- Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations for Fiscal Year 2009

[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

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:

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
[email protected], 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 [email protected], Denise Ryan, National Wildlife
Federation at 202-797-6864 or [email protected] or Seth Levy, American
Hiking Society, at 301-565-6704 Ext. 302 or [email protected]
______

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 [email protected], 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 [email protected]. 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
[email protected].
______

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

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,
([email protected]) 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) [email protected];
[email protected].
______

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 ([email protected]) or
Craig Schiffries of the Geological Society of America
([email protected]).
______

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