Educational Requirement for Firefighters.......................124, 126
    Effects of Vegetation Treatments on the Vincent Fire, Apache-
      Sitgreaves National Forest, Arizona............................    70
    Energy Current PART Rating--Adequate.............................   141
    Federal Wildland Fire Policy.....................................    62
    Fire:
        And Aviation Management:
            International Activities.................................    76
            Recruitment and Retention Analysis.......................    96
        Preparedness Funding.........................................   122
    Firefighter:
        Attrition in California......................................   116
        Responsibilities in Southern California......................   125
        Retention in Southern California.............................   142
    Firefighting Fund................................................   126
    Focus Areas......................................................    77
    Forest & Rangeland Research......................................   114
    Forest:
        Legacy Program Current PART Rating--Moderately Effective.....   142
        Planning Rule................................................   123
    Fuels/Use of Healthy Forest Restoration Act Authorities..........   153
    Grazing..........................................................   131
    Hazardous Fuels Accomplishments..................................    68
        Prioritization and Allocation System.........................    68
        Success Stories..............................................    69
        Treatment Program............................................   121
    Healthy Forests..................................................   113
    Illegal Drug Operations in National Forests......................   117
    Invasive Species Current PART Rating--Adequate...................   141
    Issues Examined..................................................    96
    Land Acquisition Current PART Rating--Adequate...................   142
    Letter From Director Tom Harbour.................................    57
    Line Officer Certification.......................................    66
    Management Controls and Efficiencies.............................    61
    Marijuana Eradication Efforts in California......................   117
    National:
        Forest System................................................   115
        Incident Management System (NIMS) Support....................    75
    Response Plan....................................................    75
            Success Stories..........................................    75
    OPM Firefighter Credentials......................................   157
    Organizational Efficiency and Transformation.....................   114
    Part:
        I.--2007 Fire Season Discussion..............................    58
        II.--Major Accomplishments...................................    60
        III.--Looking Ahead for 2008.................................    76
    PART Ratings That Several Forest Service Programs Received for
      Nonperformance.................................................   140
    Partnership:
        Accomplishments..............................................    70
        Success Stories..............................................    71
    Pay Scales, Cost of Living, and Personnel Policies...............    98
    Planned Activities...............................................    77
    Potential Move of Forest Service to Department of the Interior...   136
    Preparation Spares Community During Grass Valley Fire, San
      Bernardino National Forest, California.........................    69
    Program Assessment Rating Tool...................................   140
    Proposed Actions.................................................   100
    Recognizing Integrated Program and Partnership Accomplishments...   114
    Recreation Current PART Rating--Moderately Effective.............   142
    Restoring Fire Adapted Ecosystems: A Forest Service, Department
      of the Interior and Nature Conservancy Partnership.............    73
    Secure Rural Schools Funding.....................................   128
    State and Private Forestry.......................................   114
        Funding......................................................   127
        Forestry Program Redesign....................................   110
    Tahoe:
        Area Community Fire Protection Plans.........................   130
        Regional Planning Agency.....................................   118
    Timber Budget....................................................   133
    Travel Management Rule...........................................   155
    VFA Success......................................................    72
    Watershed Current PART Rating--Results Not Demonstrated..........   140
    Wildland:
        Fire.........................................................   108
            Management...............................................   113
                Current PART Rating--Adequate........................   141
        Outlook......................................................   136
        Urban Interface Fire Program.................................    73
    Williams Trail Fuel Break Tested During the Galion Fire, Huron-
      Manistee National Forest, Michigan.............................    69

                           DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

                            Office of the Secretary

    2009 Budget....................................................163, 195
        Request......................................................   160
    Abandoned Mines..................................................   178
    Administrative Fees on Onshore Leases............................   206
    Alaska Funding...................................................   192
    Applications for Permits to Drill................................   181
    Bakken Shale.....................................................   193
    Birds Forever....................................................   171
        Initiative.................................................165, 212
    BLM/National Landscape Conservation System.......................   206
    Bureau of:
        Indian Affairs/Detention Facilities..........................   216
        Land Management--Roan Plateau................................   199
    Canyon of the Ancients...........................................   198
    Colorado Oil and Gas Rules.......................................   199
    Detention Centers................................................   193
    Duck Stamp.......................................................   166
    Earmarks.........................................................   185
    Energy:
        Costs........................................................   191
        Security.....................................................   166
    Fish and Wildlife/ESA Polar Bear Listing.........................   207
    FWS:
        Law Enforcement/Import and Export of Threatened Species......   210
        Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program and San
          Juan River Basin Recovery Implementation Program...........   211
    Great Smokey Mountains National Park.............................   188
    Healthy Lands Initiative..................................164, 170, 212
    Heritage Areas...................................................   189
    Hurricane Katrina Barrier Island Rebuilding......................   189
    Improving Indian Education.....................................165, 171
    Indian:
        Initiatives..................................................   164
        Trust Litigation/Cobell v. Kempthorne........................   215
    Initiatives......................................................   184
    Interior's Accomplishments.......................................   168
    Kerr McGee Case/Deepwater Offshore Leases........................   205
    Land and Water Conservation Fund.................................   187
    Legislative Proposals............................................   176
    Marijuana in Parks...............................................   202
    Marine Mammals...................................................   190
    Minerals Management Service:
        Information Technology Increase..............................   196
        Minerals Revenue Management..................................   196
    National:
        Park Service/Park Police.....................................   203
        Parks Centennial......................................161, 163, 199
        Wildlife Refuge System/Impacts on Colorado Refuges...........   208
    Naval Oil Shale..................................................   180
        Reserves.....................................................   162
    Ocean and Coastal Frontiers......................................   172
        Initiative...................................................   165
    Office of the Special Trustee/Indian Land Consolidation..........   215
    Operating Budgets................................................   163
    Other Budget Priorities..........................................   174
    Overview of the 2009 Budget......................................   167
    Payments in Lieu of Taxes........................................   162
    Platte River Recovery Program....................................   182
    Polar Bears......................................................   197
    Preparedness.....................................................   185
    Revenue Sharing..................................................   190
    Revenues.........................................................   192
    Roan Plateau.....................................................   198
    Royalty Policy Report............................................   197
    Rural Fire Assistance............................................   177
    Safe:
        Borderlands..................................................   209
            Initiative........................................166, 173, 200
        Indian Communities...........................................   170
            Initiative...............................................   164
    Salmon.........................................................179, 186
    Species Conservation on Private Lands............................   183
    Stewardship......................................................   186
    Supporting the Department's Mission..............................   173
    The:
        Challenges Ahead.............................................   167
        National Parks Centennial....................................   169
    U.S.:
        Geological Survey:
            Landsat Program..........................................   214
            Ocean and Coastal Frontiers Initiative...................   213
            Water for America Initiative.............................   211
        Park Police...........................................179, 180, 201
    United Tribes Technical College..................................   194
    Water for America................................................   171
        Initiative...................................................   165
    Wildland Fire Outlook For This Year..............................   206

                        ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

    Abandoned Mines..................................................    17
    Advancing Clean, Affordable and Safe Energy......................     6
    Air Pollution in National Parks..................................    43
    Alaska Native:
        Village Grants...............................................    33
        Villages.....................................................    35
    Anti-Earmark Syndrome............................................    34
    Arsenic:
        Levels.......................................................    14
        Standards and Community Assistance...........................    46
    Bluegrass:
        Field-Burning................................................    22
        Seed Burning.................................................    23
    Brownfields and Land Revitalization..............................    10
    California Waiver................................................11, 24
        Greenhouse Gas Regulation....................................    41
    Clean:
        Air:
            Act......................................................    25
            Mercury Rule.............................................    28
        Water........................................................    30
            State Revolving Fund.....................................    36
    Climate Change...................................................     7
    Cooperative Programs.............................................     7
    Decrease of Clean Water State Revolving Funds....................    23
    Delay in Implementing a Solution to the Leadville Mine Drainage
      Tunnel.........................................................    45
    Determine Whether Carbon Dioxide Contributes to Climate Change...    13
    Diesel Emissions Reduction.......................................    30
    Earmarks Eliminated..............................................    28
    Emission Reduction...............................................    27
    Energy Development...............................................    16
    Enforcement......................................................    10
    Grants to States.................................................     2
    Greenhouse Gas:
        Emissions....................................................    12
        Registry.....................................................    38
    Homeland Security................................................     6
    Land Protection and Restoration..................................    39
    Leadville Mine Drainage Tunnell..................................     3
    Marine Diesel and Locomotive Emission Control Rule...............    32
    Mercury Pollution................................................    18
    New Standards for Large Animal Confined Operations...............    22
    Perchlorate Contamination........................................    31
    Renewable Fuel Standard..........................................    26
    State Mercury Programs...........................................    20
    Stonewalling.....................................................    27
    Stronger EPA:
        Performance and Management...................................    11
        Sound Science................................................    10
    Superfund Remediation of Highly Contaminated Hazardous Waste
      Sites..........................................................     9
    Sustainable Ports Initiative.....................................    32
    Water Infrastructure.............................................     4
        And Programs.................................................     8
    Working With Federal Partners....................................     7

                                       -