    [Senate Hearing 111-849]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                                               S. Hrg. 111-849, Pt. 1 deg.

         DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, ENVIRONMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES
                      APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2010

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

                                    HEARINGS

                                    before a

                              SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE

                COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS UNITED STATES SENATE

                         ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                       on

                                   H.R. 2996

       AN ACT MAKING APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR,
    ENVIRONMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING SEPTEMBER
                        30, 2010, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES

                                   __________

                             PART 1 (Pages 1-xxxx)

                   Department of Agriculture: Forest Service
                        Environmental Protection Agency
                           Department of the Interior
                           Nondepartmental Witnesses

                                   __________

             Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations

           Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys

                                   __________

                      U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
    48-302                    WASHINGTON : 2011
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office,
    http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center, U.S. Government Printing Office. Phone 202�09512�091800, or 866�09512�091800 (toll-free). E-mail, gpo@custhelp.com.

                          COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

                       DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii, Chairman
    ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia        THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi
    PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont            CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri
    TOM HARKIN, Iowa                     MITCH McCONNELL, Kentucky
    BARBARA A. MIKULSKI, Maryland        RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama
    HERB KOHL, Wisconsin                 JUDD GREGG, New Hampshire
    PATTY MURRAY, Washington             ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah
    BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota        KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas
    DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California         SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas
    RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois          LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee
    TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota            SUSAN COLLINS, Maine
    MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana          GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio
    JACK REED, Rhode Island              LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska
    FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey
    BEN NELSON, Nebraska
    MARK PRYOR, Arkansas
    JON TESTER, Montana
    ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania
                        Charles J. Houy, Staff Director
                      Bruce Evans, Minority Staff Director
                                     ------

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

                     DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California, Chairman
    ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia        LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee
    PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont            THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi
    BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota        ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah
    BARBARA A. MIKULSKI, Maryland        JUDD GREGG, New Hampshire
    HERB KOHL, Wisconsin                 LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska
    TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota            SUSAN COLLINS, Maine
    JACK REED, Rhode Island
    BEN NELSON, Nebraska
    JON TESTER, Montana
    DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii, (ex
        officio)
                               Professional Staff

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

                             Administrative Support

                             Katie Batte (Minority)

                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------

                            Wednesday, May 13, 2009

                                                                       Page

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

                            Wednesday, May 20, 2009

    Department of Agriculture: Forest Service........................    37

                            Wednesday, June 3, 2009

    Department of the Interior: Office of the Secretary..............    63
    Nondepartmental Witnesses........................................   105

         DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, ENVIRONMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES
                      APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2010

                                  ----------

                            WEDNESDAY, MAY 13, 2009

                                           U.S. Senate,
               Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The subcommittee met at 10:14 a.m., in room SD-124, Dirksen
    Senate Office Building, Hon. Dianne Feinstein (chairman)
    presiding.
        Present: Senators Feinstein, Nelson, Tester, and Alexander.

                        ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

    STATEMENT OF LISA P. JACKSON, ADMINISTRATOR

                 OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR DIANNE FEINSTEIN

        Senator Feinstein. Let me begin the hearing. But let me
    begin it with a great apology to my colleagues, to our new
    ranking member, Senator Alexander, to Senator Tester. I sort of
    pride myself on being on time, and the situation just descended
    into chaos. I had to be at a Judiciary Committee, I had to do
    other things, and I really am sorry.
        Madam Administrator, I want to apologize to you, as well. I
    do not like to keep people waiting, and I am very, very sorry.
        So, I hope you will accept my apology, I'll find my glasses
    and we'll proceed.
        Good morning. On behalf of the Interior Appropriations
    Subcommittee, I welcome you to our hearing for the fiscal year
    2010 for the United States Environmental Protection Agency
    (EPA), and I'm very pleased to welcome Lisa Jackson, the new
    Administrator of the EPA, before this subcommittee.
        I also want to welcome Senator Alexander, our new ranking
    member. We've had an opportunity to discuss issues, I find
    myself in align with his thinking, so I really think that we're
    going to work very well together, and that's important. So,
    it's a good thing. So, thank you.
        This is the first hearing we're conducting together. I've
    also had occasion to talk to Senator Tester about his concerns
    and I understand his concerns, in many respects, our two States
    have similar concerns, and so I believe we will work together
    well, as well.
        The administration's fiscal year 2010 request for the EPA
    is $10.486 billion. Now, that's a remarkable 37 percent
    increase more than the 2009 enacted level. And it translates
    into nearly $2.9 billion in new funds for environmental
    protection. That truly is a very welcome addition.
        And I'm particularly pleased that the President made a $3.9
    billion commitment to fund water and sewer infrastructure. Most
    people don't know this, but as the most powerful Nation on
    Earth, we have antiquated and deteriorating water and sewer
    infrastructure. I mean, I remember when there was no such thing
    as bottled water. You didn't drink bottled water. There were
    seltzer bottles, that you spritzed, but the water coming out of
    the tap, virtually everywhere in America, was pristine, and
    pure, and as a child, we always drank it everywhere. That's not
    necessarily the case today.
        So, these things are, in fact, very important. And there's
    $2.4 billion for the Clean Water Revolving Fund--that's a $1.7
    billion enacted--over the enacted level. That's a big change,
    because all of our jurisdictions stand in line for these
    revolving loan funds. So that, indeed, is good news.
        And together these funds will build more than 1,700 water
    and sewer projects across the country, and that's an increase
    of 857 projects compared to last year. And that's in addition
    to the 2,000 that will be funded by the $6 billion Congress
    provided through the stimulus bill.
        Now, I have many other things to say about this budget, all
    of them good, all of them positive. I will put the remainder of
    my remarks in the record, and in the interest of time, welcome
    the distinguished Senator from Nebraska, Senator Nelson, and
    turn this over to the ranking member--the new ranking member--
    Senator Alexander, for his remarks.

                      STATEMENT OF SENATOR LAMAR ALEXANDER

        Senator Alexander. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
        Ms. Jackson, thank you for being here. I can't think of any
    position I'd rather have in this Senate than the one I've got,
    unless it was yours, Madam Chairman.
        But if I had to work with anyone else as chairman, I'm glad
    it's you, because I admire your decisiveness. As a former
    executive, I admire and appreciate that. And we do share views
    about the environment and our feeling that the great American
    outdoors and the natural landscape is an important part of the
    environment that we want to protect.
        I'm excited about this opportunity, as I grew up and lived
    2 miles from the boundaries of our most visited national park,
    the Great Smoky Mountains, which is 75 years old, this year.
        I'll save my remarks for the time that I have to ask
    questions, but here are the subjects that I'll be interested
    in. I hope there's one area, Administrator Jackson, that you do
    act on promptly, and that's the clean air interstate rule for
    the Eastern United States, so we can get certainty about sulfur
    nitrogen and mercury and finish cleaning our air up.
        There's one area I hope you don't act on, and that's on
    carbon, I think that's more appropriately left to the Congress,
    and we can talk about that.
        I'd like to talk to you about clean air hot spots. We had a
    great briefing the other day, Madam Chairman, from Brian
    McLean, when Senator Carper and I were working on dealing with
    legislation that involves sulfur, nitrogen, and mercury--we've
    really made great progress since 1992 on the first two. We have
    the technology now to deal with mercury, but there are a few
    hot spots left in the country where we still have a sulfur
    nitrogen problem, and strategies for dealing with that, and
    protecting our national parks, especially, from the
    consequences of dirty air is something I'd like to talk about.
        And then finally, Madam Administrator, I'd like to talk
    with you a little bit about the coal-ash spill at the Tennessee
    Valley Authority (TVA) site in Tennessee, and your intention--
    which I don't disagree with--for the EPA to move into the
    regulation of coal ash from coal plants, and your decision
    these last few days to become involved with the clean up now,
    and to do it under the Superfund Act, I want to be sure I
    understand just what that means, what the consequences are, and
    what the costs will be.
        So I look forward, not just to this hearing, but to working
    with the Chairman and working with Administrator Jackson.
        Thank you, Madam Chairman.
        Senator Feinstein. Thank you very much, Senator Alexander.
        Senator Nelson, do you have a comment? And then Senator
    Tester.
        Senator Nelson. No, Madam Chairman, I really don't except
    to say that I am anxious to know more about the Department's
    move toward carbon regulation, and I'll bring that up during
    the questions.
        Senator Feinstein. Yes, we all will.
        Senator Nelson. Thank you.
        Senator Feinstein. Right.
        Senator Tester.

                        STATEMENT OF SENATOR JON TESTER

        Senator Tester. Thank you, Madam Chair, and I also want to
    thank you for your apology. I really appreciate the fact that
    you want to be on time, and sometimes we get pulled away, but I
    thank you very much for that, I appreciate that in this body.
        And Administrator Jackson, thank you for being here. I do
    have a very quick statement I'd like to put forth.
        As the Chairwoman said, I also want to thank you for the
    money that was put in for community water systems. I think
    clean water is a fundamental right, but a lot of small
    communities in States like Montana, really can't afford modern
    systems, so the State revolving funds are critically important,
    and a great source of funding to help local match meet the
    increased need for our antiquated water systems throughout the
    United States, especially in Montana.
        The EPA is doing a lot of work in Montana, and we've got
    some big problems to clean up. The EPA is in the process of
    restoring the Clark Fork River by removing Milltown Dam. I want
    to commend you on that. This Superfund site is to be turned
    into a beautiful park. It will restore two rivers and improve
    fish habitat in those rivers. There will be a kayaking park
    right outside a town called Missoula, Montana. The clean-up is
    creating a lot of jobs in construction, and afterwards will
    create even more jobs by revitalizing that area, and offering
    some recreational opportunities. In Montana, we call this the
    restoration economy, and I hope we see a lot more of it in the
    future.
        I want to discuss Libby very quickly, and my questions are
    going to revolve around Libby for the most part.
        The community of Libby was poisoned, and people are dying.
    Nearly 200 people--and this is not a big community--nearly 200
    people have lost their lives to asbestos-related diseases, many
    more are sick. The town is struggling to meet its healthcare
    needs and has an unclear picture of what the eventual and
    complete cleanup, really means. Homes are being devalued
    because of contamination, and businesses are concerned about
    the liability on sites that they would like to locate in.
        I have been to Libby, I have talked to the residents,
    things are difficult there. I have visited with folks who can
    barely breathe because of asbestos problems, who are denied
    oxygen from a WR Grace healthcare plan. These folks have
    asbestosis, they're denied oxygen from a WR Grace healthcare
    plan.
        Parents don't know if it's safe to let their kids play in
    the yard because of the potential contamination, and several
    community groups that were set up to communicate with the EPA
    have been disbanded because the EPA staff quit showing up at
    those meetings.
        Last week, the Justice Department failed in their criminal
    case against WR Grace, and the people in Libby and Montana are
    extremely frustrated.
        I'm glad that you're in this position, because I know you
    want to take the Agency in the right direction. But the
    situation in Libby is serious enough that it demands your
    personal and immediate attention.
        Your commitment to my colleague, Senator Baucus was that
    you would visit Libby and report on the reasoning behind the
    EPA's failure to declare Libby a public health emergency, and
    we look forward to both of those things happening, as soon as
    possible.
        And with that, I will save the rest of it for the
    questions.
        Thank you, Madam Chair.
        Senator Feinstein. Thank you very much, Senator Tester.
        Madam Administrator, we will turn this over to you. We have
    your written statement in front of us, I'd like to ask, if you
    can, deal with some of these issues in your opening statement.
        If you want cuts in your budget anywhere, let us know
    where, and then we will go to the questions, and that's
    generally the most informative part of these hearings. And we
    will have rounds of 5 minutes from each member.
        So, welcome, and please proceed.

                      SUMMARY STATEMENT OF LISA P. JACKSON

        Mrs. Jackson. Well, thank you, Madam Chair, and let me
    simply start by saying that you and the members of this
    subcommittee are worth waiting for. So, I'm glad you did make
    it, and I'm glad we waited for you.
        Good morning to you, to Ranking Member Alexander, to the
    members of the subcommittee, thank you for your kind opening
    words, thank you for inviting me here today, and I will keep my
    remarks very brief so that we can get to the questions and
    answers.
        I do want to introduce Maryann Froehlich. Maryann is our
    acting Chief Financial Officer at the EPA and has been ably
    assisting me in preparing for this hearing, just in case we
    have any questions, or you want to address any questions to
    her.
        As you stated, Madam Chair, the President requests $10.5
    billion, roughly, for fiscal year 2010. It reflects the
    challenges and promises that we face in an era of high energy
    costs, climate change and economic crisis, and it reflects the
    President's commitment to environmental protection as a piece
    of the solution for our economic challenges. We know we can do
    better. We agree that all Americans deserve clean air, water,
    and a healthy environment. We also know that the clean energy
    economy deserves vigilance on the environmental front, as well.
        The President's budget starts the work that's needed to
    transform our economy. It includes investment in cutting-edge
    green technologies, but also it repairs our crumbling
    infrastructure, stronger regulatory and scientific capabilities
    to make the Nation's water, air, and land cleaner for our
    communities families and children.
        It provides a substantial increase in support to address
    the public health and environmental challenges that can not be
    postponed. In short, the budget reflects the President's
    commitment to a new era of environmental stewardship and puts
    us on a path to a cleaner, safer planet.
        You've already mentioned, Madam Chair, the $3.9 billion for
    clean water and drinking water State revolving funds, that's
    certainly a highlight of this budget. It's important to note
    that almost all of that money passes back into communities
    through the States, so that money is very much on the ground
    money for environmental restoration--for environmental
    investment, if you will I like your restoration economy
    remarks, Senator Tester.
        We estimate that this 157 percent funding increase in the
    State revolving funds will finance, as you suggest, about 1,700
    clean water and drinking water projects. I remind everyone that
    those areAmerican, well-paying jobs, here in this country.
        The fiscal year 2010 budget also supports efforts to
    develop a comprehensive energy and climate change policy with
    measures to increase energy independence and reduce greenhouse
    gases. This comes in the form of a $19 million increase to help
    the EPA, among other things, implement the greenhouse gas
    inventory, so we can take the very important step of measuring
    our progress in reducing emissions. That will also ensure that
    we are targeting major sources of emissions.
        The budget requests $55 million, an increase of more than
    $8 million to fund an enhanced toxics program, to screen,
    assess, and reduce chemical risk. That's a 17 percent increase,
    and allows the EPA to help complete screening level
    characterizations on more than 6,750 organic chemicals in use
    in the United States. There's also an increase of $24 million
    in the President's budget for the Superfund Program, that
    investment enhances enforcement and removal work throughout the
    country. Beginning in 2011, the so-called ``polluter pays''
    measure would be reinstated under this budget, which would
    generate $1 billion a year, rising to $2 billion a year by the
    year 2019. These are extremely important resources needed to
    address cleanups of contaminated sites across America.
        Along with increases in Superfund, the budget provides a
    total of $175 million for Brownfields, which is a $5 million
    increase. The Brownfields program helps States, tribes, local
    communities, and stakeholders in economic redevelopment to work
    together to assess and clean up brownfield sites, revitalizing
    these properties, and returning them to their best and highest
    uses.
        These protection efforts focus on ensuring that the sites
    are ready to be returned, putting both people and property to
    work.
        Madam Chair, members of the subcommittee, the budget sets
    the EPA on a clear path to addressing our Nation's
    environmental challenges, and helps us to accomplish important
    work. I look forward to discussing the Clean Air Interstate
    Rule, and our plans to accelerate the schedule for development
    of that rule.
        I know we'll get into some discussion of greenhouse gases,
    carbon, and TVA. I'm happy to do that in the questions and
    answers. As you know, we have redoubled our commitment, Senator
    Alexander, to the TVA Clean-Up, and we've promised coal ash
    regulations by the end of this calendar year, a proposal.
        I think the two go hand-in-hand. We applaud the work of the
    State of Tennessee. They were the first on the scene after the
    tragic spill in December, and have been leaders in assuring
    that the cleanup is done in a transparent and scientifically
    sound way.
        We believe, because the TVA is a Federal facility that the
    EPA should be involved in a cleanup of this magnitude to bring
    Federal resources to bear on the cleanup side to work hand-in-
    hand with the State. I believe the State and the EPA will make
    a good team--a partnership that will ensure that that area is
    restored to its extraordinary natural beauty, and also its
    environmental health. The residents there deserve no less.

                               PREPARED STATEMENT

        You're right, I know we will discuss Libby. We've been
    working with Senator Baucus actually before my confirmation.
    Senator Baucus made it clear that he wanted a visit to Libby
    and personal attention. I'm happy to discuss that in the
    questions and answers, as well, Senator.
        Thank you very much.
        [The statement follows:]

                     Prepared Statement of Lisa P. Jackson

        Madam Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I am delighted to
    appear before you today to discuss how the proposed fiscal year 2010
    budget request for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is
    designed to address our environmental challenges and contribute to the
    country's economic recovery.
        The President requests $10.5 billion for fiscal year 2010 to carry
    out EPA's mission to protect human health and safeguard and improve the
    environment. This budget represents a 37 percent increase more than our
    fiscal year 2009 budget--the highest level ever for EPA. It reflects
    both the challenges and promise we face in an era of higher energy
    costs, global climate change, and economic crisis. We recognize that
    now is the time to make the environmental investments to support a
    cleaner energy economy and a more sustainable future.
        This budget starts the work needed to transform our economy through
    investment in cutting-edge green technologies, repairing crumbling
    infrastructure and strengthening our core regulatory and scientific
    capabilities to make the Nation's water, air, and land cleaner for our
    communities, families, and children. This budget keeps EPA on the job
    protecting the environment. It helps States, tribes, and local
    governments stay on the job by providing critical partnership
    assistance. And, it helps put Americans back on the job.
        The fiscal year 2010 budget request provides a substantial increase
    for EPA programs, reflecting greater opportunity for EPA to address
    public health and environmental challenges that can no longer be
    postponed, in areas such as water infrastructure, protecting our
    freshwater resources, laying the foundation to address climate change,
    and addressing gaps in research as well as chemical management.
        This fiscal year 2010 budget reflects President Obama's commitment
    to usher in a new era in environmental stewardship and puts us on a
    clear path to a cleaner and safer planet.
        Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I now would like to
    provide a bit more detail about the major environmental protection
    priorities addressed in this budget.

                        INVESTS IN WATER INFRASTRUCTURE

        The most significant investments in the fiscal year 2010 budget
    include $3.9 billion total for the Clean Water and Drinking Water State
    Revolving Funds to fund water infrastructure projects for States,
    tribes, and territories. This budget includes $2.4 billion for the
    Clean Water State Revolving Fund and $1.5 billion for the Drinking
    Water State Revolving Fund. These investments will help the Nation
    build, improve, and repair the infrastructure that provides us with
    reliable and safe sources of water.
        We estimate that this 157 percent funding increase in the State
    Revolving Funds will finance 1,000 clean water and 700 drinking water
    projects across America--projects that will upgrade and update the
    Nation's aging water infrastructure, assure compliance with Safe
    Drinking Water Act requirements, make water delivery more efficient,
    and create American jobs that pay well. These investments channel
    critical funding for water system pipe replacements and help address an
    estimated 240,000 water pipe breaks that occur across America each year
    and waste millions of gallons of water.
        The Clean Water and Drinking Water State Revolving Funds provide
    grants to States to capitalize their own revolving funds, providing
    infrastructure financing to communities, making water infrastructure
    more efficient, and supporting green jobs in the 21st century. Because
    repayments and interest are recycled back into the program, these State
    Revolving Funds generate funding for loans even without Federal
    capitalization. We estimate that for every Federal dollar invested,
    approximately $2 in financing are provided to municipalities.
        The administration will make these water investments with an eye to
    the future. EPA will continue to work with State and local partners to
    develop sustainability policies, including management and pricing,
    conservation, planning adequate long-term funding for future capital
    needs, and providing equitable consideration of small system customers.
    As President Obama has said, now is the time to make long-overdue
    investments in clean energy and new infrastructure to create a platform
    for entrepreneurs and workers to build an economy that will lead us
    into a better future. This significant investment sends a clear message
    to American taxpayers that the water infrastructure, that all of us
    rely on every day, will be repaired, maintained, and modernized for the
    21st century.

                      ACCELERATES GREAT LAKES RESTORATION

        The Great Lakes Basin is a national resource treasure that is home
    to 34 million people in the United States and Canada. It holds 20
    percent of the world's fresh surface water, has 10,000 miles of
    coastline, and contains a diverse array of biological communities.
    EPA's fiscal year 2010 budget requests $475 million for Great Lakes
    restoration programs and projects that strategically target the most
    significant problems in the region, such as aquatic invasive species,
    nonpoint source pollution, toxics in sediment, and habitat and species
    loss.
        This restoration effort represents the Federal Government's
    commitment to significantly advance Great Lakes protection. The Great
    Lakes Initiative will use outcome-oriented performance goals and
    measures to target the most significant problems and track progress in
    addressing them. EPA and its Federal partners will coordinate State,
    local, tribal, and industry actions to protect, maintain, and restore
    the chemical, biological, and physical integrity of the Great Lakes.
        In the fiscal year 2010 budget we include other geographic
    priorities, such as Puget Sound, San Francisco Bay, and the Chesapeake
    Bay. The Chesapeake Bay restoration effort is funded at $35 million, a
    $4 million increase more than fiscal year 2009, and will support
    projects to further address nutrient and sediment pollution in the Bay.

           INITIATES A COMPREHENSIVE APPROACH TO SLOW GLOBAL WARMING

        EPA's fiscal year 2010 budget supports efforts to develop a
    comprehensive energy and climate change policy to increase energy
    independence, move toward a greener economy and to reduce greenhouse
    gas emissions. There is not a moment to lose in confronting the rapid
    advance of climate change.

                GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS (CAP AND TRADE PROGRAM)

        The fiscal year 2010 budget includes a $19 million increase to
    support the President's effort to develop a comprehensive energy and
    climate change plan to transition America to a clean energy economy,
    reduce oil usage, and slow global warming. It will allow us to work on
    a greenhouse gas emissions inventory and work with industry sectors to
    report high-quality greenhouse gas emission data that is the foundation
    of an effective climate policy. This funding supports design,
    development, and testing the data management system, developing
    guidance and training materials to assist the regulated community,
    conducting industry-specific workshops, and developing source
    measurement technologies for greenhouse gases.
        This budget provides funding to develop environmentally sound
    methodological approaches needed to implement a possible cap and trade
    program, including offsets, and to strengthen climate partnership
    programs. EPA will develop protocols to measure the effectiveness of
    offset projects, and provide advice on effective, environmentally sound
    approaches to offsets.

                                 CHEMICAL RISKS

        Just as we need to address climate change, we also need to manage
    chemical risks. The fiscal year 2010 budget requests $55 million, an
    increase of $8 million more than fiscal year 2009 levels, to fund an
    enhanced toxics program to screen, assess, and reduce chemical risks.
    This 17 percent increase will fulfill United States commitments under
    the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America to complete
    screening-level hazard and risk characterization and initiate action as
    needed on more than 6,750 organic U.S. chemicals.

                            RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

        The Research and Development programs are funded at $842 million
    for the Science and Technology appropriation, and increase of $52
    million from fiscal year 2009. This funding will support the rigorous,
    peer-reviewed scientific analyses that we must use as a basis for our
    environmental decisions. It will allow us to assess, develop and
    compile scientifically rigorous tools to inform decision-making and
    assist in incorporating green infrastructure into existing practices.

                            COMPUTATIONAL TOXICOLOGY

        The fiscal year 2010 budget includes a $4.5 million increase more
    than the fiscal year 2009 enacted level for Computational Toxicology
    Research. This increase will enhance EPA efforts to provide regulatory
    offices with detailed hazard assessment profiles on thousands of
    chemicals of concern, as well as information on human exposure
    potential, including chemical screening and prioritization, and
    toxicity pathway-based risk assessment. This funding will also provide
    for the high-throughput screening of up to 200 additional chemicals and
    the deployment of this information in EPA databases with supporting
    analysis tools, via computer programs and EPA websites.

                   INTEGRATED RISK INFORMATION SYSTEMS (IRIS)

        The fiscal year 2010 budget includes $14.5 million, a $5 million
    increase more than 2009, to enable the IRIS to increase assessment
    production and reduce our backlog of assessments for chemicals
    previously identified as priority needs.

                                    BIOFUELS

        The fiscal year 2010 budget includes $5.6 million, an increase of
    $5 million more than fiscal year 2009, for biofuels research and
    sustainability analysis mandated by the Energy Independence and
    Security Act of 2007. Biofuels lifecycle and sustainability research
    will provide better information to decision makers on the trade offs
    and opportunities associated with increased biofuels production.

                         GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE RESEARCH

        The fiscal year 2010 budget provides $3.6 million to expand green
    infrastructure research to assess, develop, and compile scientifically
    rigorous tools and models that will be used by the Agency's water and
    other programs, States, tribes, and municipalities to help advance the
    deployment of green infrastructure. This research will help EPA and its
    non-Federal partners further their understanding of the benefits it
    provides, and aid in integrating green infrastructure into water
    pollution control programs at the Federal, State, and local level.

                                   AIR TOXICS

        I believe EPA has a particular duty to inform America's most
    vulnerable populations about the environmental risks we face. I
    recognize that for the Nation's vulnerable populations--the
    disadvantaged, the elderly, children, and historically disadvantaged
    communities--are least able to bear additional increments of
    environmental risk.
        Therefore, the budget also includes $3.3 million for air toxics
    research to protect and improve the quality of the air that each of us
    breathes. Air toxics research studies the effects to human health of
    toxic air pollutants and includes evaluating risk assessment
    methodologies to support the development and implementation of
    regulatory programs that assist State and local governments and tribes
    develop clean air plans. The fiscal year 2010 budget also supports
    improvement of risk assessment tools, including National-Scale Air
    Toxics Assessment; analytical support to States as they enhance air
    toxics monitoring near selected schools, and five FTE in EPA's regional
    offices to provide technical assistance and coordination.
        These combined scientific efforts do more than build our
    understanding of environmental programs; they remind us all of the need
    for transparent, clear communication of the facts and risks of the
    environmental challenges we face together.

                     STRENGTHENS ENVIRONMENTAL ENFORCEMENT

        EPA's fiscal year 2010 budget proposes the largest enforcement and
    compliance budget in history--$600 million, an increase of $32 million
    from last year. The $600 million enforcement budget reflects the
    President's strong commitment to enforcing of our Nation's
    environmental laws and ensures that EPA has the resources necessary to
    maintain a robust and effective criminal and civil enforcement program.
    Specifically, the request includes an increase of nearly 30 additional
    positions primarily for civil and criminal enforcement. In addition, we
    will enhance efforts to integrate environmental justice considerations
    in EPA's programs and policies as well as fulfill environmental
    requirements with respect to other Federal agencies' projects funded by
    the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. Experience has shown that
    investing in our enforcement program yields tangible pollution
    reductions and fundamental behavioral change in the regulated
    community. The fiscal year 2010 budget will advance EPA's mission, and
    do so with unparalleled transparency. The success of our efforts
    depends on earning and maintaining the trust of the public we serve by
    upholding values of transparency and openness in conducting EPA
    operations.

                                   SUPERFUND

        The $1.3 billion Superfund budget contains an increase of $24
    million more than fiscal year 2009. Funding in the budget will enhance
    enforcement and removal work as well as support the Superfund program.
    The budget also includes a proposal to reinstate the Superfund tax that
    expired in 1995. Beginning in fiscal year 2011, the taxes should
    generate $1 billion a year, rising to $2 billion a year by 2019--all to
    fund needed cleanups across America. These efforts focus on ensuring
    that contaminated sites are ready to be returned to beneficial use by
    our communities.

                                  BROWNFIELDS

        The 2010 budget provides a total of $175 million for the
    Brownfields program, a $5 million increase from 2009. This includes
    $149.5 million for Brownfields State and Tribal Assistance Grants to
    continue to provide Brownfields assessment, revolving loan fund, clean-
    up, and job-training grants. The Brownfields program is designed to
    help States, tribes, local communities and other stakeholders work
    together to assess, safely cleanup, and reuse Brownfields. Revitalizing
    these once productive properties helps communities by removing blight,
    satisfying the growing demand for land, helping limit urban sprawl,
    enabling economic development, and improving quality of life.

                    LEAKING UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANKS (LUST)

        The fiscal year 2010 budget requests $128 million for the Leaking
    Underground Storage Tanks program, including $113 million for the LUST
    trust fund. The LUST program promotes rapid and effective responses to
    releases from Underground Storage Tanks containing petroleum and
    hazardous substances by enhancing State, local, and tribal enforcement
    and response capability. EPA supports State and tribal underground
    storage tank programs to clean up contaminated sites, promote
    innovative and environmentally friendly approaches in corrective action
    to enhance and streamline the remediation process, and measure and
    evaluate national program progress and performance. Almost 80 percent
    (or 377,019) of all reported leaks have been addressed to date, leaving
    a backlog of almost 103,000 cleanups that have not yet been addressed.
    In fiscal year 2010, EPA will continue to work with the States and
    tribes to complete LUST cleanups in an effort to reduce the remaining
    backlog.
        All three of these programs--Superfund, Brownfields, and Leaking
    Underground Storage Tanks--focus on cleaning up contaminated sites to
    ensure these sites are ready to be returned to beneficial use by our
    communities, putting both people and property to work.

                                  PARTNERSHIPS

        Next, I want to discuss how this budget will help our partners stay
    on the job. States, localities, and tribes are the front line in many
    environmental programs--they implement major portions of many EPA
    programs. As the recession drastically lowers tax revenues, States and
    localities are looking at deep cuts in all their programs--cuts that
    could hinder environmental progress on a wide range of issues.

                               CATEGORICAL GRANTS

        In fiscal year 2010, EPA requests a total of $1.1 billion for
    ``categorical'' program grants for State, interstate organizations,
    nonprofit organizations, and tribal governments. EPA will continue to
    pursue its strategy of building and supporting State, local and tribal
    capacity to implement, operate, and enforce the Nation's environmental
    laws. In this way, environmental goals will ultimately be achieved
    through the actions, programs, and commitments of State, tribal and
    local governments, organizations, and citizens. Highlights of EPA's
    fiscal year 2010 categorical grants include:

                          AIR QUALITY AND RADON GRANTS

        The fiscal year 2010 request includes $248 million for grants to
    support State, local, and tribal air management and radon programs.
    These funds provide resources to multi-State, State, local, and tribal
    air pollution control agencies for development and implementation of
    programs for the prevention and control of air pollution and
    implementation of National Ambient Air Quality Standards. EPA will
    continue an initiative to measure levels of toxic air pollution near
    selected schools across the country and ensure that deployed monitors
    collect high-quality data. This partnership will help EPA maximize its
    monitoring and analytical capabilities. This budget also includes $8.1
    million for radon grants that focus on reducing radon levels in
    existing homes and promoting the construction of new homes with radon
    reducing features.

                         WATER POLLUTION CONTROL GRANTS

        The fiscal year 2010 budget request includes $229 million for Water
    Pollution Control grants. These grants assist State and tribal efforts
    to restore and maintain the Nation's water quality. EPA will also work
    with States to implement the new rules governing discharges from
    Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations. EPA encourages States to
    continually review and update the water quality criteria in their
    standards to reflect the latest scientific information from EPA and
    other sources.

                         NONPOINT SOURCE PROGRAM GRANTS

        In fiscal year 2010, EPA requests $200.9 million for Nonpoint
    Source Program grants to States, territories, and tribes. EPA's goal is
    to reduce annually the amount of runoff of phosphorus, nitrogen, and
    sediment through our Clean Water Act section 319-funded projects by 4.5
    million pounds, 8.5 million pounds, and 700,000 tons, respectively.
    These grants enable States to use a range of tools to implement their
    programs including: both nonregulatory and regulatory programs,
    technical assistance, financial assistance, education, training,
    technology transfer, and demonstration projects.

                  HAZARDOUS WASTE FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE GRANTS

        In fiscal year 2010, EPA requests $106.3 million for Hazardous
    Waste Financial Assistance grants. These grants are used for
    implementation of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act hazardous
    waste program, which includes permitting, authorization, waste
    minimization, enforcement, and corrective action activities. In fiscal
    year 2010, EPA expects that 100 hazardous waste facilities will put in
    place new or updated controls to prevent releases.

                     PUBLIC WATER SYSTEM SUPERVISION GRANTS

        In fiscal year 2010, EPA requests $105.7 million for Public Water
    System Supervision (PWSS) grants. These grants provide assistance to
    implement and enforce National Primary Drinking Water Regulations to
    ensure the safety of the Nation's drinking water resources and to
    protect public health. In fiscal year 2010, EPA will emphasize that
    States use their PWSS funds to ensure that drinking water systems of
    all sizes meet new and existing regulatory requirements.

                    TRIBAL GENERAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM GRANTS

        EPA's budget request includes $62.9 million for the Tribal General
    Assistance Program to help federally recognized tribes and intertribal
    consortia develop, implement, and assess environmental programs. In
    fiscal year 2010, 100 percent of federally recognized tribes and
    intertribal consortia will have access to environmental assistance.

            PESTICIDES, TOXICS SUBSTANCE, AND SECTOR PROGRAM GRANTS

        The fiscal year 2010 request includes $25.6 million to build
    environmental enforcement partnerships with States and tribes and to
    strengthen their ability to address environmental and public health
    threats and assist them in the implementation of compliance and
    enforcement provisions of the Toxic Substances Control Act and the
    Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act. Under our Toxic
    Substances Compliance Grant program, States receive funding for
    compliance inspections focused on asbestos, polychlorinated biphenyls,
    and lead-based paint. States also receive funding for implementation of
    the State lead-based paint certification and training, and abatement
    notification compliance and enforcement program. Under the Sector
    program grants, EPA builds environmental partnerships with States and
    tribes to strengthen their ability to address environmental and public
    health threats, including contaminated drinking water, pesticides in
    food, hazardous waste, toxic substances, and air pollution.

                                  LEAD GRANTS

        The fiscal year 2010 request includes $14.6 million for lead
    grants. This funding will support the development of authorized
    programs, including work under the new lead renovation, repair, and
    painting rule, in both States and tribes to prevent lead poisoning
    through the training of workers who remove lead-based paint, the
    accreditation of training programs, the certification of contractors,
    and renovation education programs. In fiscal year 2010, EPA will
    continue to award targeted grants to reduce childhood lead poisoning
    and keep EPA on target to eliminate childhood lead poisoning as a
    public health concern.
        In addition to these grants, the fiscal year 2010 budget continues
    EPA's funding and Beaches Environmental Assessment and Coastal Health
    Act and Wetlands grants to protect our coastal shorelines and improve
    water quality in watersheds throughout the country.

                               HOMELAND SECURITY

        EPA has a vital role in homeland security. The Agency has been
    called upon to respond to five major disasters and nationally
    significant incidents in the past 7 years. In the coming years, EPA's
    homeland security roles and responsibilities will continue to be of the
    utmost importance as the Agency enhances its preparedness.
        The fiscal year 2010 budget requests $160 million to support the
    Agency's homeland security efforts. The emphasis for fiscal year 2010
    is on several areas: applied research for decontamination methods and
    agents; ensuring trained personnel and key lab capacities are in place
    to be drawn upon in the event of multiple large-scale catastrophic
    incidents; and enhancing critical water infrastructure security
    efforts.
        EPA's fiscal year 2010 budget provides an increase of $9 million to
    fully fund five Water Security Initiative pilot cooperative agreements.
    The Water Alliance for Threat Reduction Activities. The Water Security
    Initiative will include continued design and demonstration, of a system
    to test, and evaluate the appropriate response to drinking water
    contamination threats. Adoption of effective water security guidance on
    contamination systems will be issued upon completion of these projects.

                               INSPECTOR GENERAL

        This budget also reflects another key concern of Congress and
    mine--making sure we manage our resources responsibly. This budget
    includes increases to the Inspector General to help ensure that we
    protect public dollars from fraud, waste, and abuse.

                                   CONCLUSION

        Madam Chairman and members of the subcommittee, the fiscal year
    2010 budget request sets EPA on a clear path to accomplishing the
    important work Americans support to address the pressing environmental
    challenges facing our Nation. We are honored to have the job of
    protecting human health and the environment. And, we are proud that
    this $10.5 billion funds investments in both our environmental and
    economic future.

                                GREENHOUSE GASES

        Senator Feinstein. Thank you very much, Madam
    Administrator.
        Senator Alexander mentioned the greenhouse gas area, and I
    want to plunge right into that, if I might. You made that--your
    proposed endangerment finding on April 17. As I understand the
    Clean Air Act, section 202(a), the decision--your proposed
    decision that's coming, includes essentially two separate
    decisions--a finding that six greenhouse gases, including
    carbon and methane, do endanger both public health and welfare,
    and a finding that emissions from new motor vehicles cause or
    contribute to the greenhouse concentrations that endanger
    public health.
        So, once the endangerment decision is finalized, which is
    expected by legislation by June 30 of this year. The groundwork
    is laid for the EPA to begin regulation of vehicle emission
    standards for greenhouse gases, as well as for possible
    stationary source regulations. This is very powerful, and
    potent.
        As Senator Alexander stated--and I happen to agree with
    him--it is definitely preferable to have the Congress act in
    this area, and the House looks like it may be.
        I think the jury is still out in the Senate, and we hope--
    and everything is being done and there is a very active effort
    by Senator Boxer and Senator Kerry on the EPW Committee to come
    up with a bill. As we know, here we've got 60-vote cloture for
    virtually anything that is controversial, and we have
    Copenhagen coming at the end of the year where American
    leadership is necessarily expected.
        My question to you is this, what is the EPA prepared to do
    if action is not taken in a prompt and timely way by the
    Congress?
        Mrs. Jackson. Well, thank you, Madam Chairman.
        EPA is prepared to follow-up on its statutory duties under
    the Clean Air Act. As you rightfully noted, the proposed
    endangerment finding is the first step to potential regulation
    of greenhouse gases.
        The President and I have said repeatedly that we agree with
    you and Senator Alexander, that we would prefer to see Congress
    act. We would prefer to see a law that is specifically
    dedicated to addressing the issue of greenhouse gas emissions
    in this country, along with comprehensive energy legislation.
    That is being considered in the House of Representatives.
        We have a duty at the EPA. Two years ago, the Supreme Court
    ordered the EPA to make a finding one way or the other, and the
    proposed finding answers the call from the Supreme Court, so we
    are following the law.
        If that finding is finalized, then the EPA would be
    authorized to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from motor
    vehicles and trucks, and the EPA will proceed, judiciously, to
    assess the need for, and to coordinate that regulation.
        Senator Feinstein. Before the end of the year?
        Mrs. Jackson. I would say that it is quite likely that we
    will make a decision on endangerment well before the end of the
    year. The EPA has been working as I'm sure you know already,
    very closely, and under orders from the President with the
    Department of Transportation, with your home State of
    California, which has been a leader on this issue, to make sure
    that as we consider next steps on emissions for automobiles,
    that those steps are coordinated, and that they will comply
    with the Clean Air Act and its mandates.
        Senator Feinstein. Can you discuss with us some of the
    issues that you might have to address in the next 1 to 2 years,
    to move toward regulation of greenhouse gases?
        Mrs. Jackson. I'm happy to. Well, we just talked about the
    first issue.

                              ENDANGERMENT FINDING

        Senator Feinstein. Right.
        Mrs. Jackson. The first regulatory issue we would turn is
    to motor vehicles. The endangerment finding actually pertains
    to motor vehicles, as you know, and that is not a new issue,
    it's one that has been brewing for quite some time. It was
    actually brought to a head, not only by the Massachusetts v.
    EPA decision, but also by the State of California. California
    developed automobile emissions standards that were designed to
    specifically address carbon. The so-called ``waiver decision''
    which President Obama ordered the EPA to re-look at on my first
    day as Administrator, says that we are now in the process of
    looking at whether or not the California standards should be
    applied in those States that have chosen--on a Statewide
    level--to adopt them.
        Senator Feinstein. Is it 12 States?
        Mrs. Jackson. I believe it's 12, yes.
        Senator Feinstein. So, what you're saying is 12 States are
    ready, and now under the law can affect----
        Mrs. Jackson. The EPA has not made a determination on the
    waiver, the public comment period closed in early April, and as
    you noted, by law, by June 30 Congress has asked us to make a
    determination one way or another with respect to the waiver.
        Once the decision is made with respect to California, the
    other States would so be empowered.
        Senator Feinstein. Yes.
        The reason Senator Alexander asked this, you see, I think
    this is a very powerful mobilize for the Senate to come to
    grips with the need to pass a bill. Because at least as I look
    at it, they are going to be under a mandate where there is
    little choice, once they make the waiver decision, to move, to
    regulate if we do not have something.
        So, in--at least in my view--it's a very powerful
    compelling argument as to way we must take some action, and not
    be dilatory.
        I'm going to turn it over to you for your questions with
    that.

                                   CLEAN AIR

        Senator Alexander. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
        In my second round I'd like to get back to the discussion
    we were just having, but in this first round, let me ask you
    about the other three pollutants, and about the TVA situation.
        The other three pollutants that come from coal plants are,
    of course, sulfur, nitrogen, and mercury. And Senator Carper
    and I had an excellent briefing the other day about the success
    of those programs since the early 1990s. Even though there's
    some work still to be done, great progress has been made.
        And it's worth knowing that it differs from carbon in a
    couple of important ways. One is, there was the technology to
    deal with sulfur at the time the cap-and-trade was imposed on
    sulfur, called ``scrubbers,'' and two, we were dealing with a
    lot less money, and only a part of the economy.
        But a court has knocked down the so-called ``CAIR rule,''
    which provided certainty about--and high standards--about
    sulfur and nitrogen. That's a real problem for those of us who
    care about clean air in the Eastern United States. Because in
    Tennessee, for example, in the Great Smoky Mountain area, as
    well as in the New Jersey area in the Northeast that you're
    very familiar with--we're affected by dirty air that blows in
    from other places, as well as some we commit ourselves. And the
    only way we can deal with that is to have a strong national
    standard, or at least one that applies to the Eastern United
    States.
        Senator Carper and I are prepared to go forward with
    legislation that would reinstate strong, clean air pollution
    rules on sulfur, nitrogen, and mercury, on which we don't want
    a cap-and-trade because it just goes up in the air and comes
    down.
        My question for you is, wouldn't it be easier and quicker
    for the country if we simply gave the EPA the authority that
    the court said that you don't have in order to write a CAIR
    rule, or would it be easier and quicker, and better for the
    country if we authored a comprehensive bill and tried to pass
    that.
        Or, should we do it in two steps? Go ahead and give you the
    authority, let you do the rule, which I would assume would come
    quicker, and then try to persuade our colleagues to do a
    comprehensive piece of legislation?
        Mrs. Jackson. Thank you, Senator. And thank you for your
    leadership on the issues of clean air.
        I would offer you the following pieces of information, and
    then maybe we could come to a decision, offline, together on
    what's the best way to go.
        The EPA will take the rest of the calendar year to work on
    the replacement for the CAIR rule that was knocked down by the
    court. As you know, we're operating under the old rules while
    we develop a new rule.
        We're working to propose that new rule in early 2010, the
    calendar year 2010.
        In the meantime, the NOX trading program began
    on schedule, in January of this year. The ozone season
    NOX trading program began on May 1, and the
    SO2 trading program is expected to commence January
    1, 2010, as intended.
        My concern is that without potential additional authority
    there are some specific issues that we're concerned we could be
    sued on and lose again if we don't have a legislative fix.
        So, I think there may be a need for a small, but mighty
    legislative fix to enable those rules to go forward without
    additional challenge.
        The other commitment I'd like to make to you, sir, is that
    this gives us an opportunity to once again look at the science,
    and make sure that in the CAIR rulemaking, we are judicious and
    smart, but that we squeeze every drop of cost-effective
    protection we can, and every control we can get out of the CAIR
    rule. I think that there are opportunities still to be had in
    that arena, as well.

                        TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY (TVA)

        Senator Alexander. Well, I will look forward to working
    with you on that as I know Senator Carper will.
        And I think it's important and relevant, Madam Chairman, to
    the global warming concern. I think we have to use coal plants
    for the foreseeable future, and so we need to clean them up.
    And a big part of cleaning them up is sulfur, nitrogen and
    mercury. We can plug our electric cars in at night and never
    have to build another power plant for the next 20 years. And
    then we can figure out what to do about carbon.
        Now, I asked you about TVA. TVA estimates it'll cost $1
    billion to clean up that coal ash spill--that's a huge amount
    of money for the ratepayers of our region. We understand the
    EPA will now be a partner in that cleanup. Please explain to me
    what that means to us, to be as part of the Superfund. Will
    that add to the bill that the TVA ratepayers will have to pay?
    Will that mean that Federal dollars will be available to help
    with the cleanup? Will that mean that the EPA will use TVA's
    experience as a model for other coal plants in the country in
    terms of how they deal with coal--might deal with coal ash in
    an effective way?
        Mrs. Jackson. Certainly, I believe that the EPA's getting
    more directly involved in the face of an enforceable order with
    TVA, which we issued recently, on May 11, means that the EPA
    will be there in the unlikely--but possible--event that things
    don't go well TVA has been stepping up to the plate, to date.
    Most of the work, to date, has been paid for by TVA. TVA has
    also stepped up to pay the State's oversight costs, and has
    agreed to pay the EPA's oversight costs. So, to the extent that
    the polluter pays, TVA--although they are a Federal entity--has
    agreed, as part of this order, to pay those costs.
        Now, I'm well aware of the fact that the costs keep
    escalating, because the more we learn, the more we realize that
    the old adage, that an ounce of prevention here would have been
    worth many pounds of cure, because this will be an expensive
    cleanup. First, because of what it did to the land, but also
    because of the ecosystem--the water and the fact that small
    amounts of chemicals there can have a profound impact on the
    ecosystem.
        There's no new money now, Senator, I do believe that the
    EPA's involvement ensures that the cleanup will be done. I
    commit to you that it means we will be vigilant and that we
    will continue discussions if we find that funding is an issue.
    I would not hesitate to bring those issues to the attention of
    the White House. I believe that this is the right model.
        You asked if this is a model--to me, it very much is. This
    is a Federal facility. The message for the American people, and
    for the people in your State is that the Federal Government
    takes responsibility for what happens here. TVA has done that,
    and to make sure that the cleanup is done right.
        Senator Alexander. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
        Senator Feinstein. Thank you very much, Senator.
        Senator Tester.

                                 LIBBY, MONTANA

        Senator Tester. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        EPA has 16 Superfund sites in Montana, including Anaconda,
    Butte, East Town, Mill Town, and Libby. As I said in my opening
    statement, I really want to focus on Libby for now.
        The EPA Emergency Response Team first came to Libby in
    1999, cleanup began shortly thereafter. In 2006, the EPA Office
    of Inspector General investigated cleanup in Libby on
    allegations that the Agency failed to address scientific
    standards during cleanup. That report was just released.
        While that report found no criminal activity, it questioned
    the science of the cleanup and apparent rush to complete record
    of decision. It highlighted problems with communication in the
    community and it pointed out a disconnect between the
    scientists and the Agency.
        It has been 3 years, but it appears that the questions
    raised in the Rumper Report are still valid. My questions are--
    will you commit the EPA to making sure that any record of
    decision is done with a complete scientific background to
    ensure that Libby has been cleaned to safe levels?
        Mrs. Jackson. Senator, absolutely. I commit that science is
    first at the EPA.
        Senator Tester. And, in your mind, can you say what would
    constitute a safe level?
        Mrs. Jackson. I can not, sitting here, give you a numeric
    level. What I will say is that the science of assessing risk
    with respect to asbestos contamination has not necessarily
    progressed as quickly as I believe it should for the people of
    Libby. I know they are frustrated, and they are worried, as
    they rightfully should be. I believe that if there are actions
    that we can take in the interim, to make sure that the cleanup
    doesn't stall, there are things we know we must do. We've been
    working with the community and with your colleague, Senator
    Baucus.

                         LIBBY, MONTANA--COMMUNICATIONS

        Senator Tester. Okay, how can communication be improved
    with the community? In both directions?
        Mrs. Jackson. Well, I was troubled to hear earlier,
    Senator, your concern about the EPA pulling out of meetings. I
    will go back and speak with my staff. We will redouble efforts
    to make sure that out of our Denver field office, as well as
    out of headquarters, all lines of communications are open. I
    have been personally involved in trying to jump start our
    efforts in Libby, Montana.
        Senator Tester. I appreciate that.
        Needless to say, Libby is a complex cleanup site, but
    there's not been a risk assessment, working with the EPA and
    the community. Do you feel that placing a risk assessor on the
    ground in Libby might help with the Agency's communication with
    the residents?
        Mrs. Jackson. I certainly will commit to making sure that
    risk assessors are as available to the community as they need
    to be. I know that the risk assessors from our Denver office
    have been up there--we can send them back. Having them on the
    ground every day may be more than we need--risk assessment is a
    fairly rigorous science. Whatever we need to do to make sure
    that the people of Libby believe they have access to our
    experts, we will do.

                           LIBBY, MONTANA--HEALTHCARE

        Senator Tester. Okay.
        The folks in Libby who have been exposed to--continue to be
    diagnosed with asbestosis and mesothelioma--Lincoln County,
    which is where Libby is located--has the highest age adjustment
    rate of asbestosis mortality in the United States, among
    counties. How can we help these folks with their healthcare
    after the EPA leaves?
        Mrs. Jackson. Thank you, Senator.
        I certainly wouldn't want to step into the territory of the
    Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), we certainly
    have started to have discussions with them. Senator Baucus
    asked me to look into that issue as part of my confirmation,
    and those discussions are continuing. So, I have nothing----
        Senator Tester. One of the things that I see on another set
    of committees, with Veterans Affairs and the Department of
    Defense is making sure that information gets passed along in an
    appropriate manner, things can fall through the cracks. And
    what the VA did is they made a commitment to work with the
    Department of Defense to make sure that there weren't things
    falling through the cracks.
        I think that that is an equal parallel here between the EPA
    and HHS. And it's not going to happen--we will have people fall
    through the cracks, we'll have healthcare needs--and I know
    you're not a healthcare agency, but HHS is, and I think that if
    you dovetail your efforts together with Secretary Sebelius from
    HHS, I think that we can make a giant step forward in meeting
    some of the challenges that occur in Libby.
        So that, I guess the question I have with you is, are you
    having conversations right now, with Secretary Sebelius, or
    whoever in HHS, and do you anticipate that being an ongoing
    situation, as far as your working with them to best meet the
    needs of the citizens?
        Mrs. Jackson. The answer is yes. I have not personally had
    a discussion with the new Secretary on this, but our staff--
    long before Secretary Sebelius was confirmed--has been working
    together. We will continue that work, and we will make sure
    that in doing so, we address your concern about people falling
    through the cracks of either the cleanup site, or the
    healthcare side.
        Senator Tester. Okay.
        Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
        Senator Feinstein. Thank you very much, Senator Tester.
        And, you know, since you've raised the situation at Libby--
    I also serve on the Justice Department and was very active in
    the asbestos legislation, which went on and on and on and on.
        And in the course of it, the real--I mean, the incredible
    damage that was done to people by asbestos became
    extraordinarily clear. I just want to help you any way I can
    because it is such a big problem with asbestosis, with
    mesothelioma. I mean, mesothelioma is, I guess, 100 percent
    fatal, and quickly, and it affects young people. You can pick
    it up off of somebody's uniform, pick up the little shards. So,
    I would like to just offer my help wherever I can.
        Senator Tester. Madam Chair, I very much appreciate that. I
    feel somewhat hesitant to talk about specific instances like
    Libby, I mean, we should be talking about global things, like
    things in the air, and clean water which impacts all of our
    communities across the United States.
        But this situation in Libby is so grotesque that I really
    think--and we spent a ton of money, and I'm not sure that,
    personally--and I'm not a scientist, I'm a farmer--but I'm not
    sure that we've got the bang out of the buck that we've spent.
        I think that with some attention by people like you,
    Administrator Jackson, I think we can get a big bang for the
    buck, we can help make this community whole again, and we can
    solve a huge problem that we have, in one of the most beautiful
    places in the world.
        Senator Feinstein. Well, Senator Tester, Senator Alexander,
    why don't we work together on some report language for the
    bill, which essentially would mandate the EPA to really do what
    Senator Tester has just suggested--take a new look at it and
    give us some findings.
        Madam Administrator, would you be responding to report
    language? We could also put in bill language, I suppose, but--
    --
        Mrs. Jackson. We're already responding, and I'm happy to
    double efforts. We've agreed to do all we can working with
    Senator Baucus, and having Senator Tester's voice join in that,
    I think, can only result in more action for his constituents.
        Senator Feinstein. Right. Well, you were new, I think very
    high of you, you come so well recommended to the Federal
    Government and the problem has been that this has gone on year
    after year after year after year for a long time and I really
    think it needs to be addressed. I really think we need to have
    prohibitions extended even more. There's always an excuse as to
    why you have to use asbestos in certain things--brake linings
    or various things--and I just think we need to do more to cope
    with the threat.
        So, if you have some thoughts, please give them to us. In
    the meantime, we'll work together, and see if we can devise
    some report language which holds the EPA's feet to the fire.

                                 CLEAN AIR ACT

        Senator Tester. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        Senator Feinstein. Thank you, Senator.
        Madam Administrator, if you regulate greenhouse gases, does
    the Clean Air Act give you discretion to decide which type of
    pollution sources should be prioritized for regulation? And if
    so, do you agree that the EPA should focus its resources on
    setting regulations for very large sources, instead of small
    ones?
        And if you do, what would you consider the large sources to
    be? The most priority sources?
        Mrs. Jackson. Yes, I believe there is flexibility in the
    Clean Air Act that allows for sensible regulatory approaches,
    as opposed to these maximalist approaches that we hear people
    talking about.
        Obviously, before the agency would finalize any
    regulations, it would propose those regulations, along with its
    legal thinking on the issue. I know a lot of legal minds have
    been brought to bear on how much flexibility is in the Clean
    Air Act. We currently believe that there's flexibility that
    allows us to approach the worst and biggest sources first.
        So, the answer to your second question is yes, we would use
    common sense. As we do in other regulatory programs, we would
    start with the big sources, before we would look to solve----
        Senator Feinstein. Well, what would those big sources be?
        Mrs. Jackson. Primarily sources more than 25,000 tons per
    year, and the reason I say that is because that's what we're
    going to measure under our greenhouse gas emissions rule. Those
    are utilities, those are refineries, those are the big chemical
    plants and processes that are already regulated under the Clean
    Air Act.
        Senator Feinstein. We'd also include the utilities?
        Mrs. Jackson. Utilities, and we've already talked about
    mobile sources, cars, et cetera.
        Senator Feinstein. Right.
        Mrs. Jackson. Those are the two big sectors.
    Transportation, cars, and utilities account for well more than
    half of the greenhouse gas emissions in our country.
        Senator Feinstein. Right.
        Okay, I understand that the California waiver is being
    considered by the EPA in the context of a broader effort to
    coordinate the setting of Federal Corporate Average Fuel
    Economy standards, known as CAFE, with Clean Air Act greenhouse
    gas emissions standards.
        I was the author of this latest CAFE bill, the 10 over 10--
    10 mileage--10 gallons per mile improvement over 10 years,
    which actually became the law, which was--we all felt--a very
    substantial achievement. But this process should be
    coordinated, it seems to me, with that area. How do you plan to
    do this?
        Mrs. Jackson. I agree. Thank you for your work on this
    issue so far, Madam Chair. The National Highway Traffic Safety
    Administration (NHTSA) statute and the Clean Air Act are not
    identical statutes. They get at different issues. One of the
    challenges has been to coordinate two statutes that weren't
    necessarily made to work together, but in some ways overlap, in
    terms of the fact that they have profound impact on the
    domestic and international auto manufacturing industry.
        My staff has been working awfully hard with NHTSA staff
    understanding where we have identical or overlapping mandates,
    where we might have different ones, and coming up with a
    coordinated approach.
        The President has said that he wants one road map, if you
    will for the auto industry, so that they don't feel as though
    they have to please NHTSA and then try to figure out what that
    means, in terms of meeting the requirements of the Clean Air
    Act.
        Senator Feinstein. Do you believe you have the authority
    that you need to affect this coordination?
        Mrs. Jackson. Yes, so far----
        Senator Feinstein. NHTSA is NHTSA, you know, they can be--
    --
        Mrs. Jackson. Well, in President Obama's administration,
    NHTSA might be NHTSA, but we all work together. We have been
    doing that.
        We feel as though right now we're having very productive
    conversations--not only with NHTSA, but with auto
    manufacturers. Obviously, we are one piece of the White House/
    auto task force set of issues, and right now we do feel as
    though our Clean Air Act authorities--while they require us to
    be proactive, and require us to look at carbon, we can work in
    coordination with NHTSA.
        Senator Feinstein. And you think you can maintain high
    standards by working in coordination? That they won't, kind of,
    dumb these standards down?
        Mrs. Jackson. You know, I believe that I don't really have
    that choice. I've taken an oath to uphold the Clean Air Act. I
    have to look at standards which, at the end of the day, would
    meet the requirements of the Clean Air Act, if we were indeed
    regulating under the Clean Air Act.
        So, I don't see that working with NHTSA in any way dilutes
    that responsibility. I don't see it resulting in unduly lenient
    standards. It means that we have to do the really hard work of
    working together, and that's what's been going on.
        Senator Feinstein. I'm very pleased to hear you say that,
    because I agree with you. And I think you truly do have a
    Federal mandate. And unless we're willing to open the Clean Air
    Act and diminish that responsibility, you clearly have that
    responsibility, at least in my view.
        Mrs. Jackson. Okay, thank you.
        Senator.

                        CLEAN AIR INTERSTATE RULE (CAIR)

        Senator Alexander. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        Continuing the line of thinking that--as I heard you and
    the Administrator talking, if the EPA were to proceed on
    carbon--well, first, is there any reason you need to wait until
    we figure carbon out, in order to move on sulfur, nitrogen, and
    mercury. Can you move ahead on a CAIR fix is my question?
        Mrs. Jackson. Yes, I believe we can, and the only thing I
    would say is that it is reasonable. One of the reasons
    regulations are important is that they give certainty to
    business, they give certainty to investment, and so I'm sure
    many investors in utilities would like to see the whole answer,
    not just piecemeal, but you can move on the CAIR piece, and
    it's very important.
        Senator Alexander. And then if I heard you right, the two
    of you, there was some talk about common sense, and picking
    large segments of carbon to approach first.
        So, I've thought of looking at this, and I'm one who
    believes global warming is an issue and that man is making a
    big contribution, and that it's one problem to solve, but we
    shouldn't jump off the cliff.
        It seemed to me that a logical way to approach it would be
    smokestacks, tailpipes. Smokestacks are 40 percent of it--coal
    plants--we already regulate them, we know what we're doing
    there.
        Tailpipes are vehicles--that's 70 percent of carbon. The
    so-called economy-wide proposals that we were considering in
    the Congress only get to 80 or 85 percent, and they introduce
    an enormous amount of complexity and surprises--particularly
    for a regulatory agency, which would have a hard time
    evaluating the complexity of this economy.
        If you were to proceed, wouldn't it be wise to start with
    coal plants, and with a low-carbon fuel standard, perhaps for
    tailpipes?
        Mrs. Jackson. Well, we're giving lots of thought to the
    issue of regulation when and if we proceed with regulation. We
    are standing on the side, though, and also watching with great
    optimism and hope, the actions of Congress right now.
        There are things that a market-based solution does offer
    you. They harness, in a different way the power of the
    marketplace to place a price on carbon, that can unleash a
    variety of investments. Everything from renewable energy to
    energy efficiency, to low carbon fuel standards, to controls on
    carbon, to investments in ways to offset carbon.
        There is a broadness to it, and I don't know that we need
    to decide one or the other. It is a fact that transportation
    and the utility sector--I think my number is somewhere closer
    to 60 percent, you said 70 percent--are the majority of
    domestic greenhouse gas emissions.
        Senator Alexander. Yeah, but of carbon, it's 70--40 and 30,
    I believe, if I'm right.
        The big difference, though, between cap-and-trade on sulfur
    and cap-and-trade on the whole economy today--there are two big
    differences. One is, we had a technology, we knew what to do
    with sulfur in 1991, and we don't know what to do with carbon.
        And second, then we were talking about a market of a few
    billion dollars, and now we're talking $100 billion a year. So,
    we could make a big mistake, here, and run jobs overseas,
    overnight, if we're not careful, it seems to me.
        So, how could you impose a mandate to get rid of--that
    would put a moratorium, basically, on coal plants, when we're
    not building nuclear plants, and renewable energy, if we
    tripled it, will only amount to 7 or 8 percent? Those are the
    consequences of administrative decisions, and how do we deal
    with not having a technology to deal with carbon?
        Mrs. Jackson. The technology conundrum is an interesting
    one. I would say the following: we had a technology to deal
    with sulfur. What we learned is that once there was a market-
    based program, that technology proved to be much cheaper, and
    much easier to deploy, commercially, than we previously
    thought.
        The estimates for the SO2 trading program and
    the impact on the economy were much higher than they proved to
    be.
        I'm persuaded by having spoken to Secretary Chu over at
    Energy. I remember the work I did on carbon capture as part of
    gas plant when I was a summer employee. We can capture carbon
    from streams. It's the sequestration part, it's where to put it
    that we need to do a bit of work on.
        Secretary Chu believes that with the right amount of
    investment, and the market push to make that a technology that
    people will spend time and money on perfecting and
    commercializing, it will happen.
        I just wanted to address one other thing you said, Senator,
    because I think it's so important--there cannot be a global
    warming program that is predicated on the assumption that coal
    is gone. In fact, this whole exercise is about putting in place
    a regulatory feature so that coal can be part of the mix. It is
    a domestic energy source that the President has said is crucial
    for us, it breaks our dependence on foreign sources of fossil
    fuel and energy, in part, and it is part and parcel of the
    question, if you will, that does indeed require very careful
    consideration.
        Senator Feinstein. I think one thing, if I may, it's very
    interesting is whether you're going to be able to develop
    products from carbon. There is an experiment now doing on in
    California at Moss Landing, I think the company is Scolera,
    something like that, where they are effectively using carbon to
    build building blocks, and having some degree of success. It's
    an experimental program, but I think things like that are very
    interesting to watch.
        And, you know, human ingenuity can came up with a lot of
    options, so that should be interesting.
        Do you have any further questions?
        Senator Alexander. I have a couple, I don't want to keep
    you, though.
        Senator Feinstein. Well, perhaps I'll excuse myself, and
    hand you this.
        Senator Alexander. You going to trust me?
        Senator Feinstein. I trust you implicitly.
        Senator Alexander. For 5 minutes? Do you mind staying 5
    more minutes so I can ask----
        Senator Feinstein. Let me just say thank you very much.
        Mrs. Jackson. Thank you so much.
        Senator Feinstein. Thank you.
        Senator Alexander. Thank you, Dianne.
        Senator Feinstein. Thank you.

                                 COAL ASH SPILL

        Senator Alexander [presiding]. Madam Administrator, I thank
    the chairman for her courtesy that's very, very, very nice of
    her. I have two questions. One is--involves the coal ash spill.
        There is a contamination in the Tennessee River, downriver
    from where this spill was, of a radioactive element called
    cesium. This is an element that was left over from the bomb
    work during World War II at Oak Ridge. And it came down through
    the Clinch River, into the Tennessee River, and it's down in
    the sediment. It's not harmful, as long as it's in the
    sediment. It could be harmful to fish and swimmers if it's
    disturbed. The spill is up river--up another river, the Emery
    River.
        So, my concern is, that the EPA and TVA make certain that
    in any work done in the Emery River and the Tennessee River,
    that we take great care not to disturb the sediment where the
    cesium is, because that could be dangerous to people in the
    area, and very unhealthy. Are you aware of the cesium issue and
    will you take steps to make certain that EPA and TVA don't
    disturb the cesium in the sediment during the TVA coal ash
    cleanup?
        Mrs. Jackson. I was aware that there was some concern about
    historic radiological contamination. That is a very valid
    concern, having worked on several dredging projects. That is
    always the issue, whether you mobilize contamination that had
    best been left immobile. The remedy selection process at that
    site, associated with the TVA's spill, will be very important
    in making sure we consider that issue. You have my commitment
    that the EPA will consider that as we move forward.

                               ACID RAIN PROGRAM

        Senator Alexander. Thank you, Madam Administrator.
        My other question is this, I mentioned earlier, the success
    of the acid rain program and how that's helped the Eastern
    United States and it's helped the Great Smoky Mountains in our
    Eastern Tennessee area, which has a special problem with air
    quality. Currently there are 12 streams in the Great Smoky
    Mountain National Park, which is the most polluted National
    Park in terms of air quality. These 12 streams violate the
    Clean Water Act because of low pH levels. In other words,
    they're too acidic. And, these come from the acid deposits from
    the air, of course, from coal plants and industrial emissions.
    Is there any way to relate the Clean Water Act and the Clean
    Air Act in some way, so that we create goals for States or
    areas or regions, to try to make sure that as we clean up the
    air, we clean up the water as a result--as we work on acid
    rain?
        It may be that simply a strong set of CAIR rules on sulfur
    and nitrogen and mercury is sufficient. But we have seen, over
    the last 15 years, that even though that cleaned up a lot of
    the Eastern United States, there are some spots left. This is
    one of the hot spots.
        So my question is, could we take a look at a program that
    relates clean air and clean water, such modeled after the
    regional haze rule, that might help us set objectives for
    cleaning up the streams in the Great Smoky Mountain National
    Park or in other areas where there's a similar problem?
        Mrs. Jackson. I think that is, Senator, a fascinating idea
    and suggestion. I think that, clearly air deposition is causing
    exceedances for water, so those two programs have to be
    assessed together. There's probably a need for additional
    monitoring. There's probably a need for those assessments to be
    done in a coordinated fashion. I'm persuaded by an announcement
    even yesterday for the Chesapeake, where we talked about the
    fact that the Chesapeake Bay, waters have exceedingly high
    levels of nitrogen.
        One of the things we're going to do, on a Federal level, is
    put in place a CAIR rule to reduce the airborne component of
    that deposition. I think you're talking about a similar
    strategy for the Great Smoky National Park, and I think that
    that makes perfect sense. I'd love to work with you on that.
        Senator Alexander. Good, I look forward to working on that.
    There's always the difficulty of imposing new standards on
    regions that can't meet those standards----
        Mrs. Jackson. Absolutely.
        Senator Alexander. Because it may not be their fault that
    they have a particular concentration of acid rain. So that
    would have to be balanced. I'm not interested in imposing on
    the State of Tennessee a standard it by itself can't meet, but
    some sort of cooperative arrangement or relationship between
    clean air and clean water might at least put a spotlight on the
    problem and make sure that when we take another look back at
    the clean air rules 10 years from now, that we look back and
    see that we've made progress on those 12 streams in the Great
    Smokies and other areas which are hot spots for acid rain
    deposition.

                                    BIOFUELS

        Mrs. Jackson. Thank you.
        Senator Alexander. Now I have one little question. I know
    you have an increase of $5 million in the budget for research
    for advanced biofuels. What's that about? Is that its
    relationship to clean air or are you trying to figure out a way
    to make better advanced biofuels?
        Mrs. Jackson. I believe that is the money that is going to
    EPA's Ann Arbor lab, does that sound right? We have additional
    money, but I have $13 million there to assess the impact of
    higher percentage biofuel blends. You might know that right now
    we have public comment open, for example, on whether you can
    have more than 10 percent ethanol in gasoline.
        Senator Alexander. Yeah.
        Mrs. Jackson. There's been a request for higher blend
    levels. We have----
        Senator Alexander. So it's probably not so much to invent a
    better biofuel, but to see what the impact of the biofuel might
    be.
        Mrs. Jackson. Yes, exactly, Senator. Life-cycle analysis,
    the impact on production, is to make sure that in our Ann Arbor
    lab, that those fuels can be accepted without voiding
    warranties or causing impacts to performance of engines, and
    the risks and tradeoffs of biofuels use in production.
        Senator Alexander. Thank you.
        I appreciated, too, your comments on coal. Tennessee
    doesn't produce much coal, but the more I've studied these
    issues--and you and I have talked about this--we have our
    Energy Committee and we have our Environment Committee, you
    know, and really all the issues are at the intersection of the
    two. And we don't really have many good ways of looking at
    them, so the more I've studied it--almost the Holy Grail of our
    ability to have low-cost energy, so we don't hurt people and
    run jobs away, is having a way to deal with coal, which I'm so
    anxious to get those first three pollutants dealt with.
        And as far as the carbon, my hunch is--I just think it
    ought to be a priority. I told Dr. Chu that I thought the next
    Nobel Prize in science ought to be reserved for whoever figured
    out what to do with carbon from existing coal plants. I doubt
    it will be sticking it in the ground. I think there's too much
    of it. I think there's going to be some biological or chemical
    reaction, but I have no way of knowing. But I hope that stays a
    real priority for you, because we have very practical decisions
    to make over the next 10 years. I mean, do we build more coal
    plants? I mean, we're basically encouraging, by our rules, the
    utilities to keep open old dirty coal plants. And by the
    prospect of more rules, we're discouraging new, more efficient,
    cleaner coal plants.
        We're not building nuclear very much yet, renewable doesn't
    amount to much yet, and so we may find ourselves in a real
    dilemma, in terms of jobs and the economy. So keeping a focus
    on coal, I think, is very important.

                         ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS

        I thank you for staying and I thank the chairman for
    trusting me with the gavel. I look forward to working with you.
        Mrs. Jackson. Thank you so much.
        [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

                                 CAP AND TRADE

        Question. Your budget includes a new $5 million initiative to
    prepare for a possible cap-and-trade program. How does the
    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) plan to use those funds?
        Answer. This funding will support EPA in providing technical
    assistance and expertise to advise the administration and Congress on
    effective, environmentally sound approaches for a Greenhouse Gas (GHG)
    cap and trade program. One major area of effort will be offsets, which
    are a key component of reducing cap and trade costs while leveraging
    reduction opportunities in uncovered sectors. With these resources, EPA
    will develop protocols and methodologies that can accurately account
    for emission reductions from major offset categories, assess and
    develop options for monitoring and verifying the effectiveness of
    offset projects, and analyze and develop options to encourage early
    reductions prior to the start of a Federal regulatory program such as
    cap and trade. EPA also will assess the potential for existing and
    proposed mechanisms under the United Nations Framework Convention on
    Climate Change, such as Reduced Deforestation and Degradation (REDD),
    to provide cost reductions while guaranteeing environmental
    credibility.
        Question. Are these efforts needed if Congress enacts another type
    of regulatory framework other than a cap-and-trade program?
        Answer. The efforts the Agency proposes to undertake in fiscal year
    2010 are critical even if an approach other than cap and trade is
    ultimately pursued. Specifically, monitoring and verification,
    establishment of baselines and performance standards, and assessment of
    State, Federal, and international programs are directly relevant to
    policies such as taxes, incentives, and technology-based policies. Work
    on the international offsets and REDD issues will be needed given the
    importance of finding effective ways to support developing country
    action to reduce GHG emissions.

                                 GREENHOUSE GAS

        Question. The fiscal year 2009 Interior bill included a mandate for
    EPA to publish a final mandatory reporting rule for greenhouse gases no
    later than June 26. Time is of the essence--we need this rule to be in
    place so that we are able to gather 2010 data. Is EPA on track to
    promulgate the final rule by the June 26 deadline?
        Answer. The proposal, signed on March 10, 2009, indicates that the
    data collection would start on January 1, 2010, with the first reports
    to EPA coming in on March 31, 2011. Given the schedule and the fact
    that the comment period ends on June 9, 2009, the Agency will not have
    the final rule in the Federal Register on June 26, 2009.
        Question. If not, will you commit to finalizing the rule so that
    data collection can start by January 1?
        Answer. The Agency is working towards the implementation dates in
    the proposal and recognizes the importance of collecting 2010 data.
        Question. Your fiscal year 2010 budget request includes $17 million
    to implement the greenhouse gas reporting rule, which is an $11 million
    increase over the funds I added to the fiscal year 2009 budget. I'm
    very pleased to see EPA acknowledge the importance of this rule and
    make it a funding priority. How will your budget request be used?
        Answer. EPA will devote the fiscal year 2010 President's budget
    resources to: (1) the data management system, (2) implementation, and
    (3) verification activities for the Mandatory Reporting Rule. The work
    on the data systems will include: determining requirements; designing
    the database, software, and user interface, with stakeholder input; and
    developing training tools for stakeholders. The implementation
    activities will include: developing guidance and training materials to
    assist the regulated community; responding to inquires from affected
    facilities on monitoring and applicability requirements; and developing
    tools on applicability. The verification work will include: developing
    and finalizing verification approaches and working with regional staff
    on verification, compliance assistance, and training. Also, a portion
    of the budget request will be dedicated to intramural costs to manage
    the program (e.g., salaries and travel).
        Question. Will this increase ensure that the agency has all the
    funds it needs for 2010 to implement this rule?
        Answer. Fiscal year 2010 will be a critical year for preparing for
    the implementation of the GHG Reporting Rule, and the $17 million in
    our budget request will provide us with the resources to complete the
    intensive preparation process associated with an economy-wide program.

                             STATE REVOLVING FUNDS

        Question. Your budget requests a $1.7 billion increase to the Clean
    Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF), for a total of $2.4 billion, and a
    $671 million increase to the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund
    (DWSRF), for a total of $1.5 billion.
        Given the current fiscal climate, does EPA believe that States will
    have any difficulty meeting the required 20 percent match for these
    additional funds?
        Answer. The $1.7 billion increase to the CWSRF and the $671 million
    increase to the DWSRF reflect the urgent need for investment in
    America's aging infrastructure. If appropriated, such an increase will
    result in a nearly $475 million increase in match required, spread
    across all States and Puerto Rico, for an average of $9.3 million per
    State. EPA has not received any indication that States will have
    difficulty providing this match. States have indicated to EPA that the
    level of State Revolving Fund (SRF) increases in the fiscal year 2010
    request will help them in addressing their infrastructure needs. As a
    note, States have several options for obtaining their SRF program
    match. In addition to appropriating funds for the programs, States have
    the ability to sell bonds in order to obtain the match.

                       GREAT LAKES RESTORATION INITIATIVE

        Question. Your budget request contains $475 million for the Great
    Lakes Restoration Initiative--that's a 692 percent increase compared to
    the funding that Congress enacted for Great Lakes cleanup in fiscal
    year 2009. Given that there are other important water bodies across the
    country, why did EPA choose to focus so much of your budget increase on
    the Great Lakes clean-up rather than spreading the funds to multiple
    areas?
        Answer. The Great Lakes hold 20 percent of the world's fresh
    surface water, have more than 10,000 miles of coastline, and drain
    about 200,000 square miles of land. They are a source of drinking water
    for more than 30 million people in the United States and Canada.
    Roughly 10 percent of the United States population and more than 30
    percent of the Canadian population live in the Great Lakes basin, and
    its fishery is valued at more than $5 billion, providing jobs and
    recreation opportunities to millions of people annually.
        However, there are significant environmental stressors to the Great
    Lakes: invasive species are multiplying causing food web disruptions,
    birds are dying from avian botulism, algal mats are fouling beaches,
    and nutrient loadings have re-emerged as an environmental issue. The
    Great Lakes Restoration Initiative focuses on a set of intensifying
    stresses, which the Great Lakes scientific community has concluded are
    placing the Great Lakes at or beyond a tipping point, causing
    widespread ecosystem breakdowns. Actions taken now could prevent
    irreversible damage and will save money over the long term.
        Funding for the Great Lakes now can also be seen as an investment
    in a part of the country in great need of such investment, particularly
    in light of the problems facing the automotive industry. This
    additional funding will create green collar jobs and help protect human
    health and the environment in a region facing economic difficulties.
        Finally, Great Lakes restoration is required under a binational
    agreement (the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement with Canada),
    section 118 of the CWA, and an Executive Order. In recent years, the
    Federal Government and stakeholders have developed a program that is
    ready to move forward in a coordinated way to protect and restore the
    Great Lakes. The Initiative builds upon 5 years of work of the Great
    Lakes Interagency Task Force and stakeholders, guided by a Great Lakes
    Regional Collaboration Strategy. The Initiative provides needed Federal
    funding to move this program forward in a well-orchestrated, well-
    coordinated effort among multiple Cabinet-level departments to
    implement critical protection and restoration actions.
        Question. How can EPA be sure that such a large increase in funds
    for the Great Lakes will be spent in a timely fashion? Do you have
    specific projects that have already been prioritized for funding?
        Answer. The 2005 Great Lakes Regional Collaboration Strategy
    identifies a need of $20 billion over 5 years to address Great Lake
    environmental problems. For the most part, the environmental problems
    facing the Great Lakes, as well as their solutions, are well known and
    have been identified in existing documentation, such as the Great Lakes
    Regional Collaboration Strategy, Remedial Action Plans, and Lakewide
    Management Plans.
        In developing the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative Proposed 2010
    Funding Plan, Federal agencies drew from this existing work with
    stakeholders to identify ready-to-go programs and projects to jump
    start restoration in 2010. Where possible, the Initiative will use
    existing programs of the Federal agencies. To be ready to go, EPA is
    considering the feasibility of a request for proposals this summer in
    advance of the appropriation. Federal agencies have begun work on
    Interagency Agreements for the transfer of funding. The proposed
    administrative language accompanying the President's request will
    simplify transfers and receipt of funding by other Federal agencies and
    will provide EPA with new grant implementation authority.
        Programs prioritized for funding are identified in the ``Agency
    Actions'' document, which is available from: http://www.epa.gov/
    grtlakes/glri/index.html.

                     SAN FRANCISCO BAY--DELTA WATER QUALITY

        Question. I am very pleased that EPA included $5 million in your
    budget to continue competitive grants to improve water quality in the
    San Francisco Bay. EPA's recognition that the Bay needs to be a
    priority is a big step forward toward the health of the Bay. However, I
    believe that the Federal Government also needs to do more to help the
    Sacramento and San Joaquin River Delta. Specifically, can you tell me
    how EPA is currently involved in the Bay-Delta to restore habitat and
    improve water quality? What more could EPA be doing?
        Answer. EPA has a long history of efforts to protect and restore
    the Sacramento and San Joaquin River Delta water quality. We will
    continue to work cooperatively with our agency partners and
    stakeholders to restore the critical Bay-Delta ecosystem while
    recognizing the competing needs of all stakeholders. In the next year,
    our activities will focus on supporting the efforts of the State and
    Regional Boards. We will also be a participant and a reviewer on
    several major National Environmental Policy Act documents. In all
    forums, we will continue to work with the fishery agencies to ensure an
    integrated approach (the CWA and Endangered Species Act) to water
    quality restoration. Following is a summary of EPA activities taking
    place in the Sacramento and San Joaquin River Delta. Additional
    priorities include support for coordinated monitoring and assessment;
    enhanced support of core programs such as standards, Total Maximum
    Daily Loads (TMDLs), and permitting to drive water quality restoration;
    improved science, including assessments of nutrients and climate change
    impacts; and agricultural initiatives including pesticide impact models
    and environmental stewardship assistance to growers.
        CalFed and Delta Vision.--One of the more ambitious efforts to
    protect and restore San Francisco Bay-Delta water quality was the
    CALFED Bay Delta Program, a State-Federal partnership initiated in 1995
    (following the Bay Delta Accord and EPA's promulgation of Delta water
    quality standards) to address water management and ecosystem protection
    in the entire watershed. The first phase (2000-2007) of a 30-year
    program ended in 2007. In response, in 2006, the Governor commissioned
    a blue-ribbon panel which recently delivered a ``Delta Vision Strategic
    Plan.''
        Bay Delta Conservation Plan.--As the Delta Vision process was
    underway, major water districts dependent on the Delta began a Habitat
    Conservation Planning effort (the Bay Delta Conservation Plan, or BDCP)
    with the California Department of Fish and Game, United States
    Department of the Interior (DOI) (Fish and Wildlife Service and Bureau
    of Reclamation) and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
    Fisheries to address endangered species concerns. The BDCP aims to make
    sufficiently large changes in the Delta to reverse the decades of
    decline of several beneficial uses and add stability to water
    operations in the Delta. The State and Federal agencies are preparing a
    Draft Environmental Impact Report/Statement on the BDCP; EPA has agreed
    to be a cooperating agency. Our involvement to date has been largely to
    promote and support scientific review of the various actions proposed.
    We will become more involved as the Environmental Impact Statement is
    drafted and projects (which will need CWA 404 permits) are designed.
        Pelagic Organism Decline (POD).--Long-term sampling identified a
    dramatic decline of a number of fish populations beginning in 2001,
    including both endangered species and sport fisheries. EPA played a key
    role, working with the Interagency Ecological Program, in a new and
    broad scientific effort to identify causes of the crash. The POD
    investigation is in its fourth year and has been supported by more than
    $20 million in State and Federal monies. A number of water quality and
    habitat degradation concerns that have been identified are now being
    addressed by the State and regional boards. Ammonia discharges from
    wastewater treatment plants combined with low and constant flow regimes
    appear to have favored the spread of toxic blue-green alga, invasive
    clams and jellyfish over the former highly valued fish community.
        Water Quality Standards and TMDLs.--We are supporting the State and
    Regional Board on a number of activities to review and/or develop new
    water quality standards and to develop and implement TMDLs. In 2008,
    the State Water Resources Control Board and the Central Valley and Bay
    Regional Water Quality Control Boards developed a Bay Delta Strategic
    Workplan, which encompasses their ongoing efforts, as well as new work
    deemed necessary to address the Delta ecosystem decline. Some of the
    more significant efforts include: (1) review of the 2006 Water Quality
    Control Plan; (2) development of a Central Valley Drinking Water
    Policy; (3) TMDLs to address impairments in the Delta from mercury, in
    the Central Valley from pesticides, in the San Joaquin River from
    dissolved oxygen and salinity; and (4) implementation of TMDLs
    throughout the watershed.
        Monitoring.--There currently is no coordinated system for
    collecting and managing water quality data for the Delta and the
    Central Valley. EPA has been an advocate for a system similar to those
    in the Bay and on the South Coast in order to improve the quality,
    efficiency, access and use of information for planning and management.
    There are three monitoring initiatives that together cover the full
    Bay-Delta watershed: the Delta Regional Monitoring Program (RMP)
    directed by the Central Valley Regional Board; the Sacramento River
    Watershed RMP, initiated a decade ago through EPA earmarks; and the San
    Joaquin Basin Monitoring Strategy (underway through an EPA grant, in
    conjunction with the Regional Board). Technical coordination comes
    through shared support of the State's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring
    Program. All three efforts have inventoried existing monitoring and are
    aligning monitoring and assessment within the Delta watershed to
    address key issues.
        San Joaquin River Restoration.--Congress recently enacted
    significant legislation that directs restoration of the San Joaquin
    River from Friant Dam to the confluence of the Merced River, to
    implement the historic agreement reached by water users and
    environmental groups in 2006. Restoration of such magnitude will have
    ramifications for Delta water management. The Bureau of Reclamation is
    preparing a Draft Environmental Impact Statement for this program and
    we are participating as a cooperating agency, working to both leverage
    the effort for improved water quality monitoring and ensure the
    downstream water quality regulatory regime supports the planned
    reintroduction of fisheries.

      RIALTO-COLTON BASIN--NATIONAL PRIORTIES LIST/WATER REPLACMENT ORDERS

        Question. The fiscal year 2009 Interior appropriations bill was
    accompanied by report language supporting the listing of Rialto-Colton
    Basin in San Bernardino County, California to the National Priorities
    List (NPL) to remediate groundwater contamination, and encouraging EPA
    to issue water replacement orders against the parties responsible for
    trichloroethylene and perchlorate contamination of the groundwater
    basin to remain in effect until clean drinking water supplies are fully
    restored to the City of Rialto, City of Colton, West Valley Water
    District, and the Fontana Water Company.
        What progress has been made toward listing the Rialto-Colton Basin
    in San Bernardino, California, on the National Priorities List?
        Answer. EPA proposed listing the ``B.F. Goodrich'' site on the NPL
    in September 2008, which includes the ``160-acre area'', part of the
    Rialto-Colton Basin, and groundwater contamination originating on the
    160-acre area. EPA generally publishes proposed and final NPL listings
    in the Federal Register in the fall and spring and anticipates
    completing our review of the comments received before the fall listing
    update.
        Question. What progress has been made by EPA to issue water
    replacement orders?
        Answer. Based on current information, EPA has determined that water
    replacement orders are not warranted at this time as the impacted
    communities have a clean supply of drinking water. As we proceed with
    our work on the B.F. Goodrich Site, we will continue to evaluate all of
    our options and will provide for meaningful public involvement in our
    proposed remedy.
        Question. How does the EPA intend to address the Rialto-Colson
    Basin, including concrete steps that can be taken this year toward
    clean-up or water replacement?
        Answer. EPA is developing a proposal for an interim groundwater
    cleanup project in the Rialto-Colton basin, a groundwater extraction
    system within known contaminant source areas, which will go out for
    public comment later this year. We anticipate that the treated
    groundwater from this project will be provided to the local water
    purveyors for use in the regional, potable water supply system. In
    addition, we expect to spend $3 million this year to carry out and/or
    oversee four field investigations needed to develop a comprehensive
    remedy for the site. These investigations, which are currently
    underway, include the installation of up to six new groundwater
    monitoring wells to help define the extent of groundwater
    contamination, soil testing at a disposal pit used by the Goodrich
    Corporation in the 1950s and 1960s, and soil testing at locations where
    West Coast Loading Corporation operated at the site in the 1950s. Data
    from some of these investigations will be used to help develop a final
    groundwater remedy. If this final remedy includes additional
    groundwater extraction and treatment systems down gradient from the
    interim groundwater cleanup project described above, it is anticipated
    that treated water from such a remedy would also be made available to
    local water purveyors.
                                     ______

                 Questions Submitted by Senator Robert C. Byrd

                               MOUNTAINTOP MINING

        Question. There is tremendous concern in West Virginia about the
    future of coal.
        I agree that we should find better ways to mine coal and reduce its
    environmental impact. However, I do not accept that job losses in the
    coal industry are an inevitable consequence of cleaner air and water.
    We must forge a consensus and strike a balance between increasing
    environmental controls, and preserving the livelihoods of West
    Virginians.
        I believe clean coal can be a ``green'' energy.
        The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is reviewing section 404
    permits for certain mining operations, and has invoked its authority
    under section 404(c) of the Clean Water Act (CWA) to prohibit permits
    related to surface mining operations for the filling of waters in the
    United States.
        Question. What is your long-term plan for regulating mountaintop
    mining?
        Answer. On February 13, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth
    Circuit issued an opinion upholding four permits issued by the U.S.
    Army Corps of Engineers (the Corps) under section 404 of the CWA for
    coal mine operations in the Appalachian region. Because of active
    litigation in the 4th Circuit challenging the issuance of these Corps
    permits for coal mining, the Corps has been issuing far fewer permits
    in West Virginia and elsewhere in the Appalachian coal fields since the
    litigation began in 2007. As a result, there is a significant backlog
    of permits under review by the Corps.
        EPA identified only a small subset, 6 of some 50 actions that were
    pending near-term authorization, with which the Agency had serious
    environmental concerns. EPA is not raising concern with the majority of
    pending permits which represents mines with significantly fewer
    environmental impacts. The Corps is expected to continue to issue
    permits for these surface coal mining operations that do not raise
    significant environmental concerns.
        EPA and the Corps are developing coordination procedures to help to
    ensure that permit decisions will be made consistent with the law,
    sound science and in a timely manner that avoids further delay. We
    agree with you that the permit process can protect jobs and the
    environment.
        Question. How long do you think mountaintop mining will be
    sustainable under the CWA?
        Answer. We recognize that mountaintop removal coal mining can be a
    highly destructive form of surface coal mining that buries streams and
    impacts downstream water quality. We also understand that much of the
    most accessible coal reserves have already been mined leaving surface
    coal mining methods such as mountaintop removal often the only mining
    practice that is economically practical to mine remaining reserves. As
    you have very thoughtfully recognized, there are opportunities to
    improve coal mining practices such as mountaintop removal to
    significantly reduce adverse environmental impacts, We look forward to
    working with the coal industry to implement these improvements to make
    surface coal mining practices cleaner and more environmentally
    responsible and, as a result, sustainable for years to come.
        Question. What criteria has the EPA established for section 404
    permits? Is the EPA providing specific guidance to the mining industry
    to ensure the permitting process does not stall?
        Answer. EPA has identified a set of environmental factors which we
    are using to help guide the review and evaluation of pending permit
    actions for surface coal mine operations. Our goal is to ensure a
    transparent, understandable, and predictable permit process. Based on
    these criteria, EPA is focusing its comments on mine proposals with the
    most significant environmental impacts. The key factors which we are
    considering include:
      --Length of stream impacts, in particular impacts to perennial
            streams and critical headwater streams;
      --Number of valley fills;
      --Geographic location of the proposed action, and assessment of
            impacts based on watershed level information, considering
            factors such as percentage of area mined, percentage of
            forested area, interior forest, percentage of urban area, and
            stream density/quality, index of biotic integrity, threatened
            and endangered (T&E) species;
      --Cumulative effects, particularly in consideration of the number of
            proposed new mines proposed for given watershed;
      --Existing water quality and potential for water quality impacts
            downstream of fill, in particular selenium and conductivity as
            specific constituents of concern; and the potential impacts to
            biotic integrity and T&E species in high-quality and State
            outstanding resources waters;
      --Adequacy of alternative analysis; and
      --Adequacy of mitigation.
        Question. In reviewing section 404 permits, what consideration is
    given to postmining economic development?
        Answer. Postmining land use considerations were included by
    Congress in the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 to
    encourage the effective use of lands for economic development after
    mining is complete. These considerations have been particularly
    important in southern West Virginia counties in desperate need of jobs
    and economic development opportunities. EPA will continue to work with
    States like West Virginia to encourage environmentally responsible
    mining that protects both jobs and the environment.
        Question. Your agency has been talking with the Army Corps of
    Engineers and Council on Environmental Quality at the White House about
    coal matters. During those meetings, what consideration is being given
    to the well-being of places like rural communities of West Virginia,
    where job retraining is not a realistic option because coal jobs, if
    lost, are unlikely to ever be replaced by other jobs?
        Answer. Interagency discussions regarding coal mining have very
    much considered the well-being of rural communities throughout
    Appalachia, including West Virginia. EPA has been impressed by the
    efforts of folks in Mingo County, West Virginia, for example, who have
    worked with us to reduce the adverse environmental impacts of coal
    mining while showing great leadership in identifying postmining land
    uses that create jobs, stimulate the local economy, and create
    opportunities for the young people of the area to remain in Mingo
    County. We believe that the Mingo County Redevelopment Commission is a
    model of how Federal, State, and local governments can work together to
    ensure environmentally responsible mining moves forward and creates
    sustainable, long-term opportunities for communities and their young
    people.
                                     ______

                   Questions Submitted by Senator Ben Nelson

                           INDIRECT LAND USE CHANGES

        Question. I was encouraged that the proposed Renewable Fuel
    Standard (RFS) rule you signed on May 5, 2009, takes aggressive action
    in increasing the supply of renewable fuels to 36 billion gallons per
    year (GPY) by 2022, as required by the Energy Independence and Security
    Act of 2007 (EISA).
        The revised statutory requirements of EISA also included new
    definitions and criteria for both renewable fuels and the feedstocks
    used to produce them, including new greenhouse gas emissions (GHG)
    threshold. I am concerned that the Environmental Protection Agency
    (EPA) is taking into account indirect land use changes (ILUC) when
    determining GHG emissions associated with renewable fuels production.
    Given the complexity and uncertainty of ILUC, along with its analytical
    limitations in determining lifecycle GHG for biofuels, how is the EPA
    working to ensure this requirement be fair, consistent, objective, and
    scientifically defensible as it moves forward with the rulemaking
    process?
        Answer. EPA recognizes that it is important to address questions
    regarding the science of measuring indirect impacts, particularly on
    the topic of uncertainty. For this reason, EPA has developed a
    methodology that uses the very best tools and science available,
    utilizes input from experts and stakeholders from a multitude of
    disciplines, and maximizes the transparency of our approach and our
    assumptions in the proposed rule.
        Our analysis relies on peer-reviewed models, including
    comprehensive agricultural sector models, such as the Food and
    Agricultural Policy Research Institute model that have been used widely
    to analyze the impacts of numerous agricultural sector policies
    including recent farm bills. The Agency also has used the most current
    estimates of key trends in agricultural practices and fuel production
    technologies and has reviewed the growing body of literature on
    lifecycle analysis and indirect land use change.
        EPA has ensured that there will be multiple opportunities to
    solicit public and expert feedback on the proposed approach. In
    addition to the formal comment period on the proposed rule, on June 10
    and June 11, EPA held a 2-day workshop focused specifically on
    lifecycle analysis during the comment period to assure full
    understanding of the analyses conducted, the issues addressed, and the
    options that are discussed. EPA provided a thorough description of its
    methodology and sources of information used in conducting the lifecycle
    assessment as included in the proposal. More than 200 persons
    representing industry, academia, and other stakeholders and experts
    participated. During this workshop, EPA responded to questions from
    participants, and importantly, also heard presentations from
    stakeholders and experts including several which specifically addressed
    indirect land use assessment. The information received during the
    workshop will be part of the official record for the rule and will be
    useful as EPA works to develop its final rule analysis. The Agency
    expects that the information provided during this workshop, from EPA
    and others, will help ensure that it receives submission of the most
    thoughtful and useful comments to this proposal and that the best
    methodology and assumptions are used for calculating GHG emissions
    impacts of fuels for the final rule.
        Additionally, although our lifecycle analysis relies almost
    entirely on peer-reviewed models and data, between this proposal and
    the final rule, the Agency will conduct additional peer-reviews of key
    components of our analysis, including the use of satellite data to
    project the type of future land use changes, methods to account for the
    variable timing of GHG emissions, and how the several models the Agency
    has relied upon are used together to provide overall lifecycle GHG
    estimates.
        Question. Furthermore, if it could be demonstrated that the U.S.
    corn ethanol industry was capable of hitting its EISA target (actually
    a ``cap'') of 15 billion GPY by 2015 without the need for breaking up
    or deforesting any ``virgin'' soil, would it not be true that the ILUC
    ``penalty'' would by definition have to be zero?
        Answer. No, this is not the case. Even if there was no new land
    converted between now and when the 15 billion gallons volume
    requirement was met, there could still be an indirect impact on
    agricultural production and the economy from the production of 15
    billion gallons. The indirect impacts of renewable fuel production are
    the result of interactions throughout the global agricultural commodity
    markets. Measuring these indirect impacts requires the use of economic
    models. These models capture the impacts of increased biofuel feedstock
    production on all crop production, not just biofuel feedstock. This
    allows EPA to determine secondary agricultural sector impacts, such as
    crop shifting and changes in demand due to commodity price changes. To
    estimate the impacts of biofuels feedstock production on international
    agricultural and livestock production, the Agency used the same
    methodology to assess both direct and indirect impacts including those
    due to land use change. For example, even if there was no measured land
    use change in the United States, there could be land use change
    internationally due to the impact increased ethanol production has on
    crop prices and exports.
        However, regardless of the outcome of the lifecycle analysis, there
    is not expected to be any impact on the ability for corn ethanol to
    comply with the RFS2 requirements. When Congress set aside 15 billion
    gallons for conventional biofuels that need to meet the 20 percent GHG
    threshold, they also included ``grandfathering'' provisions that would
    exempt certain renewable fuel facilities from the threshold
    requirements. There is expected to be more than 15 billion gallons of
    corn ethanol alone that will be produced by these grandfathered
    facilities, more than satisfying the mandated volume.

                            E15 CLEAN AIR ACT WAIVER

        Question. Following up on the EPA's new proposed RFS rule to
    increase the supply of renewable fuels to 36 billion gallons by 2022.
    There is concern the Clean Air Act's limitation on gasoline-ethanol
    blends has created a ``blend wall,'' the point where the RFS
    requirement exceeds the ability to blend gasoline with an ethanol
    content in excess of 10 percent (known as ``E10''), which currently
    accounts for 98 percent of ethanol usage.
        Estimates indicate the market will hit the blend wall by 2012--and
    some industry experts warn that it could come into play as early as
    next year--when the E10 market reaches saturation at approximately 12.5
    to 14 billion gallons of ethanol, causing substantial harm to our
    biofuels industry while also putting the RFS at risk.
        As you know, section 251 of the 2007 Energy bill permits the
    Administrator of the EPA to waive the Clean Air Act limitation on
    ethanol content in gasoline provided such a waiver does not affect the
    emission control systems in vehicles. It is my understanding multiple
    studies have demonstrated that E15 will not cause or contribute to the
    failure of any emission control devices or systems in vehicles; this
    includes legacy vehicles and small nonroad engines. What information
    and studies are you looking at in evaluating whether or not to grant
    the waiver and permit ethanol-gasoline blends of up to 15 percent?
        Answer. The EPA is taking an active role in implementing the new
    renewable fuel mandates set out by Congress. The ethanol waiver request
    we received from Growth Energy on March 6, 2009, is part of this
    effort. A notice of its receipt was published in the Federal Register
    on April 21, 2009. Comments are due by July 20, 2009. We recognize the
    urgency of the ``blend wall'' and the impact the waiver would have in
    delaying its arrival.
        The issues raised by the waiver request are very important and
    complex. We anticipate a significant number of comments from a wide
    range of stakeholders in response to our request for public comment. In
    addition, we continue to work closely with the Department of Energy and
    the Department of Agriculture on this issue. We have gathered data on
    testing done by others and us, but those data are limited. This
    includes the studies that Growth Energy included in their waiver
    request. We expect additional data to be submitted as part of the
    comment period as well, and that all available data will be available
    to interested stakeholders. The Department of Energy is conducting
    comprehensive testing that is estimated to be completed in about a
    year. We will take these comments and any other relevant information
    into consideration, and, using the best available technical data, make
    a determination on the waiver request.
        Question. Have you given consideration to an interim step of
    permitting gasoline blends of up to 12 or 13 percent in order to ensure
    that the biofuels industry is not harmed by the fast-approaching blend
    wall?
        Answer. With respect to allowing a 12 or 13 percent ethanol blend
    in the interim, we have assessed our authority under the act to take
    such an action outside of the waiver process. This would require a
    revision of the ``substantially similar'' interpretive rule, which
    defines the limits for the use of oxygenates in gasoline, such as
    ethanol, without the need for a waiver. The current ``substantially
    similar'' rule limits ethanol to about 7 percent by volume. Ethanol
    received a waiver in 1978 to allow 10 percent by volume. We have
    concluded that in order to have a reasonable basis to revise the
    ``substantially similar'' rule to 12 or 13 percent, we would need
    similar data to that for a waiver. We are not aware of any significant
    data at 12 or 13 percent to review. Thus, absent additional data, the
    most expedient means of assessing the impacts of greater percent
    ethanol in gasoline is to consider the waiver request we received from
    Growth Energy.

                              ENDANGERMENT FINDING

        Question. Last month you signed a proposal finding that the current
    and projected concentrations of six key GHG in the atmosphere threaten
    the public health and welfare of current and future generations.
        Do you see the proposed rule granting the EPA the authority to
    regulate (GHG) under the Clean Air Act absent congressional action?
    Also, what is the EPA's understanding of the Supreme Court's finding in
    Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency?
        Is it the position of EPA that the finding directed the agency to
    regulate CO2, or just that the EPA has the authority to
    regulate CO2?
        Answer. The Supreme Court in Massachusetts vs. EPA ruled that
    Carbon Dioxide (CO2) and other Greenhouse Gases (GHGs) fall
    within the Clean Air Act's definition of ``air pollutant,'' and that
    EPA must determine whether such emissions meet the endangerment test of
    section 202(a) or explain why available science is not sufficient to
    make a determination. The Supreme Court also concluded that if the
    Agency determines that emissions of those GHGs from new motor vehicles
    and new motor vehicle engines cause or contribute to air pollution that
    may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare,
    then EPA is required to regulate CO2 and several other GHGs
    under Clean Air Act section 202(a) (the provision at issue in the
    case).
        In response to the Supreme Court's decision, EPA has issued
    proposed endangerment findings under section 202(a) of the Clean Air
    Act for CO2 and several other GHGs, and proposed cause or
    contribute findings for the emissions of those GHGs from new motor
    vehicles. As proposed findings, they do not provide EPA with the
    authority to regulate. Only if EPA decides, after considering public
    comment, to issue final findings that new motor vehicle GHG emissions
    meet the endangerment and cause or contribute tests of section 202(a),
    will EPA have authority to issue GHG emission standards under that
    section for motor vehicles. For EPA to issue GHG emission standards for
    other types of mobile or stationary sources, the Agency would have to
    conduct rulemakings under the specific Clean Air Act provisions that
    authorize regulation of those sources. Clean Air Act provisions vary in
    the determinations EPA must make in order to regulate.
        Question. What measures is EPA taking to account for the economic
    consequences?
        Answer. If EPA decides, after considering public comment, to issue
    final findings that GHG emissions meet the endangerment and cause or
    contribute tests of Clean Air Act section 202(a), Administrator Jackson
    will make decisions about using the Clean Air Act. In particular,
    section 202(a) provides the Administrator with the discretion to
    determine the content and timing of motor vehicle emission regulations.
    That section also directs the Administrator to make regulatory
    decisions based on cost, technological feasibility, and other relevant
    factors. Many provisions of the Clean Air Act provide similar
    discretion and direction to consider costs and other factors in
    deciding how (and in some cases, whether) to regulate under those
    provisions.
        As noted above, EPA would assess the costs of any proposed GHG
    controls as part of the rulemaking process required to issue such
    regulations under section 202(a), and the public would have an
    opportunity to comment on EPA's proposal, including its cost estimates.
        Administrator Jackson has stated that if EPA embarked on Clean Air
    Act regulation of GHGs, it would focus on the largest emission
    categories, such as motor vehicles and power plants. In an advance
    notice published in the Federal Register last year, the Agency examined
    many issues concerning the potential use of the Clean Air Act to
    regulate GHGs, including the potential for such regulation to result in
    the application of the act's permitting programs to GHGs. EPA is
    currently considering the public comments received in response to the
    notice on how the permitting programs might be tailored for GHGs to
    avoid or minimize economic consequences for smaller sources. Addressing
    small business concerns with potential GHG regulation under new
    legislation or the Clean Air Act is a priority for the Agency.
                                     ______

                   Question Submitted by Senator Thad Cochran

                             GULF OF MEXICO FUNDING

        Question. When I look at the funding provided by the U.S.
    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to its Gulf of Mexico Program
    (the EPA Program Office charged with facilitating collaborative actions
    to protect, maintain, and restore the health and productivity of the
    Gulf of Mexico in ways consistent with the economic well-being of the
    region), I see huge disparities in funding levels provided to the Gulf
    relative to other great water bodies like the Great Lakes, Chesapeake
    Bay, and Puget Sound. In fiscal year 2009, for example, the Great Lakes
    Program Office received $57 million in support, and the Gulf of Mexico
    Program Office received only $4.6 million. Such disproportionate
    funding has been the case since the Gulf Program's inception in 1988.
    It seems particularly unfair and counterproductive to the mission of
    EPA to consistently underfund such a critical and productive region.
        Can you please help me to better understand the reasoning behind
    this practice, particularly with the advancement of the President's
    initiative to spend $475 million on the Great Lakes?
        Answer. EPA has undertaken a number of strategic geographic
    initiatives throughout the country. The Agency has traditionally
    exercised the Administrator's limited authority under CWA 104(b)(3) to
    establish and maintain cooperative issue assessment and coordination of
    response planning support to these multi-state ecosystem initiatives.
    As the assessments evolve and the critical issues and tactical response
    plans are developed, Congress has, in many cases, enacted specific
    legislation through the CWA to help underwrite the execution of these
    recovery and/or conservation Action Plans (i.e., the CWA Amendment
    forming the Great Lakes Program; the Great Lakes Legacy Act; the CWA
    Amendment forming the Chesapeake Bay Program).
        The Gulf is confronted by a number of environmental issues that
    threaten both the ecology and economic sustainability of the
    surrounding coastal communities and, the Nation. The initiation and
    support over the last few years of the Gulf States Governors Alliance
    has been instrumental in rapidly advancing the action plan framework
    for this region. We understand that the Governors Alliance is preparing
    to release the next 5-year action plan on June 10, 2009.
                                     ______

                  Questions Submitted by Senator Susan Collins

                            COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOWS

        Question. Combined Sewer Overflows (CSOs) are an enormous problem
    in communities with older water infrastructure. In the late 19th to
    early 20th century, many communities built single sewer systems for
    both sewage from homes and storm water runoff from streets and roofs.
    During large storms these systems are overwhelmed. The excess storm
    water mixes with the raw sewage and flows into nearby bodies of water.
    Each year nearly 1 billion gallons of raw sewage from CSOs puts the
    public at risk for disease and compromises the integrity of water
    bodies throughout the Nation. How will EPA use the proposed increases
    in water and wastewater infrastructure revolving loan funds to
    eliminate this serious threat to our Nation? Since this is such a big
    problem, do you believe a dedicated fund just for CSOs is warranted?
        Answer. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) agrees that CSOs
    cause environmental and public health problems. Since the CSO Policy
    was finalized in 1994, EPA and the States have made substantial
    progress working with municipalities to develop long-term control plans
    to eliminate or reduce the overflows and the environmental and public
    health threat. The Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF) is designed
    to allow State programs the flexibility to direct funds to those
    projects that will have the greatest impact, considering factors
    including public health and environmental protection. EPA believes that
    funding CSO controls through the existing CWSRF would be more efficient
    than establishing a separate CSO grants program, and that the
    significant increase proposed in the CWSRF by the President will help
    address high-priority CSO problems.

                      NATIONAL MERCURY MONITORING NETWORK

        Question. I have long believed that we, as a Nation, are not paying
    sufficient attention to the dangers posed by mercury to our children
    and, in general, to all of our citizens. When I have spoken to experts
    in Maine about this problem, I have learned that each new scientific
    study finds more mercury in the environment and more affected species
    than the previous study. In 2006, when EPA released a major new mercury
    regulatory rule, its Inspector General found that data for mercury
    pollution models was severely lacking and recommended EPA implement a
    national mercury monitoring network. In 2007, to address this need for
    better data, I introduced the Comprehensive National Mercury Monitoring
    Act to ensure that we have the information we need to make decisions
    necessary to protect our people and environment. I intend to pursue
    this bill again this year.
        Do you support implementing a National Mercury Monitoring Network?
        Answer. Addressing mercury emissions is a complex and multi-faceted
    issue that necessitates evaluation of all media, including air, water,
    sediments, fish, and wildlife. EPA recognizes the pressing need for
    comprehensive, long-term mercury monitoring and has made significant
    and tangible progress toward establishing a national mercury monitoring
    network. EPA is collaborating with Federal, State, tribal agencies, and
    academic partners to provide a comprehensive understanding of mercury
    in the environment using limited existing data and monitoring
    capabilities.
        In 2003, EPA co-sponsored a workshop with the Society for
    Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry to develop a national program to
    track the changes resulting from reductions in mercury emissions in the
    U.S. Detailed recommendations for a comprehensive national mercury
    monitoring program emerged from this workshop and were published in a
    peer reviewed journal article (2005) and a subsequent book (2007).
        In response to the workshop recommendations, EPA collaborated with
    the National Atmospheric Deposition Program (NADP) membership of
    Federal agencies, States, tribes, academic institutions, industry, and
    other organizations to launch a new, coordinated network for monitoring
    mercury in the atmosphere. At present, 20 atmospheric mercury
    monitoring stations are participating in NADP to provide high-
    resolution, high-quality atmospheric data. NADP plans to offer a
    publicly accessible database of long-term atmospheric mercury
    measurements.
        In 2008, EPA co-convened a workshop to design a comprehensive and
    integrated national mercury monitoring network--MercNet. The workshop
    included approximately 50 experts from Federal agencies (U.S.
    Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Geological Survey, National
    Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
    National Park Service, etc.), State and tribal agencies, Biodiversity
    Research Institute, NADP, industry, and other institutions. Workshop
    scientists agreed on a goal and major design elements for a national
    mercury monitoring program, including a national distribution of
    approximately 20 intensive sites, to understand the sources,
    consequences, and trends in U.S. mercury pollution.
        EPA is committed to working with its partners, as resources permit,
    to develop a comprehensive, long-term mercury monitoring program which
    would contribute much needed information on how the environment is
    responding to changing uses and emissions of mercury.
        Question. What specific steps will the EPA take in the coming year
    to protect us against this persistent and dangerous neurotoxin?
        Answer. The Administrator has announced that EPA will be developing
    a Clean Air Act section 112(d) standard for electric utility steam
    generating units addressing all hazardous air pollutants emitted from
    these units including mercury. The Agency is currently in settlement
    negotiations with the plaintiffs in a mandatory duty lawsuit concerning
    the timing for completing this rule and does not have a schedule for
    developing the regulation at this time.
        Mercury is also among the pollutants that the Agency is, or will
    be, regulating under section 112(d) through rules for other industries
    and sectors (e.g., for the Portland cement, industrial boilers, and
    medical waste incinerators).

                         MID-LEVEL ETHANOL FUEL BLENDS

        Question. Ms. Jackson, on March 6, you were presented with a
    request for a waiver from the Clean Air Act for mid-level ethanol fuel
    blends. Subsequent to that request, a large group of interested
    organizations, including the Sierra Club, Public Citizen, and the
    American Lung Association, wrote a letter asking you to deny that
    request. They argued that these fuels have not yet received sufficient
    study to ensure that they will not pose hazards to the environment,
    health, and safety. In fact, I continue to receive complaints from my
    constituents about the performance of the current ethanol fuel blend in
    snowmobiles, boat engines, and chainsaws. These constituents have no
    fuel choices since, in Maine, only a 10 percent ethanol gasoline fuel
    blend is available at our gasoline pumps and I am very concerned about
    any potential increases in the amount of ethanol allowed in gasoline.
    Given the administration's support for policy based on good science,
    will you make certain that all of the data needed to answer questions
    about the merit of these new fuels are analyzed before permitting them
    into commerce?
        Answer. EPA is carefully considering the waiver request it received
    from Growth Energy on March 6, 2009. A notice of its receipt was
    published in the Federal Register on April 21, 2009. Comments were
    requested on a number of issues. The comment period closes on July 20,
    2009.
        The issues raised by the waiver request are very important and
    complex. The Agency is aware of the concerns raised by the
    organizations that you noted. These include the impact of E15 on
    nonroad engines such as those in snowmobiles, boats, and chain saws. As
    anticipated, the Agency is receiving a significant number of comments
    from a wide range of stakeholders in response to our request for public
    comment. In addition, the Agency continues to work closely with the
    Department of Energy (DOE) and the Department of Agriculture on this
    issue. DOE is conducting a significant amount of testing. EPA will take
    the public comments, test data, and any other relevant information into
    consideration. The Agency will use the best available technical data
    and make a determination on the waiver request based on good science.

                              SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS

        Senator Alexander. The meeting is recessed.
        [Whereupon, at 11:39 a.m., Wednesday, May 20, the hearing
    was recessed, to reconvene subject to the call of the Chair.]

         DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, ENVIRONMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES
                      APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2010

                                  ----------

                            WEDNESDAY, MAY 20, 2009

                                           U.S. Senate,
               Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The subcommittee met at 10:01 a.m., in room SD-124, Dirksen
    Senate Office Building, Hon. Dianne Feinstein (chairman)
    presiding.
        Present: Senators Feinstein, Tester, and Alexander.

                           DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

                                 Forest Service

    STATEMENT OF ABIGAIL KIMBELL, CHIEF

                 OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR DIANNE FEINSTEIN

        Senator Feinstein. Good morning.
        On behalf of the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee, I
    would like to welcome you to the hearing on the fiscal year
    2010 budget.
        Unfortunately, both Senator Alexander and I have to leave a
    little before 11 a.m. So, Ms. Kimbell, this will be necessarily
    a short hearing. I don't think you would object to that, and we
    will do what we have to do and do it efficiently, I hope.
        I am very pleased to welcome you, as Chief of the Forest
    Service, before this subcommittee.
        I would like to start by saying that I think this is a very
    good budget. It may need some changes around the edges to meet
    certain priorities, but we can talk about that.
        I would like to express my appreciation that the President
    has requested $200 million in supplemental firefighting funds
    for the Forest Service before the fire season begins in
    earnest. That is a welcome change.
        The recent fires in Santa Barbara showed it is likely that
    we are in for another brutal, expensive fire season. And so, it
    is my hope that these funds will help prevent the service from
    borrowing from other programs to pay for firefighting needs
    this year.
        The President has requested $5.226 billion for the Forest
    Service for 2010. That is a 10 percent increase, or $480
    million more than the 2009 enacted level.
        The new administration recognizes that firefighting costs
    are likely to exceed the 10-year fire suppression average and
    has submitted a budget that reflects that reality. It requests
    full funding in the 10-year average for a total of $1.128
    billion and includes a new $280 million reserve fund that is
    available for the Forest Service if its regular appropriations
    run out before the end of the fiscal year.
        It also invests in the Service's aging network of
    facilities, roads, and trails. Overall, the Service's capital
    improvement and maintenance program is funded up 10 percent, at
    $557 million more than the enacted level. And this includes $50
    million to help address the Service's $5 billion backlog of
    deferred maintenance and also to create jobs.
        In particular, this budget proposes to reduce hazardous
    fuels reduction programs by $13 million, and that is a 4
    percent cut. And I must tell you, I have a problem with that.
    In my view, this cut doesn't make sense. Particularly when we
    are pouring money into firefighting programs, we have to begin
    to manage our forests and remove hazardous fuels and be
    prepared for fire, prevent fire.
        I am also concerned that the request funds fire
    preparedness programs at $675 million, equal to the enacted
    level. This means that the Service will be forced to shift more
    costs for firefighter salaries and equipment to the fire
    suppression program, further driving up the 10-year average.
        But in summary, a 10 percent increase in this time of debt
    and deficit, is, indeed, a very good budget.

                               PREPARED STATEMENT

        So that completes my remarks, and Mr. Ranking Member, I
    would be happy to recognize you at this time.
        [The statement follows:]

                 Prepared Statement of Senator Dianne Feinstein

        Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. On behalf of the Interior
    Appropriations Subcommittee, I welcome you to our hearing on the fiscal
    year 2010 budget request for the U.S. Forest Service.
        I'm pleased to welcome Gail Kimbell, Chief of the Forest Service,
    before the subcommittee.
        I'd like to start this morning by saying that I think this budget
    is a good first step toward meeting the needs of our national forests.
        Now, that doesn't mean that there isn't room for improvement,
    because there certainly is. We'll talk about some of the priorities
    that are left out of this budget. But the request lays a foundation
    that this subcommittee can build on.
        I'd also like to express my appreciation that the President has
    requested $200 million in supplemental firefighting funds for the
    Forest Service before fire season begins in earnest this year. That's a
    welcome change from the position of the previous administration.
        As the recent fires in Santa Barbara showed, it is likely that we
    are in for another brutal, expensive fire season. It is my hope that
    these funds will help prevent the Forest Service from borrowing from
    other programs to pay for firefighting needs this year.
        Turning to the particulars, the President has requested $5.226
    billion for the Forest Service for fiscal year 2010, an increase of
    $480 million more than the fiscal year 2009 enacted level. That's a
    welcome 10 percent increase.
        Most importantly, I am pleased that the new Administration
    recognizes that firefighting costs are likely to exceed the 10-year
    fire suppression average--and has submitted a budget that reflects that
    reality.
        The budget request fully funds the increase in the 10-year average
    for a total of $1.128 billion. It also includes a new $282 million
    reserve fund that's available to the Forest Service if its regular
    appropriations run out before the end of the fiscal year.
        The budget also invests in the Forest Service's aging network of
    facilities, roads, and trails. Overall, the Forest Service's capital
    improvement and maintenance program is funded at $557 million, an
    increase of 15 percent more than the enacted level. That includes a $50
    million initiative to help address the agency's $5 billion backlog of
    deferred maintenance and create jobs.
        Finally, the budget request includes a $42 million boost to State
    and private forestry programs, targeted specifically to protecting open
    spaces through conservation easements.
        These are all important priorities, and I am pleased to see them
    funded. However, at the same time, I am also concerned that the budget
    request shortchanges other priority needs to pay for these initiatives.
        In particular, this budget proposes to reduce hazardous fuels
    reduction programs by $13 million. That's a 4 percent cut to fire
    prevention--at a time when we're pouring money into firefighting. This
    cut just doesn't make any sense, and I won't support it. In fact, I
    plan to increase funds for fuels reduction in the fiscal year 2010
    Interior bill.
        I am also concerned that the request funds fire preparedness
    programs at $675 million, equal to the enacted level. That means that
    the Forest Service will be forced to shift more costs for firefighter
    salaries and equipment to the fire suppression program--further driving
    up the 10-year average.
        The request funds operating programs for national forests at $1.5
    billion, also equal to last year. That means important programs like
    forest products and law enforcement are being cut back. And other
    cooperative programs face the chopping block, including a 6 percent cut
    to State and local fire assistance and a 4 percent cut to programs that
    fight insects and disease.
        In short, I think these programs deserve more support--and I plan
    to ensure that the rising tide of this budget lifts all of the agency's
    programs, not just a select few.
        Now I'd like to turn to my Ranking Member, Senator Alexander, for
    any comments that he wishes to make.

                      STATEMENT OF SENATOR LAMAR ALEXANDER

        Senator Alexander. Thanks, Madam Chairman.
        Chief, it is nice to see you and to discuss the Forest
    Service.
        I completely agree with the chairman about fire. It is an
    essential part of the Forest Service program, but we don't want
    to see the U.S. Forest Service become the U.S. fire department.
    And I am also glad to see that because of the chairman's hard
    work especially, there is more money to deal with fires this
    year.
        In the East, we don't have as many public lands and Forest
    Service lands as we do in the West. And most of the Forest
    Service lands I notice, looking at the map, run up the
    Appalachian Ridge. They start down in Georgia and run up
    through in and around the Smokies, where I live, where you have
    the Cherokee National Forest. But then there is the Blue Ridge
    Parkway and on up through Pennsylvania and into the area where
    you come from, with the White Mountains and the Green
    Mountains.
        So I have a couple of questions about renewable energy that
    I would like to ask you, and then I would like to follow up,
    ask you if you don't have the answers today to perhaps provide
    me with the answers later.
        And let me start with an opportunity I think I see, and
    that is the use of biomass--wood products, wood chips--from
    Forest Service areas to create electricity by burning them.
    What are the opportunities that you see for biomass on Forest
    Service lands that might--and what might that have to do with
    reducing the danger of fire?

                      SUMMARY STATEMENT OF ABIGAIL KIMBALL

        Ms. Kimbell. Thank you, Senator.
        The Forest Service worked with a number of different
    partners to produce what we call the ``million ton report,''
    and that has been updated. And from forested lands in the
    United States--Ron is going to produce here in a minute that
    sheet that has the numbers, the millions of tons that are
    available from sustainably managed forests across the United
    States.
        Senator Alexander. Oh, pardon me, Chief. I got carried
    away. I had about finished my opening statement, and the
    questions will come next. I was so enthusiastic.
        Ms. Kimbell. Okay.
        Senator Alexander. So I thank you for being here. Those
    will be the two areas that I would like to explore. And why
    don't we go now to the chairman, and then I will take questions
    next.
        Senator Feinstein. I am fine with you doing that, and I
    will go after you. Go right ahead, please.
        Senator Alexander. Are you? Well----
        Senator Feinstein. I am. I wouldn't say it if I wasn't.
        Senator Alexander. I think you would.
        In fact, I know you would. That is a great courtesy. Excuse
    me for doing that.
        But go ahead with your comment on biomass.

                                    BIOMASS

        Ms. Kimbell. There is a biomass study that has just
    recently been updated and will be published shortly. And where
    it talks about forests in the United States being able to
    provide about 40 million tons of oven-dried biomass per year
    from sustainably managed forests.
        So that assumes things like nutrient cycling, maintenance
    of biodiversity, water quality, wildlife habitat. It assumes
    sustainable management. So 40 million tons, and this could
    produce the equivalent of about 4 billion gallons of biofuel.
        And for Tennessee alone, Tennessee could produce 2.5
    million tons, or 5 percent of the Nation's total of oven-dried
    biomass from sustainably managed forests.
        Senator Alexander. You would think of it as used for fuel
    rather than electricity?
        Ms. Kimbell. It could be--this report will actually lay it
    out in a lot of different possibilities, but either for fuel or
    for the generation of electricity.

                                RENEWABLE ENERGY

        Senator Alexander. Well, that is very helpful. I would like
    to try to get that into some perspective, and that puts it
    there. I mean, that sounds like a lot.
        On the other hand, I believe I remember--I will have to
    check my figures--that the new Southern Company's 100-megawatt
    electric plant would take 1 million tons a year just to keep it
    going of biomass. And that 100 megawatts isn't much. I mean,
    that is about \1/12\ of 1 unit of a nuclear plant. But that
    would be very helpful.
        Now let me move to another part of the renewable, and then
    that will be my other part of the question. I noticed on the
    sheet that I got, and the chairman and I have talked about this
    in general. This is the cover, Madam Chairman, of the Forest
    Service summary of all of its activities. You selected a
    beautiful view. And----
        Senator Feinstein. It might be California.
        Senator Alexander. Might be. It might be.
        Or it could be the Appalachian Range, but let us say it is
    California. And so, my concern is, and I will just speak for
    myself, is that I would like very much for us to have in this
    country as much renewable energy as we reasonably and
    appropriately can. I think, for example, biomass may be
    especially appropriate for Forest Service lands.
        But on the other hand, when I think of wind turbines, for
    example, they are three times as tall as the football stadium
    the University of Tennessee has in Knoxville, and the blades
    are as long as the football field, and you can see them for 20
    miles. And in our part of the world, they don't produce much
    electricity because the wind doesn't blow very much.
        But my concern more is with the landscape. I mean, here is
    a picture of Mars Hill, a big wind turbine right up on the
    Appalachian Trail. And I think about the time when I was on the
    Energy Committee, Madam Chairman, and someone pointed out that
    the Yellowstone Park director put a big cell tower right in
    front of Old Faithful.
        And so, my question is what does viewscape have to do with
    decisions, as you are making them, about the siting of
    renewable energy facilities like wind facilities or along the
    Appalachian Trail or solar facilities perhaps in the West,
    where it might make a difference there?
        Ms. Kimbell. The siting of any facility or any project on
    national forest goes through the environmental analysis process
    and can be documented in a number of different ways. But
    certainly, visual quality is something that is assessed for
    every project that is implemented on national forest.
        So for the siting of a cell tower, the siting of a
    windmill, the siting of a vegetation management project, the
    visual characteristics and the visual impacts of that project
    are taken into consideration in the environmental analysis and
    certainly is discussed in the public involvement and public
    input.
        And as you point out, there are some things that stand out
    more than others, and those things attract a lot of discussion
    and attention through the public involvement process and are
    considered very much in the decision to be made by the line
    officer.
        Currently, we have two proposals being considered on
    National Forest System lands--one in Vermont on the Green
    Mountain National Forest, one in Michigan on the Huron-Manistee
    National Forest. There are other locations across the National
    Forest System where there are considerations. There are permit
    applications being considered to set up the towers that would
    actually monitor wind energy and climatic conditions over a
    period of 3 to 5 years before anybody would even submit a
    permit to develop.
        But the permits to develop are in--the permit applications
    are in Vermont and Michigan, and there is public involvement,
    public comment being taken on the project in Vermont right now.
    And the forest supervisor will be considering all of that
    public comment, along with the rest of the environmental
    analysis in making a determination about whether or not there
    will be turbines sited on the Green Mountain National Forest.
        Senator Alexander. Thank you. I will come back with other
    questions later.
        Thank you, Madam Chairman.

                             FIREFIGHTER RETENTION

        Senator Feinstein. Thank you very much, Senator.
        Chief, I wanted to ask you a couple of things. Let me do
    the California material first, and that begins with the
    firefighter retention challenge.
        As I understand it, as of April 1, a CAL FIRE rank-and-file
    firefighter earned $64,760, nearly 15 percent more than a
    comparable Forest Service firefighter, which averages $56,096.
    And disparities at the captain level were even greater and
    reached $18,000 last year.
        In the continuing resolution, you provided--or we provided
    $25 million to address the problem. We then provided an
    additional $3 million in the fiscal year 2009 omnibus and
    required the agency to provide a spending plan for these funds.
        Now since then, my understanding is that you have
    implemented two main strategies--a 10 percent bonus for the GS-
    5 to -8, the rank-and-file firefighters, and a conversion of
    part-time firefighters to full-time status. As of January, you
    had 4,205 firefighters onboard out of a total of 4,432.
        Now I am concerned because I think this is going to be a
    big fire year again in my State, and we need to have the
    Federal service up to par. Can you tell us that it will be?
        Ms. Kimbell. Absolutely. The firefighting effectiveness of
    the Forest Service will be up to par, is up to par for this
    oncoming season. We have been fighting fire all year across the
    South into the Southwest. And with the fire just recently in
    Santa Barbara, it was very early season but tested the
    responsiveness of the State of California, the local fire
    departments and the U.S. Forest Service.
        With the retention bonus that was provided to those grades
    5 through 8, where we saw perhaps the greatest difference in
    recruitment and retention between the Forest Service and the
    State of California, that is where we focused that retention
    bonus. And with extending tours of duty to be yearlong, it
    allowed employees then to participate in things like health
    benefits and retirement benefits yearlong rather than the 9-
    month season or 6-month season that they might have been
    employed.
        It does add duties. They will be working on nonfire-related
    activities when it is no longer fire season.
        In looking at the number of firefighters in California, I
    still have to consider the number of firefighters across the
    border in Arizona, firefighters in Oregon, Nevada. When we do
    have a fire event, we bring in trained, experienced
    firefighters from all over the country. And certainly, we have
    hosted folks from all over in California over the last couple
    of years.
        I would like to--I want to believe that we won't have that
    kind of season this year, but the numbers certainly indicate
    that it will be a long season.

                     NATIONAL FORESTS BORDERING LAKE TAHOE

        Senator Feinstein. Both the Governor of Nevada and the
    Governor of California have declared the Tahoe forests, the
    three national forests around Tahoe, in a state of emergency. I
    am very concerned. When I have been to the lake--which is rare,
    I must say--but when I can go, I notice very little burning
    activity.
        I am told that this is done by contractors, and that
    contracting, seems to me, is really not what it should be. Can
    you respond to that? I mean, these forests have to get cleaned
    out of dead, dying, and down. And they aren't being, and that
    is just a fact.
        Ms. Kimbell. I just recently had the opportunity to visit
    with Terri Marceron, who is our forest supervisor in South Lake
    Tahoe. She was in here in Washington, DC, and I believe she met
    with staff from your office and with a number of other folks
    here in Washington, DC.
        And Terri shared a pretty unique program that she has
    implemented there on the Lake Tahoe basin unit, where she is
    working with two counties in California and with the prison in
    Nevada to actually have woody biomass removed. So rather than
    burning piles, we actually have crews that are packing those
    piles out of the forest and hauling them to cogeneration
    facilities.
        Senator Feinstein. Okay. I am going back to the same trail
    that I broke my ankle on last year----
        Ms. Kimbell. I think I have a briefing paper on that.
        Senator Feinstein [continuing]. Again this year. And when I
    last went, there had been some burning of piles. But there were
    10,000 piles. And they have been there for 3 years now, and
    they themselves are a fire hazard. And this is the Meeks Bay
    Trail.
        Ms. Kimbell. Yes.
        Senator Feinstein. So I am going to be watching. I am
    terribly worried about these forests because we have got a lot
    of bark beetle. We have got a lot of dead trees. We have had
    one fire. And the winds are westerly. They come over the Sierra
    Nevadas, and they blow right down into the homes and into the
    lake. And so, I hope you will give this your attention.
        I would like to talk to you for a moment about the MAFFS
    units.
        Ms. Kimbell. Yes.

                  MODULAR AIRBORNE FIREFIGHTING SYSTEM (MAFFS)

        Senator Feinstein. Particularly the new MAFFS units. You
    are way down in planes. I don't have it right now, but I did
    have it. You have gone from something like 44 to 19 planes. And
    these MAFFS units are vital. Where are they in the United
    States, and are they available now, the big ones, the new ones?
        Ms. Kimbell. The new ones, I think they are called the
    MAFFS II units----
        Senator Feinstein. Right.
        Ms. Kimbell [continuing]. There are a number of them
    available. Aero Union is doing the work on that. We expect to
    have eight, a combination of the old MAFFS and new MAFFS units
    in service for this fire season, but not all of the new units
    that Aero Union has been developing, not all those units are
    going to be online.
        But we do expect to have eight MAFFS units online for
    firefighting this season.
        Senator Feinstein. And where will they be located?
        Ms. Kimbell. They are based in California, Nevada, and
    Wyoming and North Carolina are training on the original MAFFS
    systems with the Air Force Reserve and Air National Guard. And
    Colorado Springs is training on the MAFFS II systems.
        Senator Feinstein. So there are two for each of these
    bases, each where they are based?
        Ms. Kimbell. Yes.
        Senator Feinstein. Is that right?
        Ms. Kimbell. Yes. So I misspoke. Nevada is not in there.
        Senator Feinstein. Okay. How many are operational now?
        Ms. Kimbell. Eight.
        Senator Feinstein. Are operational now. The training is
    done, and they can fly?
        Ms. Kimbell. Yes, the training is ongoing because some of
    these fire seasons aren't--even though southern California
    started very early, we still have a lot of snow in the Rockies
    and across different places in the country. So I am not sure of
    the exact status of the training, but we could certainly get
    that for you.
        [The information follows:]

        MAFFS training for 2009 is complete. We have eight MAFFS available
    for 2009. Two MAFFS are stationed at each of the following locations:
    California (Port Hueneme), Wyoming (Cheyenne), Colorado (Colorado
    Springs), and North Carolina (Charlotte).

        Senator Feinstein. I would appreciate that. California is
    now in a perpetual drought, and things are very dry. And many
    of us are very worried about what this year will bring, and I
    just want to say that to the head person.
        Ms. Kimbell. Thank you.
        Senator Feinstein. That I believe it does need some special
    attention. We have lost 3 million acres in the last 2 years
    from wildfire, and what we find is the Santa Anas are blowing
    hotter. And as you know, in 2008, we had 8,000 lightning
    strikes on a given day, which started some 2,000 fires.
        I flew out with the President, flew over Shasta, and it was
    like a moonscape. Everything was burned, all around the
    reservoir. It was just--it was a horror to behold. And I think
    we are on an increasing crescendo with respect to fire in this
    State.
        So I would very much appreciate and welcome your attention
    to it.
        Ms. Kimbell. Absolutely. And Senator, if there is an
    opportunity to visit the Meeks Trail together, I would love to
    do that, and I hope that we do get the opportunity----
        Senator Feinstein. This weekend?
        Ms. Kimbell. Oh.
        I guess it would be free of snow, wouldn't it?
        Thank you so much. Thank you, Chairman.
        Senator Feinstein. Senator Alexander, you had additional
    questions?

                                    BIOMASS

        Senator Alexander. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
        If I could go back to the discussion we were having before,
    I want to make sure I understood what you said. I believe you
    said your report showed that there would be 40 million tons of
    biomass a year, is that right, in the entire Forest Service
    lands?
        Ms. Kimbell. That is all forest lands. Forty million tons
    of oven-dried woody biomass would be available across the
    country from sustainably managed forests.
        Senator Alexander. Oven-dried woody what?
        Ms. Kimbell. Woody biomass.
        Senator Alexander. And that is all forests?
        Ms. Kimbell. That is all forests.
        Senator Alexander. Not just the national----
        Ms. Kimbell. Not just national forests.
        Senator Alexander. Forty million tons. And you said in
    Tennessee, it was 2.5 million tons?
        Ms. Kimbell. Two and one-half million tons.
        Senator Alexander. A year?
        Ms. Kimbell. A year.
        Senator Alexander. All right. Now the questions--well,
    would it help with fire prevention if this biomass were removed
    from the forests?
        Ms. Kimbell. Absolutely. And this has been a major focus of
    our hazardous fuel reduction over the last 10 years, and there
    are many more acres that need treatment. The estimates have run
    from 40 to 60 million acres. There are some estimates that are
    much higher.
        But there is definitely a need for treatment of acres
    across national forests, BLM, private lands. Certainly, we are
    doing a much better job today of working across landscapes than
    we were 10 years ago, just given this issue with fire and fire
    potential and the woody biomass that is on the ground. But
    having a market for this woody biomass is really critical to
    make this cost effective for the American taxpayer.
        Senator Alexander. Now the 40 million tons is on the
    ground. You are not talking about dead or dying trees?
        Ms. Kimbell. Oh, no. That does include dead and dying.
        Senator Alexander. It does include dead and dying trees. So
    you would like to see some biomass plants that would take large
    amounts of this oven-dried woody biomass and turn it into
    either fuel or electricity? That would be a help to the fire
    prevention and other aspects of your operation?
        Ms. Kimbell. Absolutely. Having a market for this woody
    biomass is really critical to make it cost effective.
        Senator Alexander. Can you tell me what size powerplant, in
    your estimation--and maybe this is a question for the
    Department of Energy--what size powerplant for electricity that
    40 million tons of oven-dried woody biomass would operate every
    year? You don't need to tell me now.
        Give me some idea of the kind of roads and trucks that
    would be involved in the hauling of all this stuff to plants.
    And any sort of judgment about whether, in the end, that whole
    process is carbon neutral?
        Ms. Kimbell. And actually, we have a couple of research
    projects that are going on, one in California, where we are
    trying to assess just exactly that. And hopefully, we will have
    results from that study. But, yes, we can provide you with that
    information.
        Senator Alexander. That would be very helpful to me because
    I think it would give all of us a lot of good information. It
    may be well worth doing even if it isn't carbon neutral, but if
    it also is carbon neutral, that would fit into the national
    debate.
        [The information follows:]

        The generating capacity depends on the facility design and
    conversion technologies used and their associated efficiencies. Some
    technologies have been proven for woody biomass through commercial
    deployment and use, while others are in the research, development, or
    testing stages. Based on conversion and efficiency factors for the
    proven technology of stand-alone wood biomass fired steam turbine
    system, and the Energy Information Administration, 40 million oven dry
    tons available annually would support an estimate of approximately
    4,550 MW generating capacity. Depending on facility design and
    operating hours, the amount could be less.
        The existing transportation infrastructure including roads and
    highways, rail, and barge, would be expected to be involved in
    delivering material to conversion facilities. It is important to
    consider that the logging operations infrastructure must be healthy and
    in place to enable sustainable harvest of the material. Life-cycle
    analysis of the biomass energy supply chain is an active area of
    research for the Forest Service and our partners. Results of forest
    management and harvest lifecycle analysis in the Pacific Northwest and
    Southeastern United States obtained to date indicate that greenhouse
    gas emissions vary between 2.5 and 12.5 percent of carbon in the wood,
    depending on management regime and transportation.

                          SITING WIND ENERGY TURBINES

        Senator Alexander. And then my last questions have to do
    with the mountaintops. And different regions of the country
    have more appropriate renewable energy. Biomass may very well
    be an appropriate one for the Southeastern United States, which
    is why the southern plant south of TVA is building its 100-
    megawatt plant.
        In the West, it may be that large wind turbines are fine. I
    know at Rocky Flats, they are down on the ground. But my
    impression is that all of the class I wind areas in the Eastern
    United States are on ridge tops. Is that your impression as
    well?
        Ms. Kimbell. And I have not studied that issue carefully.
    No, I don't know.
        Senator Alexander. Well, that is my impression. And so, we
    would end up putting these massive machines on ridge tops in
    many parts of the area where the wind doesn't blow very well.
    So the questions I would like for you to try to answer for me,
    which you did to some direction, is how will your directives
    take into account the importance of protecting viewsheds?
        I mean, in our part of the world, we buy houses and live on
    roads that are named Scenic Drive and Lookout Mountain and Blue
    Ridge Parkway, and not 500-foot, 50-story tower, ``wind tower
    parkway'' with the flashing lights. How closely are you working
    with the Department of the Interior on drafting your policy?
        Should these decisions along the ridge tops of Appalachia
    from Georgia to Maine all be made by individual park
    supervisors, or should there be some review at the national
    level? Would it make more sense to first study and review all
    these lands and then come to some conclusion about what we do?
        I think you can see my own personal view is I think it is a
    preposterous idea to take land we have set aside for recreation
    and scenic and other uses and clutter it with eyesores that
    don't produce much electricity. Even if they did produce
    electricity, I think the people of our region would not want to
    see that.
        I mean, we are spending up to $40 million, for example, to
    acquire Rocky Fork in the Cherokee National Forest, and then
    the very idea of coming and putting in 50-story towers with
    long transmission lines seems to me to be a preposterous
    notion. So I would like to find some way to get an intelligent
    set of--a framework within which we can consider the
    appropriate siting of renewable energy, such as wind, on the
    Appalachian chain running from Georgia up through Maine.
        What are those considerations, and how do we make choices
    between biomass, which, in our region, seems to be a very
    appropriate form of renewable energy, and wind turbines on
    ridge tops, which seems to me not to be?
        Ms. Kimbell. Well, I believe there are two things. I think
    this whole address to energy and alternative energy is far more
    complex than maybe we have all acknowledged yet. But just all
    the different complexities with--that come with some of these
    different alternative energy sources is something that we do
    need a larger discussion about, more discussion as we talk
    about energy independence in the country.
        And yet there are still questions about where is it
    appropriate to drill for oil? Where is it appropriate to put
    out solar panel arrays? Where is it appropriate for wind
    turbines? And when are public lands appropriate for any of
    those? I think that is part of a much larger discussion that we
    are going to need to have.
        We have had some public discussion about transmission
    lines, and yet still there needs to be discussion about all
    these different energy independence opportunities.
        For wind energy, the Forest Service in 2007 posted in the
    Federal Register a proposed directive. It was to help our field
    organization have some consistency for how they evaluated wind
    energy proposals on National Forest System lands.
        We received more than 5,000 comments. We have been
    reviewing those comments. We are discussing those with the
    Department of Agriculture. We have worked closely with the BLM
    through this whole process of preparing this consistent
    direction to provide to our field for evaluating wind
    proposals.
        But always those--any of those proposals would have to be
    considered in the context of the forest plans, and those forest
    plans lay out how sustainability will be addressed on that
    particular national forest and always visual characteristics
    are something that are considered with each proposal that comes
    in as when it is evaluated for how well it meets the forest
    plan.
        So there needs to be this much larger discussion, and at
    the same time, this directive for how to analyze wind proposals
    on National Forest System land is something that we hope to
    have clarified and to the field here very soon.
        Senator Alexander. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
        Senator Feinstein. Thank you very much, Senator.
        Before turning to Senator Tester, Chief, would you please
    submit your statement for the record?
        Ms. Kimbell. Okay.
        Senator Feinstein. And it will be included in the record.
        Ms. Kimbell. And I do have a written statement and----
        Senator Feinstein. That is what I am referring to, right.

                               PREPARED STATEMENT

        Ms. Kimbell. Thank you. And I would like to submit it for
    the record. Thank you.
        Senator Feinstein. Yes, right. Thank you.
        [The statement follows:]

                     Prepared Statement of Abigail Kimbell

        Madam Chairwoman and members of the subcommittee, it is a privilege
    to be here today to discuss the President's budget request for the
    Forest Service in fiscal year 2010. I appreciate the significant
    support this subcommittee has repeatedly demonstrated for the Forest
    Service. Working together, this subcommittee and the Forest Service
    have served the public good by addressing issues from loss of open
    space to wildfire, from crime on national forestland to improving fish
    and other aquatic organism passage. With your continued support we will
    keep providing more of the things the American public expects and
    wants.
        With the new administration, the Forest Service advances its
    mission to sustain the Nation's forests and grasslands through direct
    stewardship of the 193 million acres of the National Forest System,
    technical assistance to State and private partners, and science. The
    Forest Service continues to manage the National Forest System to
    provide diverse benefits to the public such as clean water, fish and
    wildlife habitat, recreation, and forest products. The Forest Service
    will make progress in its partnerships with other Federal agencies,
    States, local governments, tribes, and private landowners to sustain
    forests and address climate change and other issues across the
    landscape. The Forest Service will continue to develop innovative tools
    and provide understanding of complex forest ecosystems through its
    unique research program. And the Forest Service will continue to
    advance forest management across the globe in our International
    Programs.
        The fiscal year 2010 President's budget request for the Forest
    Service totals $5.2 billion in discretionary appropriations, a 9
    percent increase more than the fiscal year 2009 enacted level. As part
    of the budget, the President is proposing three major initiatives for
    the Forest Service in addition to maintaining essential funding levels
    for critical program areas.
        Before discussing the fiscal year 2010 budget further, I would like
    to thank this committee for your support of our mission by providing
    $1.15 billion to the Forest Service through the American Recovery and
    Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA). The Forest Service is using these
    funds to create more than 20,000 new private sector jobs and promote
    economic recovery, especially in those areas which the recession has
    impacted most. In addition to restoring jobs and revitalizing
    economies, the Forest Service ARRA projects will restore the land and
    improve facilities and infrastructure, augmenting critical mission
    objectives for the agency.

                            PRESIDENTIAL INITIATIVES

        The fiscal year 2010 budget for the Forest Service includes three
    Presidential initiatives: responsibly budget for wildfire suppression;
    conserve new lands; and Protect the national forests. This suite of
    initiatives addresses the challenges we face, including the three
    themes I identified before last year's budget hearings: climate change,
    water supply and quality, and loss of connection to nature, especially
    for youth.

    Responsibly Budget for Wildfire
        Fires in recent years have become larger and more difficult to
    control due to a variety of factors, including climate change;
    persistent drought and hazardous fuels conditions; and the increased
    magnitude and complexity of the wildland urban interface. As these
    factors extend fire seasons and escalate cost, annual fire suppression
    expenditures have routinely exceeded the amount budgeted for
    suppression. Since 2002, the Forest Service has used the authority
    provided by Congress to transfer more than $2 billion from other
    programs to fire suppression to cover these costs. Even when the
    transferred funds are repaid through supplemental appropriations, these
    transfers result in significant disruptions in the agency's ability to
    deliver its program of work.
        Our fiscal year 2010 budget proposes a strategy to responsibly
    budget for wildfire that centers on three main tactics: fully fund the
    10-year average suppression costs, establish a discretionary
    contingency reserve account, and ensure fire management resources are
    used in a cost-effective manner in high-priority areas. The budget
    provides additional fire management resources for fire suppression that
    reduce the likelihood or magnitude of transferring funds from other
    critical Forest Service activities should fire costs exceed the 10-year
    average for suppression costs.
        The request to increase the fire suppression budget by $135 million
    more than fiscal year 2009, to fully fund the 10-year average for
    suppression costs of $1.1 billion, represents a significant shift in
    budgeting policy. In recent years, the Forest Service budget request
    reduced funding for nonfire programs to maintain funding for the 10-
    year average for suppression costs, to meet an overall budget cap. This
    approach was in place even as the 10-year average cost for suppression
    rose by nearly $600 million between fiscal year 2001 and fiscal year
    2008. The approach proposed in the 2010 budget preserves funding for
    the Forest Service's nonsuppression programs despite rising fire costs.
        In addition, the fiscal year 2010 President's budget proposes a
    discretionary wildland fire contingency reserve of $282 million. The
    fund would be available to the Secretary, subject to a Presidential
    finding of need, once the suppression appropriation is exhausted and as
    long as suppression is fully funded at the 10-year average. The fund
    would enable the agency to respond to wildfires which threaten lives,
    property, and resources on more than 210 million acres of agency-
    protected lands, while minimizing the potential for the transfer of
    funds from other Forest Service programs to suppression, ensuring that
    resources for other critical Forest Service activities are available.
    The request for the Department of the Interior includes a similar $75
    million proposal.
        Along with fully funding the 10-year average and the wildland fire
    contingent reserve fund, the Forest Service will continue to deploy
    analytic support tools to improve fire incident and program
    decisionmaking, cost containment, and agency accountability. A number
    of wildland fire decision support systems, such as FSPro, which models
    fire behavior, and RAVAR, which models values at risk from fire,
    provide real-time support to fire managers implementing risk-informed
    management.
        The projects accomplished through ARRA will augment these budgetary
    efforts by restoring forests to a State in which they are less prone to
    catastrophic fire. The bill provides $500 million for hazardous fuels
    reduction, forest health protection, rehabilitation, and ecosystem
    improvement. These funds will be evenly divided between Federal and
    non-Federal lands. Up to $50 million of the $500 million are available
    for wood-to-energy grants. These grants are being coordinated with
    hazardous fuels treatments to maximize biomass available for energy
    creation. We anticipate using these funds for hundreds of hazardous
    fuels reduction, forest health, and ecosystem restoration projects
    while creating jobs in economically distressed areas.

    Conserve New Lands
        While Americans can take great pride in our existing National
    Forest System and other public lands, there are many landscapes and
    ecosystems at risk. Fifty-seven percent, or 430 million acres, of our
    Nation's forests are privately owned. Family forest owners and other
    landowners are facing increasing pressure to develop their land, which
    fragments ownership and converts environmentally important forests to
    nonforest use. Conservation across a landscape is essential to address
    large-scale conservation issues such as adaptation to climate change,
    conservation of water resources, reduction of wildfire risk, and
    protection of at-risk species.
        The budget includes a $34 million Presidential initiative to
    conserve new lands through the forest legacy program funded from the
    Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF). Funded at $91 million for
    fiscal year 2010, the forest legacy program protects forested lands
    under significant development pressures through acquisition of
    conservation easements and fee-simple purchases. The easements acquired
    protect air and water quality, provide access to national forests, and
    provide habitat for threatened or endangered wildlife and fish. This
    budget proposes spending $119 million of the LWCF through the Forest
    Service as part of broader effort to conserve land by increasing LWCF
    appropriations for the Departments of Agriculture and the Interior to
    $420 million.

    Protect the National Forests
        The national forests face significant challenges to both protect
    new investments and sustain older infrastructure. Ecologically
    sustainable investments in roads, trails, and facilities made through
    ARRA require resources to protect those new assets through maintenance.
    The National Forest System has a transportation system that is not
    suited to its modern needs and requires realignment to ``right-size''
    the system for the future. A number of Forest Service facilities have
    urgent health and safety maintenance needs that, if not addressed,
    could result in those facilities' closure.
        The fiscal year 2010 President's budget augments the work to be
    accomplished via the ARRA by including a $50 million Presidential
    initiative to protect the national forests by extending and enhancing
    those investments. This initiative demonstrates the Forest Service's
    commitment to maintaining a healthy environment by addressing critical
    maintenance and operational components of the Forest Service. These
    funds will be a cornerstone for sustaining a healthy environment, and
    will be focused on three priorities which will: protect the investments
    made through the ARRA; implement travel management plans with an
    emphasis on decommissioning unnecessary roads; and address urgent
    health and safety needs at facilities. These strategic investments will
    reduce the agency's overall maintenance and operational costs in future
    years, result in infrastructure that is more energy efficient, and
    reduce potential harm to the environment.

                      FOCAL POINTS FOR THE FOREST SERVICE

    Climate Change
        Forests and grasslands produce many ecosystem services on which our
    Nation relies: clean water, clean air, wildlife habitats, biological
    diversity, recreation, and forest products. However, research shows
    that climate change is currently stressing the Nation's ecosystems and
    their ability to provide those services. These effects are very likely
    to accelerate in the future, in some cases destabilizing these forests.
    Disrupted ecosystems could have a decreased ability to provide the
    services upon which Americans rely. Many of the most urgent forest and
    grassland management problems of the past 20 years, such as wildfires,
    changes in water quality and quantity, and expanding forest insect
    infestations, have been driven, in part, by changing climate. The
    effects and magnitude of climate change vary across the country, but we
    must act now to be able to address these issues as they arise.
        The Forest Service will use the best available science to assess
    the influence of climate change on the Nations forests and grasslands.
    We will focus on how climate change affects the forests and grasslands
    as well as how land management can influence the reduction in global
    greenhouse gases. Climate change will be integrated into land
    management plans by describing desired conditions, objectives and
    standards. The Forest Service will also continue research and
    monitoring efforts to improve our understanding of climate change.
        The budget continues support for key programs that enable the
    agency to achieve these goals. The forest and rangeland research
    request includes $27 million for research programs on climate change.
    The fiscal year 2010 budget includes $25 million for revising land
    management plans and $26 million for conducting land management plan
    assessments, which enable national forests to address climate change in
    forest planning. The fiscal year 2010 budget maintains a steady $653
    million for wildlife and fisheries management; vegetation and watershed
    management; and forest products. These programs endow the agency with
    the ability to adapt to climate change's effects on National Forest
    System lands, ensuring resilient ecosystems. In fiscal year 2010, the
    Forest Service will build on a fiscal year 2009 investment of $825,000
    to promote sustainable operations in order to reduce the agency's own
    environmental footprint.

    Water
        Our society requires adequate supplies of clean freshwater as a
    source of drinking water and as an engine for both agriculture and
    industry. While freshwater is a renewable resource, it is also a
    limited resource that requires careful stewardship to ensure it will
    meet the needs of present and future generations. In the last few
    years, we have seen the threats of drought to drinking water, forests,
    and agriculture throughout the country, from California to Wisconsin to
    Georgia. With the importance of this vital resource, we must act to
    ensure we are prepared to address the increasing scarcity of clean
    water.
        The Forest Service plays a significant role in management of our
    Nation's water, given that 58 percent of our water supply originates as
    precipitation on forest lands, both on State and private lands and on
    National Forest System lands. Our agency maintains partnerships that
    address nearly 560 million acres of forested watersheds on non-Federal
    lands that provide drinking water to more than 138 million people.
    Another 70 million people get their drinking water from national
    forests and grasslands.
        To ensure that National Forest System lands can continue to be a
    source for clean water, the Forest Service will conserve, maintain, and
    restore watersheds to sustain the ecosystems they support and the
    services they provide; secure water of sufficient quantity and quality
    to sustain aquatic and terrestrial life; develop and advance knowledge
    and shared learning central to managing forest and grassland water
    resources and watershed conditions expected in the future; and
    facilitate watershed-based partnerships to foster conservation and
    citizen stewardship.
        Currently, we are finalizing an inventory of the issues affecting
    National Forest System water resources, identifying actions that we can
    take to meet this crisis head-on, and developing materials to share
    with the public and our partners.
        The Forest Service supports key programs that position the agency
    to address water-related challenges. The fiscal year 2010 budget
    includes $57 million for managing aquatic habitat and $60 million for
    maintaining and improving watershed conditions. These programs provide
    the base for efforts integrated across many other programs that secure
    ample supplies of clean water.

    Kids in the Woods
        As our Nation and especially our Nation's children develop more
    sedentary or more urban habits, we risk being disconnected from our
    environment. Being active in nature establishes healthy habitats and
    creates personal connections to nature, fostering a conservation ethic.
    Our Nation's urban and rural forests offer the setting for those active
    outdoor experiences, elucidating the contribution that the Forest
    Service can make to the national movement to bring children to nature
    and nature to children.
        The Forest Service budget maintains funding to engage children in
    outdoor activities that will establish a meaningful and lasting
    connection to nature. The Forest Service has been active in youth
    contact programs for decades and is active in communities throughout
    the United States. The fiscal year 2010 budget continues a $500,000
    investment for the More Kids in the Woods cost-share award program. In
    fiscal year 2008, the program, in its second year, leveraged a 3:1
    ratio of funds on 16 projects that engaged 20,000 youth with nature.
    Beyond the work done through the More Kids in the Woods cost-share
    program, the budget provides $29 million for urban and community
    forestry and $5 million for recreation research, programs that support
    this effort. The budget continues steady funding levels for recreation
    of $280 million and wildlife interpretation and education of $9
    million, forming a base of work for this effort on national forests. In
    fiscal year 2010, the Forest Service will emphasize delivery of
    conservation education programs to underserved communities in urban and
    rural settings.

                                   CONCLUSION

        The Forest Service presents its fiscal year 2010 budget positioned
    to fulfill its mission of sustaining the health, diversity, and
    productivity of the Nation's forests and grasslands to meet the needs
    of present and future generations. The budget supports the priorities
    of responsible budgeting for wildfires; of proactively addressing
    infrastructure needs to protect Forest Service facilities, roads, and
    trails; of conserving new lands; and of responding to climate change.
    This suite of monetary and management emphases enable the Forest
    Service to adapt to future challenges while continuing to conduct
    ground-breaking research, provide vital assistance to landowners and
    resource managers, and sustainably steward national forests and
    grasslands. Thank you and I look forward to our dialogue today.

        Senator Feinstein. Senator Tester.

                        STATEMENT OF SENATOR JON TESTER

        Senator Tester. Well, thank you, Madam Chair.
        And it is good to have you here, Gail. I appreciate the
    opportunity to visit with you a little bit about what is going
    on.

                           HAZARDOUS FUELS TREATMENT

        And I know that Senator Feinstein talked a little bit about
    fire, and I am going to probably spend a little more time on
    that. Real quickly, looking at the budget, there is a 14
    percent increase in fire suppression. There is a $218 million
    suppression contingency amount. There is about $2.5 billion of
    the $5.2 billion budget that is going to go for wild land fire
    management.
        In Montana, and I think fair to say in a lot of other areas
    in the United States, we are experiencing a lot of disease, a
    lot of beetle kill. I flew up from Salt Lake to Great Falls
    here a month ago, looked down. That forest is dead. It is
    primarily a different color of green than what you see, and
    that is not a good thing.
        Are those kind of dollars adequate, and I am not talking--I
    think a lightning strike and a good wind, and you are not going
    to have enough money to fight anything. It is going to burn.
        But are those kind of dollars adequate not only to take
    care of regular fires, but also, more importantly, deal with
    the forest management that has to be done in our national
    forests?
        Ms. Kimbell. Well, I probably need to preface that with
    thanking the subcommittee for your support to the Forest
    Service for including us in the ARRA and the $250 million that
    is focused on hazardous fuel reduction work on National Forest
    System lands. That will be a tremendous help through 2009, 2010
    in addressing some of those hazardous fuel loading on National
    Forest System lands.
        This budget, the 2010 budget, though, is a far better
    starting point than I have been able to present to you in my
    whole tenure as chief. It does hold vegetation management flat.
    It does hold all of the National Forest System programs
    essentially flat.
        So it doesn't increase the level of activity in forest
    management work, active management work on the ground, though
    the $250 million from ARRA will be a tremendous help.
        Senator Feinstein. We may just change that, Senator, and
    increase it.

                           COLLABORATIVE PARTNERSHIPS

        Senator Tester. Okay. And I would say this--and this is no
    reflection on you, Gail. The bar was pretty low on some of
    these previous budgets. I would just tell you that.
        So I will shift gears a little bit because I know Senator
    Feinstein has the same issues with fire in the forests that we
    do in Montana, in California, and there are other areas, too.
        I want to talk a little bit about collaborative
    partnerships and how the Forest Service views groups like
    Beaverhead-Deerlodge, Quincy Library Group (QLP), Yak, and
    Blackfoot. How do you deal with those? Do you have a set of
    operating procedures to deal with collaborative groups that
    want to help, but yet you have the job, they don't?
        Ms. Kimbell. Every one of them is different because of the
    local needs, the local interests, the local energy that people
    bring to it. We encourage all folks considering in pulling
    together a collaborative group to make it as diverse as
    possible to include the diversity of interests in those public
    lands. We really welcome the energy that comes with those.
        One that happened in Montana was the group that has been
    meeting to develop restoration guidelines for Ponderosa Pine in
    western Montana, and it was a very difficult and yet fabulous
    exercise in bringing people together from all different
    interest areas to put together a common set of restoration
    guidelines. It has been fabulous work and very, very helpful.
        Senator Tester. Are you able to utilize--I mean, I think
    these folks are an asset, from my perspective, but I don't sit
    in the chair you are sitting in. Are you able to utilize when
    they do get collaborative groups together and come up with an
    agreement? How do you utilize those recommendations?
        Ms. Kimbell. The greater the diversity in the group, the
    more useful the information. So that if a group has worked to
    include the breadth of interests that we need to include when
    we consider different activities on national forests, it makes
    it more readily transferable.

                         STIMULUS PROJECTS CONTRACTING

        Senator Tester. I wanted to ask just a little bit on the
    stimulus jobs recovery monies. Away from the fire management
    for a second, then we will get back to it. But if my time has
    run out, we can come back.
        Senator Feinstein. Please, go ahead.
        Senator Tester. Okay. We can come back to this. But those
    monies are there for two reasons. Number one, it is to get
    people employed in areas where there is high unemployment and
    depressed economic conditions. And the other thing, in your
    particular case, is to get the forests cleaned up.
        Is there any assurance that, for instance, there is a fair
    amount of money that is going to be heading up to the area
    around the Yak and Libby. Can you give me any assurances that
    those jobs for cleanup, those chainsaws that are going to be in
    the forests that are going to be doing the hazardous fuel
    reduction will actually go to anybody from that area?
        Ms. Kimbell. All of these projects that are contracted will
    be contracted using the Federal acquisition regulations. And
    so, there aren't special regulations that apply to these ARRA
    projects. We expect that given places like Libby, Troy, and
    Yak, that there are a lot of people trained in those different
    kinds of activities who can compete for those jobs. But there
    is no guarantee, no, that they will go to local people.
        Senator Tester. How is the Forest Service--how are they
    letting local residents know? I mean, the people who typically
    contract, they know all the rules. They know all the hoops to
    jump through. The guy that is trying to feed his family with a
    chainsaw sitting in his hand doesn't have a whole bunch of the
    bureaucratic experience, number one, and, number two, maybe
    doesn't even have the time because he is probably working--or
    she is probably working--several other jobs.
        So how is the Forest Service reaching out in these local
    communities to let people know how to be a part of the puzzle?
        Ms. Kimbell. And I can probably get for you something far
    more specific because what I could give you today would be
    anecdotal.
        [The information follows:]

        ARRA legislation requires that we, to the maximum extent possible,
    award contracts on a competitive basis. In doing so we cannot predict
    nor directly control who is the successful bidder. We do, however,
    award based on best value, and part of the best value evaluation is the
    economic impact on small local communities. This impact can be as a
    result of direct employment, subcontracts, and purchase of supplies
    from local sources.
        On March 10, 2009, the Director of the Forest Service Acquisition
    Management Staff sent a letter to Forest Service leadership asking that
    they be innovative in preparing projects for contracts, grants, or
    agreements funded by the Recovery Act. The letter stated the following:

        ``The Forest Service is in a unique position to focus our spending
    in communities near public lands, which are unlikely to receive funding
    from other agencies. Many of these communities have high poverty rates
    and chronically high unemployment rates. The closure of just one or two
    businesses in these areas can spike local unemployment rates.
        I encourage you to be innovative in your approach to project design
    and layout, project packaging, solicitation methods, and awarding of
    grants and agreements in order to maximize economic benefit for the
    hardest hit communities.''

        Senator Tester. That would be fine.
        Ms. Kimbell. Okay.
        Senator Tester. That would be fine. I just want to make
    sure that they have a shot. Sometimes the best-laid plans end
    up going--and I agree you have to be competitive--but if you
    don't know how to get through the door, you can't be
    competitive. That is all.
        And I am not saying that is the case here at all. I just
    want to make sure that they get a shot at it.
        Ms. Kimbell. Well, my focus with ARRA from the beginning
    has been jobs, jobs, jobs. And I know that at the local level,
    our rangers, our forest supervisors, our people in the local
    communities have been talking to people and even putting
    together their project submittals and all, looking at the
    capacity in the community and really working to play to that
    capacity.
        Senator Tester. I really appreciate that. I will tell you
    in the area I am talking about, you are talking unemployment up
    16 percent and above.
        Ms. Kimbell. Yes.
        Senator Tester. And these folks are skilled, but the wood
    products industry has tanked. You know that.
        Ms. Kimbell. Yes.
        Senator Tester. And so that we could not only put people to
    work doing good work, but these folks are used to working hard
    and they are used to working with their hands.
        So thank you.
        Ms. Kimbell. Thank you, Senator.

                              QUINCY LIBRARY GROUP

        Senator Feinstein. Thank you very much, Senator Tester.
        I would like to ask one last question on a subject that I
    have had a good deal of conversation with of your forest
    supervisors, and that is the Quincy Library Group, which has
    been a very frustrating exercise.
        You know, Quincy was supposed to be about collaboration. We
    had terrible fires up in the Lassen and the Plumas forests. And
    you had the environmentalists on one side, and you had people
    who own property, who were business people on the other. And
    so, they went to the only place where they couldn't yell at
    each other, and that was the Quincy Library. And for years,
    they worked to collaborate and work out an agreement.
        And the agreement was based on putting in firebreaks in
    areas that were critical, where you could get some timbering
    from those firebreaks but, at the same time, prevent the kind
    of catastrophic hot fire, which was now built up by the
    nonnative growth down below and really taking out the canopies
    of old growth, as well as any endangered species that happened
    to reside in those canopies. And they came up with a project,
    and now it has been lawsuit after lawsuit after lawsuit.
        So I met with some of your supervisors--interestingly
    enough, all women--and it was very interesting for me and
    wonderful to see in San Francisco recently. And we went over
    how there was effective collaboration in at least two of the
    forests and, I think, some problems in the third.
        But the bottom line was that the Forest Service has
    provided my staff yesterday acreage targets having to do with
    the Lassen, which runs around 22,000 acres; the Plumas, which
    is about 7,000 acres to be treated; and the Tahoe, which is
    about 3,900 or 4,700 acres. And yet there are a number that
    still need to be agreed upon.
        And I would like to ask for your oversight in seeing that
    that gets done. Again, the worry is that we have another
    catastrophic fire, and this has been years and years of trying
    to work this out.
        Ms. Kimbell. And Senator, last year, I had the opportunity
    to be there on the Shasta-Trinity National Forest and then on
    the Plumas during that great big fire event following the June
    21 lightning storm. And I got to be in one of those areas where
    the Quincy Library Group had struggled for so long to come to
    agreement as to how it might be managed, and it had finally
    made it through all the legal process and then got caught up in
    one of those fires and burned hard. Burned very, very hard.
        I was there with the forest supervisor and the district
    ranger, and that was----
        Senator Feinstein. So if we had done it 10 years ago, when
    we tried to do it?
        Ms. Kimbell. The fire may not have been as big as it was or
    as hot as it was, and the damage that it did to the watershed.
    So this year, we are expecting to treat overall with Quincy
    Library Group 30 projects, 18,000 acres, and there is the
    potential for more if there are some things that can work
    through the collaboration. And we are very hopeful.
        Senator Feinstein. Let me ask you, is that enough to keep a
    mill alive and the jobs or not?
        Ms. Kimbell. It is 150,000 million board feet. That is a
    lot of wood, and yet given the market conditions across the
    country, it is still very difficult to keep a market alive when
    the Random Lengths Index is so very low. And with all the
    announcements that have been coming from California and from
    Montana about the competitiveness in the world, it really makes
    it hard to keep a mill open in the United States.
        Senator Feinstein. I just want to say I very much welcome
    your oversight and trying to push people. You know, there is an
    effort at collaboration. There is an effort at compromise.
        Ms. Kimbell. Yes.
        Senator Feinstein. And it seems to me that unless--if this
    fails, the only alternative is for us to go ahead with very
    stringent legislation like a categorical exemption, which
    nobody wants to do. But that is all we are left with if these
    fires keep happening, and you have got the collaboration
    between the environmentalists and others to try to solve the
    problem and they can't solve the problem.
        Ms. Kimbell. And we very much want QLG to be successful, as
    well as a number of other collaborative groups. These are
    people giving their own time, coming together weekend after
    weekend or Tuesday night after Tuesday, drinking bad coffee
    to--well, I don't know. Maybe they drink good coffee?
        Senator Feinstein. I have spoken to Senator Tester about
    this, and he has the same issues in his State. There, he really
    believes that collaboration is going to work, and I hope that
    is true because there are so many problems in these forests.
        Ms. Kimbell. Yes, and having the social license to be able
    to do the work we need to do to be able to avoid this kind of
    catastrophic damage that we have been seeing over the last 10
    years from wildfire is very, very important. We need to have a
    market that will be able to use these materials that we remove,
    and we need to have the social license to be able to remove
    those materials.
        And these collaborative groups have been a tremendous help
    in moving some of that forward.
        Senator Feinstein. That is right. Thank you.
        Senator, do you have additional questions?
        If I may, I am going to turn this hearing over to you----
        Senator Alexander. And I will be right behind you.
        Senator Feinstein [continuing]. And then if you have to
    leave?
        Senator Alexander. Jon, do you have any other questions?
        Senator Tester. I don't. Thank you.
        Senator Feinstein. I have to go to the floor. So----
        Senator Alexander. Well, I don't really have another
    question. I think you have been very helpful.
        Thank you, Madam Chair.
        Senator Feinstein. May I say thank you, Chief, very, very
    much. I have come to watch you and know you over the years and
    really believe you are doing a good job.
        Ms. Kimbell. Thank you, Madam Chairman.

                         ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS

        Senator Feinstein. And I want to thank all of your staff
    and people for this. American forests are very important to us,
    and the work you do is very much appreciated.
        So thank you, and thank you very much.
        Ms. Kimbell. Thanks so much, Madam Chairman.
        [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

                                     FUELS

        Question. Since 2006, more than 3 million acres have burned in my
    home State of California alone. It's clear that more progress must be
    made to treat hazardous fuels in order to deal with the dead, dying,
    and downed trees on our national forests. How many high-priority acres
    does the Forest Service have nationwide that require treatment? How
    much progress has the agency made toward treating these priority acres?
        Answer. The LANDFIRE project will provide a national appraisal of
    vegetative conditions and provide information which will allow the
    agency to make an informed assessment of the number of high-priority
    acres that need to be treated to mitigate the wildfire situation.
    Between fiscal years 2000 and 2008, the Forest Service treated more
    than 17.6 million acres of hazardous fuels nationwide across National
    Forest System lands. Treatments were conducted in high-priority areas
    to create or maintain conditions that are at a reduced risk of
    catastrophic fire. Additional funding has been provided to the States
    to reduce fire hazard on State and private lands.

                             FIREFIGHTER RETENTION

        Question. As you know, the subcommittee provided $28 million this
    fiscal year to fund recruitment and retention initiatives for areas
    like California that face staffing shortages. I have not yet received
    the final spending plan for these funds required by the 2009 Interior
    bill. What are the details of how the money will be used? How are you
    using these funds to ensure your firefighting corps is fully staffed,
    and why did you select the initiatives you chose? What evidence do you
    have that these initiatives are working?
        Answer. The Forest Service appreciates the patience of the
    Appropriations Committee in allowing the agency to develop a
    comprehensive recruitment and retention plan. The regional forester
    implemented a process across the State with line officers and employees
    to identify integrated elements for retention within his authority in
    four areas: mission related to fire suppression, workplace improvement,
    fire facilities, and pay. The approaches taken are expected to improve
    firefighter retention within the region and will be monitored to ensure
    their effectiveness. The region's efforts include:
      --Fire Suppression Mission.--The regional forester has reiterated the
            Agency's fire suppression focus for National Forest System
            lands and his commitment to agency policy, and the 2008
            Wildland Urban Interface Operating Principles. Additionally,
            the Regional Forester has reiterated the Agency's role in ``all
            risk'' missions based on Homeland Security Presidential
            Directive 5, including the expectation that Agency
            participation in medical response should be by exception, and
            not the rule.
      --Workplace Improvement.--The regional forester will implement a wide
            range of actions including increased opportunities for
            leadership training at all levels, authorizing additional
            administrative and technical support personnel at local units,
            authorizing the promotion of apprentice employees to GS-5
            within the program, and authorizing permanent, seasonal tours
            for firefighters outside of the Apprentice program to be
            adjusted to permanent full-time tours (for those employees
            wishing to do so).
      --Fire Facilities.--A list of projects that would have an impact
            toward improving health, safety, and mission capacity has been
            developed. Once funding is available, the regional forester
            will provide direction to implement these projects. In the long
            term, the regional forester will direct the region to complete
            the strategic facility master plan, which will allow fire
            facility needs to be analyzed on a regional scale instead of
            the forest-by-forest process currently in place.
      --Pay.--The regional forester has taken actions within his authority:
        --Firefighter Seasonal to Permanent Full-time Tour Conversion.--On
                March 4, 2009, the regional forester authorized forest
                supervisors to convert permanent seasonal firefighter
                positions to permanent full-time. Permanent seasonal
                firefighters are those employees who normally work 6-9
                months per year and are in a nonpay status for the balance
                of the year. Approximately 1,555 positions are eligible for
                the conversion, but more than 700 of those positions are
                currently vacant and reserved for apprentice firefighters
                who are ineligible for conversion. Apprentices will be
                placed into those vacancies as permanent full-time
                firefighters upon completion of their training. In fiscal
                year 2010, the region estimates that approximately 780
                formerly seasonal positions will have been converted to
                full time resulting in an increased cost to the region of
                about $9.5 million. In future years, as employee retention
                levels increase and apprentices graduate into current
                vacancies, the number of formerly seasonal positions that
                have been converted to full time will increase annual costs
                to the region. The potential increased costs to the region
                could rise as high as $21.5 million a year if all 1,555
                positions are eventually converted. However, these
                employees will be available to perform project work in
                ecosystem restoration, hazardous fuels reduction, biomass-
                to-energy, and other important agency priorities.
        --Firefighter 10 Percent Retention Incentive.--On March 1, 2009, a
                10 percent retention incentive for GS-5 through GS-8
                firefighters was authorized. Thirteen hundred (1,300)
                firefighters received the benefit, which will continue to
                be reflected in employees' paychecks. The current
                authorization is for 1 year (26 pay periods). The retention
                incentive will be reviewed prior to expiration in 2010 to
                determine if it is having an effect on attrition patterns.
                The additional cost for the 10 percent retention incentive
                for 1 year is approximately $7 million.
        In addition, the agency is assessing the options of a new wildland
    firefighter series and a special salary rate for California. Both of
    these options will require Office of Personnel Management approval. The
    agency will evaluate the effectiveness of the recruitment and retention
    plan actions with two metrics. First, the region will assess vacancy
    rate trends in GS-6 through GS-8 positions. Second, agency will monitor
    the resignation trends of firefighters.
        Question. Does the Forest Service plan to renew retention efforts
    in California for the coming fiscal year, fiscal year 2010? Your budget
    request didn't include funds to continue retention initiatives and, in
    fact, flat-lined the fire preparedness budget at $675 million. If the
    Forest Service plans to continue these efforts, how do you propose to
    pay for them?
        Answer. The agency will assess the effectiveness of the regional
    recruitment and retention actions at the end of the fiscal year. The
    actions taken this year will increase annual baseline costs. We expect
    that any actions will be funded through regional program funding
    allocations along with carryover from the original earmark of $25
    million to cover the costs of renewing the 10 percent retention
    incentive and the projected promotion of permanent seasonal employees
    to permanent full-time status.
        Question. It is my understanding that the Forest Service is also
    continuing to look at other potential, long-term retention strategies,
    which include a special pay rate, a firefighter GS series, and a
    portal-to-portal pay system. Please provide me with specific updates on
    what steps you are taking to consider each of these strategies,
    including a timeline for review and decisionmaking for each. Please
    include any information that is available on current cost projections
    for implementing each of these strategies.
        Answer. The agency is looking at several long-term strategies.
      --Firefighter Series.--The agency is nearly finished assessing
            options and estimating the workload necessary to develop a
            proposal for a new wildland firefighter job series. The
            assessment requires an extensive job analysis to determine job
            requirements and is a Service-wide effort being coordinated
            with other wildland fire agencies in the Department of the
            Interior. Once the job analysis and proposal is completed,
            Office of Personnel Management (OPM) will make the final
            determination. Completing the analysis and gaining approval
            from the OPM will take time.
      --Special Salary Rate.--The Forest Service currently has a special
            salary rate for wildland firefighters in certain southern
            California counties. For most GS grades (GS-3 through GS-9),
            the special salary rate is slightly above the locality pay for
            these areas. For GS grades starting at the GS-10, the locality
            pay is actually higher than the special rate in both the Los
            Angeles and San Diego area. The agency is currently analyzing
            the effect of the current special salary rate and whether a
            special salary rate for the rest of California would affect
            recruiting and retaining firefighters. The analysis will
            consider effects from the 10 percent retention incentive.
            Similar to requirements for a new firefighter series, the OPM
            requires a rigorous analysis and justification for any new
            special salary rate. The analysis will take time for the agency
            to prepare and work with the OPM.
      --Portal-to-Portal Pay.--This option is not being considered by the
            agency at this time.
        The cost for each of these is not known.
                 marijuana enforcement on national forest lands
        Question. Over the past 3 years, I've worked to increase the Forest
    Service's law enforcement budget by $25 million to fight marijuana
    cultivation on national forests. I'm extremely concerned that
    cultivation sites continue to be a danger to public safety, as these
    gardens are often guarded by armed drug traffickers. What progress have
    you made in eradicating these marijuana gardens? Please provide
    relevant statistics, both nationally and for California only, to
    support your response (i.e., number of plants eradicated, number of
    arrests made, number of prosecutions, etc.).
        Answer. The Forest Service has made the following progress in
    eradicating the marijuana gardens both nationally and for California as
    follows:

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        Fiscal year     Fiscal year     Fiscal year
                               Nationally                                  2006            2007            2008
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Marijuana plants eradicated.....................................       1,221,989       2,050,368       3,295,870
    Sites eradicated................................................             497             462             714
    Sites tended by foreign nationals...............................             216             256             245
    Felony drug arrests.............................................             327             319             424
    Firearms seized.................................................             249             274             330
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        Fiscal year     Fiscal year     Fiscal year
                          Region 5 (California)                            2006            2007            2008
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Marijuana plants eradicated.....................................       1,060,114       1,878,589       2,655,916
    Sites eradicated................................................             250             328             437
    Sites tended by foreign nationals...............................             197             241             208
    Felony drug arrests.............................................              78              78             198
    Firearms seized.................................................              37              71             154
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Question. I am very concerned about natural resource damage caused
    by marijuana gardens. I believe that efforts to clean up these sites
    will require dedicated funding. In fiscal year 2009, I provided a
    $500,000 increase to your budget specifically to clean up national
    forest lands after drug eradication operations. How will the funds be
    used? Did you continue these funds in your budget request?
        Answer. The fiscal year 2009 Omnibus Appropriation Act earmarked
    $500,000 for rehabilitation of drug cultivation sites. This earmark was
    distributed in the final allocation based on each region's percent of
    cultivation sites identified in the LEIMARS database. The following
    regions received additional funding for restoration of drug cultivation
    sites: region 3--$10,000; region 4--$15,000; region 5--$310,000; region
    8--$140,000; and region 9--$25,000. Regions were also provided
    direction that additional vegetation and watershed management program
    funds may be utilized for rehabilitation of drug cultivation sites,
    based on regional watershed restoration objectives and priorities. In
    addition to these funds, regions should utilize minerals and geology
    management program funds for the clean-up of sites contaminated with
    hazardous materials.
        The fiscal year 2010 President's budget request increased funding
    for watershed restoration activities from $57.1 million in fiscal year
    2009 to $60.2 million in fiscal year 2010. Accomplishment of drug site
    restoration would be prioritized along with other watershed restoration
    needs, including those generated by wildfire and other natural events.
    Watershed restoration needs in high-priority watersheds, such as
    municipal watersheds will receive priority for available restoration
    dollars; and this will include treatment of drug cultivation sites with
    the potential to impact water quality in these watersheds.
        Question. How much additional funding is needed to clean up
    remaining cultivation sites, both nationally and in California?
        Answer. The agency will address reclamation and restoration with
    available funding on a priority basis. Cost for individual site
    reclamation will vary greatly, and a comprehensive assessment of these
    costs has not been completed. These sites create extensive resource
    damage, such as terraced soils, access trails; stream diversions;
    vegetation and timber removed, hazardous chemicals and buried
    irrigation systems.

                          FIREFIGHTING AVIATION NEEDS

        Question. The Forest Service primarily depends on an aging fleet of
    old military P2-V and P-3 aircraft to serve as air tankers for initial
    attack on wildfires. The Forest Service is currently contracting 18 air
    tankers to fight fires--that's down from a peak of 44 aircraft in
    2002--and I am very concerned that you continue to lose more aircraft
    each year to accidents and airworthiness concerns. How long will the
    rest of your air tanker fleet be able to fly safely? Please provide
    specific data for both types of aircraft.
        Answer. The P-3 is currently supported by the manufacturer,
    Lockheed Martin, which provides service life extension programs for
    these aircraft as they approach retirement. The P2-V, however, is not
    supported by a manufacturer. We anticipate that P2-V fleet could be
    expended as early as 2022. Aircraft accidents continue to reduce
    airtanker numbers by approximately .5 aircraft per year.
        Question. What role will the Modular Airborne FireFighting System
    (MAFFS) II units need to play as the Forest Service's air tanker fleet
    ages?
        Answer. The MAFFS program has traditionally provided additional
    capacity for the Forest Service and our interagency partners. The MAFFS
    II is a significant improvement in design and operational
    effectiveness. We are looking forward to continued partnership with the
    military and the MAFFS II tanks. At this time we do not anticipate
    needing additional MAFFS units to support the wildland fire program.
        Question. In 2005, the subcommittee directed the Forest Service to
    review its fleet and analyze future firefighting aviation needs. I
    understand that effort led to the development of a new firefighting
    aviation strategy, including recommendations that pertain to the future
    of the Forest Service's air tanker fleet. You have not yet made this
    strategy public. What is the administration's timeline for the release
    of this strategy? When will you make a copy of this strategy available
    to the subcommittee and to the public?
        Answer. The Forest Service, in cooperation with our interagency
    partners, has completed an extensive Interagency Aviation Strategy
    calling for replacement of critical firefighting assets. This document
    has been forwarded to the Acting Deputy Undersecretary for Natural
    Resources and Environment, USDA for discussion. Once discussion and
    review is complete we anticipate a decision.

                                CABIN USER FEES

        Question. What is the total annual cost to the Forest Service for
    administering the recreation residence program for each of the past 5
    fiscal years, including projected costs for fiscal year 2009? How many
    full-time employees (FTE) does the program require? Please provide the
    basis for how the costs were calculated, and separate out direct and
    indirect costs.
        Answer. The Forest Service accounting system does not distinguish
    the cost of performing recreation residence permit administration from
    the cost of processing and administering recreational permits overall.
    In fiscal year 2009, the total for the administration of recreation
    special use authorizations is estimated at $43.1 million and 338 FTEs.
    Of that planned amount, approximately $6.7 million are indirect costs
    or about 15.5 percent. The fiscal year 2009 estimate for administering
    recreation special uses overall is based on regions' capability data.
    The indirect cost estimate is based on fiscal year 2008 actual
    expenditures and that same indirect cost percentage is applied to
    fiscal year 2009 planned levels.
        Question. What are the real and projected costs to the Forest
    Service for implementing the Cabin User Fee Fairness Act of 2000
    (CUFFA) for the past 5 fiscal years, including fiscal year 2009? How
    much is budgeted for fiscal year 2010? Please separate direct and
    indirect costs.
        Answer. The cost of implementing the CUFFA is reflected in the
    direct appraisal costs estimated at $7 million from fiscal year 2007
    through fiscal year 2012 and an additional $1.3 million in indirect
    costs. CUFFA did not result in a significant increase in direct
    appraisal costs per appraisal cycle, but by requiring appraisals every
    10 years as opposed to the previous policy of every 20 years, CUFFA
    effectively doubled these costs. Indirectly, CUFFA resulted in a
    significant amount of time and money devoted to the writing of
    regulations, meeting with interested parties, and responding to the
    controversy generated by its implementation. The agency does not
    separately track these costs, as it is part of overall recreation
    permit program costs.
        Question. Specifically, what are the costs of new appraisals to
    implement CUFFA in fiscal years 2007, 2008, and 2009? What appraisal
    costs are budgeted for fiscal year 2010? What is the expected total
    cost of an entire appraisal cycle for all forests? Please explain how
    the overall CUFFA implementation costs and the appraisal costs were
    determined.
        Answer. Costs of new appraisal are spread out from fiscal year 2007
    through fiscal year 2012. Our accounting system does not split out
    these specific costs, but the agency has developed the following
    estimates based on known direct contract costs and review appraiser
    costs, and then projecting forward. An estimated additional $1.3
    million more than fiscal year 2007-fiscal year 2012 is estimated for
    indirect costs.

                                                [In thousands of dollars]
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                          Direct         Indirect
                               Fiscal year                               estimate        estimate     Total estimate
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    2007............................................................           1,600             300           1,900
    2008............................................................           1,800             300           2,100
    2009............................................................           1,600             300           1,900
    2010............................................................           1,000             200           1,200
    2011............................................................             600             100             700
    2012............................................................             400             100             500
                                                                     -----------------------------------------------
          Total.....................................................           7,000           1,300           8,300
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Question. How much revenue did the Federal Government receive from
    the fees paid for recreation residence permits in fiscal year 2008?
    Under current law and policies, how much revenue is the Federal
    Government projected to receive from fees paid for recreation residence
    permits in each fiscal years from fiscal year 2009 to fiscal year 2014?
        Answer. In fiscal year 2008, revenue received was $14.6 million.
    Assuming there is little change in fees from second appraisals and
    assuming the increase indicated from the completed appraisals is
    representative for the whole, the agency projects $40 million in annual
    fees upon full implementation. The last appraisals will be reviewed in
    fiscal year 2012 and will begin a 3-year phase-in in fiscal year 2014.
    Breaking out the increase over the intervening years would indicate the
    following estimates.

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  Amount
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Fiscal year 2009........................................              20
    Fiscal year 2010........................................              22
    Fiscal year 2011........................................              24
    Fiscal year 2012........................................              26
    Fiscal year 2013........................................              32
    Fiscal year 2014........................................              35
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                     ______

                    Question Submitted by Senator Judd Gregg

                             FOREST LEGACY PROGRAM

        Question. As you know, in the East, we feel very strongly about the
    need for funds to help us leverage purchases to protect land, and the
    Forest Legacy program is a vital part of that. The administration's
    fiscal year 2010 budget includes $1 million for a new, Community
    Forests Program within Forest Legacy. Is the Forest Service committed
    to ensuring robust funding for the Forest Legacy program and also
    ensuring that funding levels for successful existing programs, such as
    Forest Legacy, will not be adversely impacted as a result of funding
    for new programs?
        Answer. Both the Forest Legacy and Community Forests programs are
    important conservation tools that the Forest Service uses to conserve
    important open space and forest resources. In addition to the $1
    million for a new Community Forests program within the Forest Legacy
    program, the President's budget also included $34 million for the
    President's ``Conserve New Lands'' initiative. This new initiative
    reflects the administration's priorities in land conservation. The
    commitment to the program is also reinforced through the participation
    from States; in fiscal year 2010, 44 States submitted 87 projects with
    a value of $194 million. While the Forest Service is dedicated to all
    of its programs, it is explicitly committed to fulfilling the
    President's goals with respect to this new effort.

                               SUBCOMMITTE RECESS

        Senator Feinstein. The hearing is recessed.
        Ms. Kimbell. Thank you.
        [Whereupon, at 10:48 a.m., Wednesday, May 20, 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 2010

                                  ----------

                            WEDNESDAY, JUNE 3, 2009

                                           U.S. Senate,
               Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The subcommittee met at 9:49 a.m., in room SD-138, Dirksen
    Senate Office Building, Hon. Dianne Feinstein (chairman)
    presiding.
        Present: Senators Feinstein, Dorgan, Reed, Tester, and
    Alexander.

                           DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

                            Office of the Secretary

    STATEMENT OF HON. KEN SALAZAR, SECRETARY

                 OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR DIANNE FEINSTEIN

        Senator Feinstein. The hearing will come to order, and I
    would like to say good morning to everyone. And I would
    particularly like to say this is our third and final budget
    hearing before the Interior subcommittee.
        This morning, we are honored to have our distinguished
    former colleague and now Interior Department Secretary Ken
    Salazar. Mr. Salazar said when I met him in the hall, ``Are you
    going to give me a bad time this morning?'' And I said, ``How
    can we give you a bad time?'' Right?
        I mean, I think most of us in the Senate that have worked
    with Senator Salazar believe he is really a wonderful person,
    and we are so delighted that he is Secretary of the Interior.
    So this hearing should be a piece of cake.
        Joining the Secretary at the witness table this morning is
    Pam Haze, the Department's Budget Director. And so, I would
    like to say good morning to you, Ms. Haze. And it is a pleasure
    to see you again as well.
        Mr. Secretary, the budget request you are presenting today
    totals $10.98 billion. That is an increase over last year's
    level of $904 million, or 9 percent. This is the largest budget
    increase in the past several years and represents a real push
    in the right direction in several important areas.
        First, I would like to thank you very much for requesting
    full funding for the fire suppression account. Those of us in
    the West truly know its value. The $445 million in the Interior
    budget, along with the $1.4 billion in the Forest Service
    budget, brings the administration's total fire suppression
    request to $1.8 billion. That is the same amount actually spent
    on average on each of the 3 prior fiscal years.
        So this means that, if we are lucky, neither agency will
    have to borrow from its nonfire accounts, which happens every
    year, and then hope and pray that the Congress replenishes
    these funds. That is not a good way to do business, and I would
    like to applaud you for stepping up to the plate and
    acknowledging what fire suppression really costs.
        I would also like to thank you for allocating for full
    fixed costs within your budget. As a former mayor, I know that
    setting aside funds to pay for such things as increased rent,
    utilities, and employee healthcare costs are not the fun things
    we like to put in our budgets.
        But the fact is that over the past 8 years, the Department
    has absorbed more than $500 million in unfunded fixed costs,
    and that just can't keep going on and on.
        That money came out of programs just the same as if the
    cuts had been proposed up front. So congratulations on
    reversing that trend.
        There are also substantial increases in funding for the
    Land and Water Conservation Fund, for the National Park
    Service, for energy development, and for a climate change
    initiative. All in all, you have presented us with a robust
    budget, and I think in whole that this will be favorably
    received.
        In the interest of time, Mr. Secretary, I am not going to
    go through every line in your budget, but I will say that I
    hope to engage you in questions on renewable energy
    development, abandoned mines, and drugs on public lands.
        I would now like to recognize my very distinguished ranking
    member. I welcome him to this position and enjoy working with
    him, Senator Alexander.

                      STATEMENT OF SENATOR LAMAR ALEXANDER

        Senator Alexander. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
        Secretary Salazar, welcome back. It is good to see you, as
    the chairman said. We miss you, but we are glad you are able to
    make the contribution that you are today.
        I will reserve most of my comments until question time. But
    let me just mention the areas in which I am especially
    interested.
        You and I worked together on the Land and Water
    Conservation Fund, had a little success on that across the
    aisle in finding a permanent source of funding for Land and
    Water Conservation Fund. I hope that is one of your legacies as
    Secretary of the Interior, and I would like to work with you on
    that.
        I would like to talk with you a little bit about the
    funding for the Great Smoky Mountains National Park, which has
    two or three times the visitors of some of our other popular
    parks, but about half the funding just because of circumstances
    of history.
        I would like to ask you a question about helicopter
    overflights in the parks. It seems like a small item, but there
    are supposed to be plans developed for dealing with those
    things. And since the law was passed in 2000, no plans have
    been developed. I would like to find out what we can do to move
    that ahead.
        And then picking up on what the chairman said, I have got
    some questions about what I would call the upcoming renewable
    energy sprawl. Those aren't my words. Those are the words of a
    conservation group.
        We all want renewable energy, but the landscape is an
    important part of the environment as well. And you come from a
    beautiful State. I do, too. The chairman does, too. And we want
    to make sure that before we embark on these renewable energy
    projects, they are massive in size, and we know what we are
    doing and that we take time to make sure we don't destroy the
    environment in the name of saving the environment.
        And I hope another of your legacies is to take the words
    that you used when you slowed down the Utah oil and gas lease
    sales. You talked about responsibly developing oil and gas
    supplies in a thoughtful and balanced way that allows us to
    protect our signature landscapes and cultural resources. That
    applies to oil and gas, but also applies to large solar plants,
    to wind turbines on ridge tops, to how close to the shore we
    would put wind turbines as you authorize them. And that will be
    another area of my questions.
        But welcome. I look forward to working with you.
        I thank the chairman.
        [The statement follows:]

                            INSERT 6A FOLLOWS-- deg.

        Senator Feinstein. Mr. Secretary, welcome. We very much
    would like to hear from you.

                     SUMMARY STATEMENT OF HON. KEN SALAZAR

        Secretary Salazar. Thank you very, very much, Chairman
    Feinstein and Ranking Member Alexander. Both of you are great
    Senators and great former colleagues and present colleagues of
    mine because I view my role as Secretary of the Interior as
    being interwoven with the work of your subcommittee and your
    leadership and the work of your great staff.
        We have many chapters to write together in the years ahead
    on issues that I know we share a common value. The issues that
    we are working on are not Democratic or Republican issues, they
    are issues for America and for all of our population.
        I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today,
    and I have a statement that I will submit for the record. And I
    would like, if it would be okay with the chairperson, to make a
    few comments about the budget overall and my priorities?
        Senator Feinstein. It would. Please proceed.
        Secretary Salazar. When I came into the position of
    Secretary of the Interior, one of the things that I wanted to
    do was to make sure that the people of this country understood
    the responsibilities of this Department. It truly is the
    Department of the Americas. We have responsibilities for 20
    percent of the landmass of the United States, and 1.75 billion
    acres of the Outer Continental Shelf (OSC), and we have
    responsibilities that go from pole-to-pole and include the
    territories of the United States.
        Some, I think, in the past have felt the Department was
    only a department for the West. But as Senator Alexander knows,
    the Great Smokies are one of the icons of our National Park
    System. The wildlife refuges of Florida or the great parks and
    assets that we have in California and the tribal issues that we
    have all over this country really mean that we are enmeshed in
    all of the great issues that cover our landscapes and the
    peoples of America.
        One of the first things I did was I went to the Statue of
    Liberty because I wanted to make sure that people understood
    that this Department was a department of the United States of
    America.
        Within the work that President Obama has asked me to do on
    behalf of this administration are the following five
    priorities, and I look forward to working very closely with all
    of you on these issues.

           CREATING A NEW ENERGY FRONTIER AND TACKLING CLIMATE CHANGE

        The first is creating a new energy frontier and tackling
    the challenges of climate change. This budget reflects our
    priorities with respect to renewable energy, how we move
    forward to harness the power of the sun, the power of
    geothermal, the power of the wind, but to do it in an
    environmentally conscious way.
        We are, as Senator Alexander spoke about and with respect
    to the statement that I said on the Utah lease sales, making
    sure that as we move forward with the development of a
    renewable energy world, which we are going to develop, that we
    are also thoughtful and mindful of making sure that we are
    protecting those landscapes that both of you have fought so
    hard for so many decades and which I believe are very much an
    important part of my role as Secretary of the Interior.

                              TREASURED LANDSCAPE

        Second, I will work very hard to establish a treasured
    landscapes agenda for the United States of America. At the
    request of Senator Alexander a few weeks ago, maybe a few
    months ago now, I met with Henry Diamond and a number of other
    people who were involved in the original creation of the Land
    and Water Conservation Fund.
        When one looks back at those conversations that took place
    in the Secretary of the Interior's office with Stewart Udall,
    you are left with a sense, given our fights together here to
    put funding into a Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF),
    that there truly has been a breach of the trust with the
    American people relative to the investment of resources that we
    have gotten from the Earth, which belongs to the American
    people in the form of public lands.
        When LWCF was created, the thought was that we would take
    royalties from offshore oil and gas development, as well as
    some from onshore, and we would create a trust fund from which
    would flow the investments to make the landscapes that both of
    you have fought so hard to protect a reality. The fact is, last
    year, we raised about $24 billion through the activities of the
    Minerals Management Service (MMS) and the Bureau of Land
    Management (BLM), and at the end of the day, there was only
    $255 million that was appropriated from the Land and Water
    Conservation Fund.
        I will look forward to working with both of you, working
    with the White House, and working with our colleagues in the
    House to take a moon shot with respect to investing in the
    treasured landscapes of America. That will take us to the
    restoration of great places like the Bay Delta in California
    from an ecosystem perspective, to the Chesapeake Bay, to what
    we do in the Everglades, to the kinds of investments that,
    Senator Alexander, you want to make in the heritage and future
    of the Great Smoky Mountains National Park.
        And so, there is a great agenda that I want to work on with
    you all.

                     21ST CENTURY YOUTH CONSERVATION CORPS

        Third, I will help usher in with all of you, a new 21st
    century Youth Conservation Corps that reflects the realities of
    our times here in the 21st century. We need to get our young
    people connected to our landscapes in terms of environmental
    education and understanding the importance of stewardship.
        This budget reflects that priority, for example, by
    allocating $30 million for hunting and fishing programs for
    young people in the form of a grant program that will be made
    available to the States. It also includes $20 million for
    educational and service programs for young people in the
    Department of the Interior.
        This summer alone, based on money that you made available
    and direction that we had from you and others here in the
    Congress, we will have 15,000 young people that will be working
    with us in the Department of the Interior, helping us restore
    trails and doing other kinds of service that are important in
    terms of engaging young people.

                     EMPOWERING NATIVE AMERICAN COMMUNITIES

        Fourth, we will do everything we can to empower the
    Nation's Native American communities. The issues of law
    enforcement, economic development, and education are huge
    challenges for Native Americans all across this country. Those
    issues are addressed in this budget by adding additional
    resources in law enforcement and in education. They build off
    of the investments that we made through the Recovery Act into
    those agendas.
        Assistant Secretary of Indian Affairs Larry Echo Hawk and I
    have already had several meetings on his first week of the job
    where we are moving forward with respect to the agenda on our
    Native American communities.

                                     WATER

        Finally, I will work very hard to help address some of the
    vexing water problems that face us that are connected to how we
    deal with taking care of our wildlife and our plant species.
    The Bay Delta in California is a great example of one of those
    very complex water supply issues, which also has many other
    facets to it. The issues between Florida, Georgia, and Alabama
    with respect to the allocation of water on their rivers is also
    one of those issues that we will work on.
        Those are some of my priorities. I am proud of the budget
    that we have presented to all of you. I look forward to working
    with you in the days to come.

                               PREPARED STATEMENT

        I appreciate the confirmation that you gave to Assistant
    Secretary for Policy, Management, and Budget Director Rhea Suh.
    Rhea Suh comes here, I think, in her first day on the job
    today, to hear the testimony before us.
        Rhea, I think you are here. Here she is. I want to
    introduce Rhea because she will be working with us on a lot of
    these issues.
        Thank you very much.
        [The statement follows:]

                       Prepared Statement of Ken Salazar

        Chairman Feinstein and members of the subcommittee, I am pleased to
    be here today to present the details of the 2010 budget request for the
    Department of the Interior (DOI). I want to thank the Chairman and this
    subcommittee for its interest in and support for Department of the
    Interior programs, most notably those that ensure the stewardship of
    the Nation's natural and cultural resources and our special
    relationship with Native Americans and Insular Areas. Your interest in
    this department and support for Interior's programs has helped to build
    a strong foundation for a clean energy future and to tackle climate
    change impacts, conserve our treasured landscapes, and empower Native
    American communities. I look forward to working closely with this
    subcommittee to build on that foundation.

                                  INTRODUCTION

        I am honored to serve as the 50th Secretary of the Interior and to
    oversee this Department and its 67,000 dedicated employees. Our
    expansive mission stretches from coast to coast. It spans the continent
    from the subtropical Everglades in Florida, west across 12 time zones
    to the insular areas in the Pacific, and north to the vast tundra in
    Alaska. Our land and community-based programs touch the lives of most
    Americans, including 1.7 million Native Americans and Alaska Natives.
        Interior manages 500 million acres or about 1 in every 5 acres in
    the United States, including 391 National Park units, 550 wildlife
    refuges, the 27 millionacre National Landscape Conservation System, and
    other public lands. These places are treasured landscapes and serve as
    economic engines for tourism and growth opportunities for recreation,
    wildlife conservation, and responsible resource use.
        The Department's public lands and 1.7 billion acres on the Outer
    Continental Shelf (OSC) supply nearly one-third of the Nation's
    domestic energy production. These resources are vital to the Nation's
    energy security and provide economic returns to the Nation. In 2010, an
    estimated $14 billion in revenues will be generated from these lands
    and waters.
        The Department fulfills its special responsibilities to Native
    Americans managing one of the largest land trusts in the world
    including over 56 million acres held in trust for Indian tribes and
    individual Indians, over $3.4 billion of funds held in over 2,700 trust
    accounts for approximately 250 Indian tribes, and over 380,000 open
    Individual Indian Money accounts. The Bureau of Indian Education (BIE)
    school system provides services to approximately 42,000 students in 23
    States attending 183 elementary and secondary schools and supports 30
    tribally controlled community colleges, universities, and postsecondary
    schools.
        The Department of the Interior is truly the department of America.
    We are uniquely positioned to provide enduring benefits to the American
    people. Our 2010 budget will allow us to make wise and prudent
    investments that will allow us to maximize opportunities to realize the
    potential of our lands and waters, resources, and people.

                               THE FIRST 100 DAYS

        Today I celebrate my 134th day as the Secretary of the Interior. It
    has been an exciting time as we have begun to impact how the Department
    of the Interior does business. We have already implemented changes to
    improve accountability, transparency, and ethical reform; established a
    vision for a new energy frontier that will help to produce and transmit
    renewable energy from our public lands while protecting our treasured
    landscapes and environmental quality; set an agenda for protecting
    America's open spaces and treasured landscapes with stewardship and
    enhanced climate impacts management based on sound science; started
    restoring the Government-to-government relationship with Indian tribes;
    announced a new 21st Century Youth Conservation Corps; and implemented
    the President's economic recovery plan.
        We have released detailed implementation plans for $3 billion
    appropriated in the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act that could
    create as many as 100,000 jobs in communities across the Nation, while
    significantly improving the safety and energy efficiency of our
    facilities; the state of our roads and trails; and habitat for wildlife
    including endangered species. This funding will also help to
    significantly accelerate efforts to realize the clean energy potential
    of our public lands by funding environmental planning, studies, and
    analyses.
        Thanks to your support, the Recovery Act provided $2 billion for
    the programs funded by this subcommittee. Over 40 percent of these
    funds will be spent on deferred maintenance projects including road and
    trail maintenance, and 35 percent will be spent on construction and
    capital improvement projects. We are building and repairing Indian
    schools, stabilizing America's signature park structures, retrofitting
    our buildings to improve energy efficiency, restoring landscapes for
    wildlife and people, correcting safety hazards such as abandoned mines,
    and clearing trails. These projects will stimulate local economies
    across the Nation by providing employment opportunities and will make
    our parks, refuges and public lands more welcoming for over 450 million
    people that visit our lands each year.
        Throughout the development of our Recovery Act program, I worked
    closely with the Bureaus to encourage them to find the most meritorious
    projects. I believe that we have chosen well and that our projects will
    maximize job creation, help to stimulate the economy, meet the
    prescribed timeframes for completion, provide lasting benefits, and
    make you proud that you invested in our programs.
        Our Recovery Act investments in the Bureau of Land Management (BLM)
    will lay the groundwork for a critical national priority--achieving a
    clean and independent energy future. BLM will jump-start renewable
    energy development activities by conducting the regional environmental
    impact assessments and technical studies needed to pro-actively
    identify areas suitable for potential development, while ensuring we
    protect our treasured landscapes and ensure substantive public input.
    This investment is the first step to fulfill a commitment I made in a
    March 11 Secretarial Order making the production, development, and
    delivery of renewable energy top priorities for the Department. I
    established an energy and climate change task force to spur a clean
    energy future and identify specific zones on public lands where
    Interior can facilitate a rapid and responsible move to large-scale
    production of solar, wind, geothermal, and biomass energy. For these
    renewable energy zones to succeed Interior will need to work closely
    with other Federal agencies, States, and tribes to identify electric
    transmission infrastructure and transmission corridors that are needed
    to deliver these renewable resources to major population centers, while
    preserving the values of our treasured landscapes and protecting the
    environment.
        Through the investments we are making with Recovery Act funding we
    will conserve America's timeless treasures and icons of our culture and
    heritage. Our projects will restore monuments, stunning natural
    landscapes, and parks and public lands that are integral to the lives
    of communities across the country. During the first 100 days of this
    administration the Congress enacted and President Obama signed the
    Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009, which will help us protect
    these important assets. In addition, our Recovery Act plan includes
    2,291 projects in National Parks, refuges, and public lands. These
    projects will accelerate our efforts to restore and protect natural and
    cultural resources.
        You directed us to utilize our partnerships with the Student
    Conservation Association and other entities to expand youth engagement
    through the Recovery Act. We are using Recovery Act funding for youth
    partnerships that will launch our 21st Century Youth Conservation Corps
    initiative. This initiative will build capacity to engage young people
    in the outdoors and create a lasting interest in our treasured
    landscapes and cultural history. I have established an Office for Youth
    Programs to improve the coordination of Bureau educational and outreach
    activities in order to seize this opportunity to invite our children
    and young adults into the outdoors.
        My first 134 days sets the stage for the future of this Department,
    and our 2010 budget gives us optimism about the days ahead and our
    ability to fulfill our bold agenda.

                          OVERVIEW OF THE 2010 BUDGET

        The 2010 Interior budget request for current appropriations is
    $12.1 billion, $802 million or 7.1 percent above the level enacted by
    Congress for 2009. This comparison excludes $3 billion enacted in the
    American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. Permanent funding that
    becomes available as a result of existing legislation, without further
    action by the Congress, will provide an additional $6.1 billion,
    providing a total of $18.2 billion for Interior in 2010.
        The 2010 request includes $11 billion for programs funded by this
    subcommittee. This is an increase of $857 million above the level
    enacted for 2009. This comparison excludes $2 billion in enacted
    Recovery funding and $50 million requested by the President in 2009
    supplemental funds for wildland fire. About 19 percent of the 2010
    increase or $160.8 million will fully fund anticipated increases for
    pay, health benefits, unemployment and workers compensation, and other
    fixed costs.
        In 2010, Interior will continue an exemplary record of producing
    revenue for the American taxpayer. The estimate for revenue collections
    by the Department in 2010 is $14 billion, which exceeds the amount
    requested for current appropriations.
        The 2010 budget assumes the enactment of legislative initiatives to
    ensure better management of and a fair return for leasing on Federal
    lands and waters. These initiatives include a new fee on nonproducing
    Gulf of Mexico offshore oil and gas leases to encourage timely domestic
    energy development, repeal of oil and gas and geothermal mandatory
    spending authorizations included in the Energy Policy Act of 2005, and
    discontinuation of Abandoned Mine Land (AML) payments to certified
    States and tribes.
        The budget also anticipates increased revenues will be available
    beginning in 2010 from oil and gas royalty reform, a new fee for
    offshore facility inspections, and a fee for processing onshore oil and
    gas applications. I hope to be able to work closely with you on the
    consideration of these proposals in the budget.

                         CREATING A NEW ENERGY FRONTIER

        The energy challenges the United States faces are severe. The
    Nation has seen $4.00 per gallon gasoline and rising electricity costs.
    The Nation imports about 57 percent of the oil needed to fuel the
    country's transportation system, heat homes, and power the economy. The
    time has come to create new, clean sources of energy using the Nation's
    vast domestic resources. The President has a vision of energy
    independence driven by concerns about national security, economic
    security, and environmental health. His plan will steer the country
    onto a new energy path--one that creates new jobs and puts America out
    front in new, growing industries; one that promotes investment and
    innovation here at home; and one that makes responsible use of domestic
    resources.
        On Earth Day, the President announced the completion of new
    regulations for the development of renewable energy resources on the
    OCS. In addition, I recently reached agreement with Federal Energy
    Regulatory Commission Chairman Jon Wellinghoff on an approach to
    manage, permit, and issue licenses for hydrokinetic energy projects
    (e.g., wave or current energy projects) in offshore waters. These
    actions are setting in motion our collaborative efforts with the
    Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and others to create new
    opportunities for the production of wind, wave, and solar energy
    offshore.
        Renewable Energy.--Through its stewardship responsibilities,
    Interior is uniquely positioned to help achieve the President's vision
    of a clean and independent energy future. The BLM has identified about
    21 million acres of public land with high wind energy potential in the
    11 Western States and about 29 million acres with high solar energy
    potential in the 6 Southwestern States. There are also 140 million
    acres of public land in Western States and Alaska that have significant
    geothermal resource potential. In addition, there is considerable wind
    and wave energy potential offshore. The National Renewable Energy
    Laboratory has identified more than 1,000 gigawatts of wind potential
    off the Atlantic coast, and more than 900 gigawatts of wind potential
    off the Pacific coast.
        The 2010 budget request includes $50.1 million to invest in
    renewable energy development on Interior public lands and waters.
    Through this initiative, we will engage the combined talents of the
    Department's bureaus: facilitating the development of renewable energy
    on public lands, developing a robust OCS renewable energy program, and
    using science to identify areas with the highest potential for
    responsible energy production on public and tribal lands. We will do
    all of this in a manner that respects our treasured landscapes and
    protects the natural and cultural values of the lands and resources
    that we manage.
        The BLM and BIA will facilitate development of renewable energy
    sources such as wind, solar, and geothermal energy on public and tribal
    lands, and will address the siting challenges associated with building
    a new transmission infrastructure. The 2010 request for the BLM
    proposes an increase of $16.1 million to leverage Recovery Act funds
    and build a capacity to address anticipated needs for renewable energy
    and transmission development on the public lands. The Bureau of Indian
    Affairs (BIA) economic development program will support the informed
    development of renewable energy resources on tribal lands with an
    increase of $4 million.
        The budget for the Minerals Management Service (MMS) includes an
    increase of $24 million to begin a program for renewable energy on the
    OCS. The MMS will conduct environmental and technological studies and
    prepare environmental analyses to develop competitive renewable energy
    lease sales, and issue and monitor leases for individual projects.
        With an increase of $3 million, USGS will develop scientific
    information on the distribution of renewable energy resources,
    including geothermal, biomass, wind, and solar to ensure
    environmentally sensitive development. An increase of $3 million for
    the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) consultation program will assure
    that renewable energy facilities are developed with careful attention
    to the stewardship of natural resources.
        Conventional Energy.--The administration's energy strategy includes
    the continued development and, where appropriate, expansion of domestic
    production of oil and gas and other mineral resources. The 2010 budget
    request includes increases of $16.9 million for BLM and MMS to continue
    programs that support 30 percent of the domestic energy production in
    the United States. The MMS will support the development of conventional
    energy resources with an increase of $5 million to facilitate continued
    oil and gas leasing. The budget for the BLM maintains the Bureau's
    capacity to process oil and gas applications for permits to drill
    through an increase of $11.9 million in appropriations and a proposed
    increase of $9.1 million in permit fee collections. These increases
    offset 2010 reductions in mandatory spending from rental revenues
    previously supporting these activities.
        Audit and Compliance.--The budget request includes funding in three
    bureaus to improve revenue collection and oversight activities, needs
    identified by the Government Accountability Office, the Department's
    Office of Inspector General, and other independent reviewers. The MMS
    budget includes $1.7 million to provide timely and accurate production
    and gas plant accountability data and $3 million to implement a risk-
    based audit and compliance protocol. There is an additional $2.5
    million requested for BLM's oil and gas management program to enhance
    production verification capabilities; and $1 million is requested in
    BIA to establish standards for renewable energy development.

                            TACKLING CLIMATE IMPACTS

        Inextricably linked with the need for a clean energy future is the
    need to tackle climate change impacts. With lands that range from the
    Arctic to the Everglades, Interior's managers observe the sometimes
    dramatic effects of a changing climate, including thawing permafrost
    and melting glaciers, changes in precipitation patterns, and sea level
    rise. In this dynamic context, Interior managers need information,
    tools, and resources to measure, understand, and respond to on-the-
    ground impacts. As the largest land manager in the Nation, Interior is
    positioned to pioneer adaptive management approaches to address the
    effects of climate change.
        In April of this year, the United States Geological Service (USGS)
    released a report prepared in close collaboration with the British
    Antarctic Survey indicating that Antarctica's glaciers are melting more
    rapidly than previously known because of climate change. The USGS study
    documents for the first time that one ice shelf has completely
    disappeared and another has lost a chunk three times the size of Rhode
    Island. This research is part of a larger ongoing project that is
    studying the entire Antarctic coastline.
        This study provides the first insight into the extent of
    Antarctica's coastal and glacier change. The rapid retreat of glaciers
    demonstrates the profound effects our planet is experiencing, with
    rates of change occurring more rapidly than previously known, as a
    consequence of climate change. The scientific work of USGS combined
    with the Department's on-the-ground resource management programs and
    States and tribes, are a critical component in the administration's
    commitment to combat climate impacts.
        The 2010 budget request for the Department includes increases
    totaling $133 million to address the impacts of climate change on land,
    water, and wildlife resources. The climate impacts initiative
    integrates the activities of the BLM, USGS, FWS, NPS, and BIA to
    measure and monitor climate-induced change and share information with
    State, tribal, and other managers and to formulate strategies to
    protect wildlife and habitats through adaptive resource management. The
    budget increase will allow the Bureaus to work collaboratively to
    expand capability in climate impact science, adaptive management
    techniques, and carbon sequestration.
        Monitoring Networks and Adaptive Strategies.--Interior's climate
    impacts initiative includes $65 million to establish a strong
    monitoring network that will comprehensively track and provide
    information on climate impacts on land, water, and wildlife resources
    and to develop adaptation strategies for improved management. The BLM,
    USGS, FWS, and NPS will work together to develop scientific data about
    climate-induced changes that are occurring and those that are predicted
    to occur, and then translate this scientific input into on-the-ground
    strategies for land and water managers.
        The majority, $80 million or 60 percent, of funding proposed for
    the Climate Impacts Initiative is within the 2010 request for the FWS.
    This includes two components: $40 million for grants to States and
    tribes, provided through the FWS State and Tribal Wildlife Grants
    program, and $40 million to tackle climate impacts on refuges,
    fisheries, and other resources.
        The State and Tribal Wildlife Grants component will assist with
    planning and implementing strategies, and activities to help fish and
    wildlife adapt to the impacts of climate change. The FWS climate impact
    component includes: $20 million in the Resource Management account to
    obtain the information needed to plan and deliver conservation
    activities that address the impacts of climate change on fish and
    wildlife and Their habitat. Biological planning, conservation design,
    and monitoring will be important in formulating our response to help
    wildlife adapt. FWS will use $12 million to plan, monitor, and
    implement climate change related adaptive management strategies on
    refuge lands and another $6 million to help fish and wildlife adapt to
    the impacts of climate change on private lands. Additionally, $2
    million will be used, through the National Fish Habitat Action Plan, to
    help freshwater fish and other aquatic species adapt.
        Additional increases for the Bureau of Land Management ($15
    million), the National Park Service ($10 million), and the BIA ($6
    million) will support resource assessment, monitoring, habitat
    restoration and climate impact mitigation efforts.
        Climate Impact Science.--The 2010 USGS budget includes an increase
    of $15 million within the Climate Impacts initiative for scientific
    research, forecasting, and modeling activities to better assess climate
    change impacts on national resources and develop response strategies.
    This funding will also expand priority climate change monitoring,
    develop regional collaborative research hubs through the National
    Climate Change and Wildlife Science Center, and collaborate on climate
    impact science.
        Carbon Sequestration.--Forest and rangelands, wetlands, and other
    landscapes managed by the Interior Department play a vital role in the
    carbon cycle. These natural systems soak up carbon dioxide and thereby
    reduce the harmful effects that carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping
    gases can otherwise cause. This absorptive capacity of our landscapes
    has played a key role in reducing the negative impacts of climate
    change. The Department's bureaus will enhance the absorptive capacity
    of lands by engaging in more aggressive re-vegetation and tree planting
    strategies, ecosystem restoration, wetland protection, and similar
    strategies, to enhance the carbon cleansing capability of natural
    systems.
        The 2010 budget includes an increase of $7 million for USGS to
    research both geological and biological carbon sequestration potential.
    In 2010, with the completion of its 12-month project to develop the
    appropriate methodology, USGS will begin the initial stages of a
    national assessment of geologic sequestration of carbon dioxide in
    saline formations and depleted oil and gas reservoirs. With this new
    funding, USGS will also develop methodologies to measure and assess
    biological carbon sequestration.
        A key aspect of climate impacts, particularly in the West, is
    increased variability of water supplies. Although the Bureau of
    Reclamation (BOR) is not within the jurisdiction of this subcommittee,
    the Bureau's water conservation, water basin studies and water
    recycling and reuse activities are an important complement to the
    Department's climate impacts initiative. The 2010 budget increases
    water conservation challenge grants by $26 million. The 2010 budget for
    the BOR also requests $64 million for 7 ongoing authorized BOR rural
    water projects that will help bring reliable water supplies to tribal
    and nontribal populations.

                        PROTECTING TREASURED LANDSCAPES

        In the spirit of the bold, visionary actions that President
    Theodore Roosevelt took when he established the first National Wildlife
    Refuge at Pelican Island, Florida, and developed a framework for the
    National Park System, President Obama is committed to the preservation
    of landscapes in parks, refuges, and other public lands. President
    Obama signed the Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009 on March 20
    and began a new era in land management with new, organic legislation
    for BLM's National Landscape Conservation System. This landmark
    legislation added 2 million acres of new wilderness and preserved 1,000
    miles of wild and scenic rivers. This act will allow us to protect some
    of America's most special places and is a wonderful addition to the
    legacy of treasured landscapes that we already manage.
        The 2010 President's budget signals this commitment with an
    unprecedented $2.3 billion for park operations, a program increase of
    $100 million above 2009 enacted levels. Funding will be focused on
    three key areas: building a solid foundation for parks, caring for
    America's treasures, and enhancing leadership in parks. Included in the
    operations funding increase is $57.5 million for park base funding.
    These funds will be used to enhance core visitor services and resource
    protection needs at 212 parks. An additional $21.7 million will be used
    to enhance major procurement and contracting services in parks,
    increase officer and civilian staffing in the United States Park
    Police, and build organizational capacity to better serve customers and
    recruit a new and diverse workforce.
        NPS has a long and impressive history of caring for America's
    natural and historic treasures and ensuring their continued
    appreciation, understanding and enjoyment. Today, as NPS readies itself
    for the next 100 years, efforts are underway to face a new set of
    challenges. The 2010 NPS budget request includes an additional $5
    million to enhance youth environmental education, vocation, and
    volunteer service opportunities through the Department's 21st Center
    Youth Conservation Corps initiative; $10 million to monitor, adaptively
    manage, and assess the impacts of climate change on park resources as a
    part of the climate impacts initiative; $4.9 million to enhance
    critical stewardship programs at parks through research, operational,
    and educational activities; $2.2 million to expand emergency storm
    damage response capability; and $150,000 to enhance visitor health and
    safety programs.
        The 2010 budget includes $3.9 million to address one of the long-
    term challenges facing NPS--the need to develop a workforce that
    reflects the changing and diverse face of America and demonstrates
    management excellence. The budget funds training for new
    superintendents and establishes a new leadership development program
    open to all employees to equip NPS managers with the skills to recruit
    and manage a diverse workforce.
        Park Partnerships.--The 2010 budget recognizes the strong American
    tradition of philanthropy for National Parks and includes $25 million
    for Park Partnership Project Grants. The combined benefit to the NPS
    would be over $50 million for signature projects or programs. This
    proposal mirrors the action that this subcommittee took in 2008 to fund
    programs and projects that will leave a lasting legacy for future
    generations.
        Any discussion of partnerships should recognize the achievements of
    our park superintendents and other land managers who work
    collaboratively with adjacent landowners, cooperating associations,
    other Federal agencies, State and local governments, and the
    communities in which they are situated. The Department recently lost
    one of its staunchest advocates for partnerships and someone who
    recognized the importance of parks as key elements of livable
    communities. Brian O'Neill served as the Superintendent of the Golden
    Gate National Recreation Area for 23 years. His vision ledto the
    realization of this diverse and creative park unit that hosts 200,000
    volunteers, the largest number of volunteer workers of any park in the
    world. Brian's leadership resulted in the successful creation of the
    Presidio partnership and turned Alcatraz from a decrepit former prison
    into a much visited tourist destination. Brian died on May 13, 2009,
    leaving a world-class legacy for future generations and models for
    partnerships that are being replicated throughout the country and the
    world.
        Investing in the Land and Water Conservation Fund.--Recognizing the
    importance of America's natural and recreational resources, in 1962 the
    Kennedy administration introduced legislation to establish a new
    Federal conservation fund. The next year, Kennedy repeated the
    proposal, writing to Congress, ``Actions deferred are all too often
    opportunities lost, particularly in safeguarding our natural
    resources.'' In 1964, Congress created the Land and Water Conservation
    Fund to conserve, develop, and utilize outdoor recreation resources for
    the benefit and enjoyment of the American people.
        The law sought to accomplish these goals by providing funds for
    acquisition and development of lands and by providing Federal
    assistance to States in recreation planning, acquiring lands and
    waters, and development of recreation facilities. These activities are
    funded through a trust fund that receives revenues primarily generated
    from OCS oil and gas drilling activities. Other funding sources include
    the sale of surplus Federal real property and taxes on motorboat fuel.
    The annual authorized level is $900 million; appropriations have been
    provided at this level only twice during the program's 45-year history.
    Over the life of the program, 7 million acres have been purchased with
    LWCF appropriations. More than 41,000 matching grants to State and
    local governments have been approved for acquisition, development, and
    planning of outdoor recreation opportunities in the United States.
        President Obama has a goal to fully fund the LWCF at $900 million
    annually by 2014. The 2010 President's budget includes $419.9 million,
    an increase of $115.8 million, as a first step toward achieving this
    goal. The 2010 budget includes $300.2 million for Interior LWCF
    programs and $119.7 million for the Forest Service. Within the Interior
    total is $170.2 million, an increase of $59.7 million, for protection
    of treasured landscapes.
        The 2010 request includes $30 million to assist States and local
    and tribal governments to protect and create park lands, open space,
    and wildlife habitat through competitively awarded LWCF grants. This is
    an increase of $11 million over the 2009 enacted level of $19 million.
    The 2010 budget request includes $27.2 million for grants and $2.8
    million for administration. An additional $10 million in State
    conservation grants is available from the LWCF in mandatory
    appropriations.
        The 2010 budget request includes $100 million, an increase of $24.5
    million over 2009, for the Cooperative Endangered Species Conservation
    Fund. This program provides grants to States for activities that
    conserve threatened and endangered species. States can, in turn, pass
    the funding on to municipalities, tribes, and private landowners to
    enlist their support in species conservation efforts.

                CREATING A 21ST CENTURY YOUTH CONSERVATION CORPS

        The future of resource conservation and management on the public
    lands depends upon the next generation's understanding of the
    importance of natural resources and cultural treasures. The 2010 budget
    includes a 21st Century Youth Conservation Corps initiative to signal a
    new emphasis on youth involvement. An Educating Young Hunters and
    Anglers component of the initiative addresses the President's Rural
    Agenda item to support the rights and traditions of sportsmen. The 21st
    Century Youth Conservation Corps initiative leverages the expansion of
    youth partnerships undertaken with Recovery Act funding and the
    creation of a new office to coordinate youth programs.
        The budget includes $50 million to develop new ways to engage youth
    and under represented groups in nature and help them to achieve
    environmental awareness and respect for America's exceptional natural
    resources. The initiative has two distinct components--educating young
    hunters and anglers and an environmental education component that will
    engage and encourage youth in environmental conservation and to seek
    careers in America's great outdoors.
        Educating Young Hunters and Anglers.--In support of the President's
    efforts to educate young hunters and anglers, the budget request
    includes $28 million for a new discretionary Federal Aid in Wildlife
    grants program to help States, territories, and tribes establish new,
    creative programs to engage young hunters, anglers, and wildlife
    managers. Special emphasis will be placed on under-represented groups.
    Included within the request is $2.8 million targeted specifically for
    grants to tribes.
        The 2010 budget request includes an increase of $1 million for the
    National Fish and Wildlife Foundation to establish a public-private
    partnership to promote these efforts. Another $1 million is included in
    the budget for the National Conservation and Training Center to provide
    workshops and other training to develop the capacity of Federal, State,
    and tribal agencies to develop new and creative methods to increase
    interest in hunting, fishing, and other wildlife management.
        21st Century Youth Conservation Corps.--Studies show that vast
    numbers of children spend much of their lives indoors playing video
    games or watching television, with little contact, understanding or
    appreciation of the natural world. A large body of evidence attributes
    improved health, particularly in youth, to nature and exposure to the
    natural environment. Childhood experiences with nature are associated
    with increased environmental awareness. An investment of $20 million
    will be made in BLM, USGS, FWS, and NPS to promote youth engagement and
    environmental awareness. Specifically, the 2010 budget identifies a
    three-pronged approach: engage youth in public service; enhance
    science-based programs offered through schools and community partners;
    and improve curricula of national environmental education programs. In
    addition to promoting health and environmental awareness, these
    resources will support efforts to develop an interest among talented
    and capable young people in entering public service as natural resource
    professionals.

                           EMPOWERING INDIAN COUNTRY

        President Obama has placed a high priority on restoring the
    Government-to-government relationship with Indian tribes. Restoring the
    relationship requires a commitment to helping Indian communities
    prosper, and the 2010 budget provides increased resources that will
    support this commitment. The 2010 budget provides increases totaling
    $102 million to strengthen law enforcement and provide expanded
    educational opportunities in the BIE school system and through tribal
    colleges and universities. The 2010 budget also funds enacted Indian
    Water Rights Settlements with an increase of $25.8 million.
        Protecting Indian Country.--The 2010 budget advances efforts to
    improve safety in Indian country with a comprehensive request to
    promote law enforcement. The 2010 budget for BIA makes new investments
    in officers on the street, specialized training, detention centers, and
    tribal courts. The 2010 proposal builds on the congressional support
    provided in 2008 and 2009, and provides an additional $30 million in
    program funding.
        The largest component of this initiative is an increase of $10.5
    million to aggressively address law enforcement staffing needs
    throughout Indian country. The additional funding will strengthen the
    law enforcement presence on Indian reservations by hiring additional
    officers. In order to meet the demand for these new officers, BIA must
    also expand its training capabilities. The budget includes $500,000 to
    establish the Indian Police Academy outreach program.
        One of the biggest challenges for Indian Affairs has been managing
    the individuals arrested as a result of increased officers and
    increased arrests. The initiative proposes $70.4 million for the
    corrections program, including an increase of $5.0 million to fund
    additional correctional officers, contracted bed space for prisoners,
    and an armed transport officer program. The initiative also includes an
    increase of $2 million above the 2009 enacted level of $6.3 million to
    specifically target the drug trade and reduce violent crime. This
    funding will advance intelligence gathering capabilities and provide
    additional support for victim and witness services.
        Another important component of the Indian Affairs justice system is
    the tribal courts program and sustained support for oversight and
    management. The initiative includes an increase of $8 million to
    improve the efficiency and operations of tribal courts and $4 million
    for the management functions.
        Advancing Indian Education.--The 2010 advancing indian education
    initiative will sustain $716.2 million enacted in 2009, and provides an
    additional increase of $72 million for education programs.
        The 2010 request of $391.7 million for the Indian Student
    Equalization Program formula funds includes an increase of $6.7 million
    in teacher pay to fund fixed costs and a $10 million program increase.
    These funds are one of the primary sources of funding for the BIE's 169
    elementary and secondary schools and 14 dormitories. Funds directly
    support schools for core operating costs, such as salaries for
    teachers, aides, administrators, support staff, and supplies and
    classroom materials. The 2010 request also includes $59.4 million for
    operation of elementary and secondary school facilities, an increase of
    $2 million above the 2009 enacted level. The program funds operational
    expenses for educational facilities at all 183 BIE schools and
    dormitories.
        The BIE is committed to assist Indian students to attain
    postsecondary educational credentials. The BIE administers operating
    grants for tribally operated colleges and universities. Included in
    this request is $64.3 million for tribal colleges and universities, an
    increase of $5 million over the 2009 enacted level. The budget also
    includes a one-time increase of $50 million to forward fund activities
    at tribal colleges and universities for the 2010-2011 school year.
    Tribal college leaders have repeatedly stated that forward funding
    provides them greater financial security to plan for the academic year.
    It is a budgeting technique widely used at educational institutions,
    including the BIE elementary and secondary school system.
        The initiative includes $34.6 million for Scholarships and Adult
    Education, $5 million above the 2009 enacted level. This funding not
    only improves opportunities for American Indians and Alaska Natives to
    attain an advanced education, it directly supports the spirit and
    intent of Indian self-determination by providing the tools to shape
    their future.
        Resolving Land and Water Claims.--The Omnibus Public Land
    Management Act of 2009 included two major Indian Water Rights
    settlements. The Northwestern New Mexico Rural Water Projects Act
    authorizes settlement of the longtime water rights claims of the Navajo
    Nation in the San Juan Basin in New Mexico. The 2010 budget includes $6
    million for this settlement.
        The Shoshone-Paiute Tribes of the Duck Valley Reservation Water
    Rights Settlement reached after a decade of negotiations, resolves
    tribal surface and groundwater claims in Nevada and establishes trust
    funds for the tribes to put water to use. The 2010 budget includes $12
    million for this settlement.

                               BUDGET PRIORITIES

        Wetlands.--In April, we celebrated American Wetlands Month,
    recognizing the importance of wetlands for economic and environmental
    well being. Wetlands are among the most productive habitats on Earth,
    providing shelter and nursery areas for commercially and recreationally
    important animals like fish and shellfish, as well as vital wintering
    grounds for migratory birds. The 2010 budget fulfills President Obama's
    commitment for wetlands preservation with an increase of $10 million
    for the North American Wetlands Conservation Fund. This increase will
    be leveraged with matching funds from partners and will protect an
    additional 45,000 acres of wetlands and associated uplands and enhance
    15,000 acres of habitat.
        Great Lakes Restoration.--The 2010 budget for the Environmental
    Protection Agency (EPA) includes a $475 million Great Lakes Restoration
    initiative. The initiative will fund a broad-based strategy to restore
    the Great Lakes in support of the President's pledge for a
    comprehensive approach to Great Lakes restoration. Working in concert
    with its Federal partners on the Great Lakes Interagency Task Force,
    EPA has identified a series of projects that will begin in 2010. EPA
    will transfer funds to Interior bureaus and other Federal agencies for
    projects that will be undertaken to target the most significant
    problems in the Great Lakes ecosystem and will demonstrate measurable
    results. EPA's 2010 request estimates funding of $15 million for USGS,
    $57.5 million for FWS, $10.5 million for NPS, and $3 million for BIA.
    Interior will use this funding to restore habitats that are important
    to the health of the Great Lakes region including wetlands, islands,
    and tributaries. Cooperative projects will be funded to combat invasive
    species, conduct scientific research to identify threats to the region,
    and develop mitigation strategies.
        Endangered Species.--As part of the 2010 budget's investments in
    the Land and Water Conservation Fund, there is an increase of $24.5
    million requested for grants to States in the FWS Cooperative
    Endangered Species Conservation Fund. This infusion of funding will
    support expanded protections for threatened and endangered species and
    help States and others with support to help reduce threats and recover
    species. The 2010 budget also includes increases of $7.4 million for
    FWS and USGS to increase population assessments, research, and
    conservation planning and actions for the polar bear and other Arctic
    species.
        Land Management.--The 2010 budget for land management operations
    reflects an increase of 7.6 percent over the level provided by the
    Congress in 2009. This request includes funding for fixed costs and
    increases to address current challenges in energy and climate impacts,
    and to improve the engagement of youth. Sustaining the operational
    budgets are key to our ongoing stewardship capacity. Within the
    operating accounts, the 2010 budget retains an increase of $7.5 million
    for BLM to accelerate inventory and remediation of abandoned hardrock
    mine sites and retains increases of $8.7 million provided to BLM, NPS,
    and the Office of the Secretary for a coordinated effort to eradicate
    drug production and related activities on public lands.
        Wild Horse and Burro Management.--The BLM manages wild horses and
    burros under the Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act, a 1971 law
    that sets forth certain protections for the animals and guides the
    BLM's management of the horse and burro populations. The 2010 budget
    includes $67.5 million, a program increase of $26.5 million over the
    2009 level, for the Wild Horse and Burro Management program. This
    significant funding increase is needed to fund increases in the costs
    to hold horses that have been removed from the range, to fund ongoing
    gathers to manage the population on the range, and to more aggressively
    implement population control efforts to help slow the growth in wild
    horse populations. We look forward to working with the subcommittee on
    a long-term solution for effective management of these populations--one
    that will allow us to operate a less costly program.
        Wildland Fire Management.--The Department's Wildland Fire program
    works collaboratively with the Forest Service to conduct effective and
    cost-efficient fire preparedness, suppression, hazardous fuels
    reduction, and other prevention activities in support of the National
    Fire Plan. Wildland fire management activities are conducted by four
    Interior bureaus including BLM, FWS, NPS, and BIA. The 2010 budget
    request of $899.8 million for Wildland Fire Management includes an
    increase of $34.6 million in Suppression Operations to fully fund the
    10-year average cost of $369.8 million. In addition, the budget
    establishes a new discretionary Wildland Fire Contingency Reserve Fund
    of $75 million for fighting catastrophic wildfires, which would be
    available after the appropriated 10-year average is exhausted and other
    specific objectives are met.
        Working Capital Fund.--The Department's 2010 budget request
    includes funding for continued deployment of an integrated business
    management system that will be used by all bureaus and offices. The
    2010 budget of $85.8 million for the Working Capital Fund is an
    increase of $12.4 million above the 2009 enacted level. Of this amount,
    $80.4 million is included to fund continued development and deployment
    of the Financial and Business Management System, an increase of $7
    million over the 2009 enacted level. This includes funding to support
    bureau efforts in preparing for deployment and transitioning to the new
    system. The budget also includes $5.4 million for costs associated with
    enterprise wide information technology enhancement requirements, which
    are needed to support investments for improved transparency and
    accountability.

                    LEGISLATIVE AND ADMINISTRATIVE PROPOSALS

        The 2010 budget request is accompanied by proposals that will
    affect receipt or spending levels in 2010 or in future years. These
    proposals will be transmitted separately from the budget for
    consideration by congressional authorizing committees.
        Fee on Nonproducing Leases.--To further encourage timely domestic
    energy development, the administration will submit legislation to
    impose a new fee on nonproducing oil and gas leases in the Gulf of
    Mexico. This new fee would provide a financial incentive for oil and
    gas companies to either move leases into production or relinquish them
    so that tracts can be re-leased and developed by new parties. The
    proposal would require holders of Gulf of Mexico OCS oil and gas leases
    to pay a $4 per acre fee when leases are in nonproducing status.
        Payments to Certified States and Tribes.--The budget proposes to
    discontinue mandatory payments from the General Treasury to States and
    tribes that have certified as completing the reclamation of their
    abandoned coal mine sites. Because payments to certified States and
    tribes can be used for any purpose approved by the State legislatures
    or tribal councils, they do not contribute to the intended purpose of
    the AML program, to reclaim abandoned coal mines. This proposal would
    not affect payments to States that have not yet certified that
    abandoned coal mines have been reclaimed.
        Energy Policy Act.--The administration will submit legislation to
    repeal portions of section 365 of the Energy Policy Act, which diverted
    mineral leasing receipts from the Treasury to a BLM Permit Processing
    Improvement Fund and prohibited BLM from establishing cost recovery
    fees for processing applications for oil and gas permits to drill. Upon
    repeal of these provisions, BLM will establish fees for applications
    for permits to drill through a rulemaking process. Until these fees can
    be put in place, the budget assumes that for 2010, a permit processing
    fee will continue to be charged through an appropriations provision,
    consistent with Congress' practice for 2008 and 2009.
        Geothermal Implementation Fund and Payments to Counties.--The
    administration will submit legislation to repeal sections 224(b) and
    234 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005. Prior to passage of the Energy
    Policy Act, geothermal lease payments were split 50-50 between the
    Federal Government and States, with 50 percent directed to States, 40
    percent to the Reclamation Fund, and 10 percent to the General Fund.
    The Energy Policy Act changed this distribution to direct 50 percent to
    States, 25 percent to counties, and 25 percent to a new Geothermal
    Steam Act Implementation Fund. The repeal of sections 224(b) and 234
    will reverse these changes and restore the disposition of the
    geothermal revenue to the historical formula of 50 percent to the
    States and 50 percent to the Treasury.
        Compact with Palau.--The Office of Insular Affairs and the
    Department of State are currently engaged in an inter-agency review of
    the Compact of Free Association with the Republic of Palau. Permanent
    and indefinite funding for Palau will expire at the end of 2009. The
    inter-agency group is weighing the value of this request against the
    United States' interests. Palau has a strong track record of supporting
    the United States in the United Nations, and its location is
    strategically linked to Guam and United States operations in Kwajalein
    Atoll. The budget assumes a placeholder of $7 million in 2010 in
    recognition of these negotiations.
        The budget also assumes implementation of proposals that will
    result in increased revenue, which in some cases offset the costs of
    operations.
        Royalty Reform.--The Department is initiating a comprehensive
    review, not requiring legislation, of oil and gas leasing and royalty
    policies to consider and evaluate a range of reform options that would
    have the effect of both assuring a fair return to the American taxpayer
    and encouraging diligent development of future leases. As part of this
    review, the Department will consider the recommendations of a recent
    Government Accountability Office report that urges the Department to
    consider alternative leasing and royalty practices, such as those
    utilized by States and private landowners. Upon completion of this
    review, the Department will move forward to implement a rulemaking. The
    budget assumes these reforms will increase revenues to the Treasury by
    $1.5 billion over 10 years.
        Offshore Facility Inspection Fee.--Through appropriations language,
    the Interior department proposes to implement an inspection fee in 2010
    for each above-water OCS oil and gas facility, except mobile offshore
    drilling units, that is subject to inspection by MMS. The proposed
    inspection fee is tiered based on the number of wells per facility and
    would support Federal efforts to provide services that not only ensure
    human safety, but also protect the environment and conserve energy and
    marine resources. The budget assumes these fees will total $10 million
    in 2010.
        Application for Permits To Drill (APD).--The 2010 budget assesses
    an APD fee through appropriations language, an approach taken by
    Congress in the 2009 Appropriations Act. The 2010 budget proposes to
    raise the fee from $4,000 to $6,500 per APD, which would generate an
    estimated $45.5 million in offsetting collections, an increase of $9.1
    million over the 2009 estimate. This increase in offsetting
    collections, combined with a requested increase of $11.9 million in
    discretionary appropriations for the Oil and Gas Management program,
    will fully offset the proposed cancellation of the mandatory spending,
    thereby maintaining BLM's current capacity for processing APDs and
    other use authorizations.
        In total, these proposals are expected to generate over $300
    million in 2010 revenues that help to reduce the overall cost of
    Interior's programs. The 2010 budget also proposes over $300 million in
    cost savings resulting from the completion of one-time projects,
    elimination of funding for earmarks, and reductions to lower priority
    programs.

                                   CONCLUSION

        Thank you for the opportunity to testify on behalf of the
    President's 2010 budget request for the Department of the Interior. I
    want to reiterate my appreciation for the longstanding support of this
    subcommittee. We have a tremendous opportunity to improve the future
    for our children and grandchildren with wise investments in clean
    energy, climate impacts, treasured landscapes, our youth, and the
    empowerment of Native Americans. I look forward to working with you to
    implement this budget. This concludes my written statement. I am happy
    to answer any questions that you may have.

        Senator Feinstein. Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary.

                        DRUG CULTIVATION ON PUBLIC LANDS

        I would like to begin with a subject and that is drugs on
    public lands. One of the things that has happened is that the
    cartels are extending their influence up from Mexico, running
    Mexican nationals in our National Parks and some of our State
    parks. As a matter of fact, 70 percent of the marijuana found
    is really in either Federal or State parks. It is a very real
    and growing danger.
        Last year, as part of the appropriations bill, I added $5.1
    million to the BLM budget and $3.3 million to the National Park
    Service budget so those agencies could gear up and begin a
    coordinated effort with the Forest Service and the DEA.
        Now Congress was late in passing the omnibus bill. So the
    2009 money, I understand, is just making its way out into the
    field. Can you tell us what BLM and the Park Service will do
    with these funds?
        Secretary Salazar. Senator Feinstein, you put your finger
    on a law enforcement issue that needs to be addressed. We will
    hire additional law enforcement officers with the money made
    available through last year's budget, as well as this year's
    budget, to help deal with the eradication of marijuana and drug
    interdiction not only on the border, but as well as on our
    other public lands.
        It is interesting to note that when you think about the
    Department of the Interior, sometimes people don't recognize
    the fact that we essentially have responsibility for 793 miles
    of the border between the United States and Mexico. We also
    have responsibility for great stretches of the border between
    Canada and the United States. Our law enforcement officers,
    working with the Bureau of Land Management, working with the
    BIA, are often in the midst of dealing with many of these
    issues.
        We had a National Park ranger who was killed several years
    ago involving some of the drug activity on the border. It is an
    issue which I will take seriously. It is an issue which I will
    work on with the Departments of Justice and Homeland Security
    to try to develop a coordinated effort to address these issues.
        Senator Feinstein. Yes. I just want to make the point. This
    marijuana growing is not benign. These are Mexican nationals.
    They are armed, and they are very dangerous.
        And what I am most interested in and put the money in is
    for your participation in the joint task force to go in and
    clean this stuff out of our parks and keep it that way.
        Now let me ask you, would you confirm that those funds are
    figured into your base budget in 2010?
        Secretary Salazar. Yes.
        Senator Feinstein. Okay. Now how soon do you anticipate
    that you will be up and running and participating in future
    raids with DEA and the Forest Service?
        Secretary Salazar. Senator Feinstein, we are working on a
    number of law enforcement issues within the Department of the
    Interior, some of which I can talk about, some of which I can't
    yet talk about. We will be focused on this issue as soon as we
    can, and part of what we are trying to do is to get the
    Department of the Interior stood up. And that means bringing in
    the people that can make sure that we are carrying out the
    requirements and the suggestions that we are getting from you
    on these very important issues.
        Last week, we started making some progress. We need to make
    some more progress to get it done.
        Senator Feinstein. I just want you to know that this money
    is there with the view that you will, in fact, participate in
    these raids. They have been dormant as of late, and this
    concerns me.
        Secretary Salazar. I can only tell you that we will be
    working on it. I was attorney general of my State for 6 years.
    I support law enforcement in many different ways, and this will
    be a high priority for me.

                                RENEWABLE ENERGY

        Senator Feinstein. Okay. Good. All right. Because I will
    come back and back and back.
        Your budget proposes $50 million for activities designed to
    increase the use of renewable energy. Of that, $16 million
    would go to the Bureau of Land Management so they can expedite
    200 solar projects and 240 wind projects out West. More than
    130 of those are in California.
        I spoke to you in person about this. As you know, I was the
    author of the Desert Protection Act, which created the Joshua
    Tree, Death Valley National Parks and the Mojave Preserve. For
    about 6 years in the 1990s, we raised private money, namely $40
    million, and some Federal money, $17 million, to go in and buy
    600,000 acres of in holdings held by Catellus.
        Well, one day, somebody comes in to me and says, ``Do you
    know that they are putting solar troughs in these in-holdings
    that have been purchased for conservation?'' And I said, ``You
    are kidding?'' No advance notice.
        So I went down to the desert, and I visited about 8
    projects, and I find, in fact, not only are they proposed, but
    they are enormous in size--one 15 square miles, one 8 square
    miles, one 7 square miles, one 5 square miles, and on.
        Now these are huge solar troughs, big towers, fences, steam
    plants, and all of the infrastructure. If you have a 15 square
    mile facility, and this was the Bright Source proposal, I mean,
    that has a huge mark on land that we are trying to conserve.
        I have spoken with you about it. I want to raise it in the
    public because we are about ready to introduce a monument to
    protect these lands, and we have discussed it with everybody.
    We have amended it. I had the military in yesterday. I believe
    we are going to get some good solutions out of it.
        But I think this planning process really has to be looked
    at and the size has to be looked at because you would have an,
    oh, 20-mile corridor just filled with this stuff and way more
    than the 33 percent clean fuel requirement that California has
    to make its commitment by 2020. So I would like to know how you
    are handling these permits.
        The second point is, as we traveled through this area with
    the Wildlands Conservancy, they pointed out that there was
    private land in the area which really was much more suitable
    for use for this. You know, flat, not in areas that are in a
    conservation mode, et cetera.
        And the downside of that was I was told, well, the people
    that went for private land had to go to the back of the line,
    and the BLM land was at the front of the line. I don't believe
    that is the right approach. And it seems to me that--and I know
    the environmental studies are being done. And I guess what I
    objected to most was the inordinate size of these things, just
    enormous in terms of their scope and what they do to the land.
        And then the last point is at Daggett, we saw photovoltaic
    and a solar trough and the factories, but what had happened is
    the people running it had walked away from it and just left it
    all there. So that raises the point, much like abandoned mines,
    that these developers have to be responsible.
        And if they are going to leave, vacate the site, take their
    equipment with them because the site is essentially changed
    forever from the desert topography. It is leveled. Artificial
    surface is brought in. And I am for this, but I am for it in
    moderation with size that is limited so that it doesn't really
    become an enduring blight upon the land for miles and miles and
    miles.

                                RENEWABLE ENERGY

        Secretary Salazar. I appreciate your raising this issue
    with me from I think my very first days in the Department of
    the Interior, Senator Feinstein. It is an issue that we are
    very aware of with respect to the deserts of California and
    with respect to solar siting elsewhere around the Southwest and
    wind power throughout the country.
        What I can tell you is this, that as we move forward with
    turning the new page and developing solar and wind and
    geothermal energy, that we have to do it in a way that is
    thoughtful, that is not helter-skelter, that essentially makes
    sure that we are protecting the treasured landscapes of
    America.
        Going back to Senator Alexander's statement with respect to
    oil and gas development, we have to have that same kind of
    approach with respect to renewable energy projects. Right now,
    the 240 applications that you speak about, many of those
    applications were pending when I came into office. There was
    not any kind of significant planning process with respect to
    renewable energy in the Department of the Interior, frankly,
    because it had not been prioritized.
        And we are now moving forward with the Bureau of Land
    Management, with our other agencies, Fish and Wildlife and
    National Parks, to develop a process that essentially is no
    different than the kind of process, Senator Feinstein, that you
    used as mayor of the city of San Francisco. It is a land-use
    planning process.
        But you essentially take a look at the entire landscape
    relative to what the scientists will tell you are the
    technically possible developments for renewable energy. It
    doesn't mean that you are going to develop renewable energy in
    all of those spaces because many of them are inappropriate
    because of ecological values or other national interests that
    need to be protected. You have to go through a screening
    process to determine where the best siting of these facilities
    will be.
        We are engaged in a very robust effort through the
    Renewable Energy and Climate Change Task Force that I created
    in the Department to bring all of the agencies together so we
    address the specific kinds of concerns that you are raising
    here today.
        Senator Feinstein. Thank you very much. I really appreciate
    that.
        And I hope--part of my problem was the surprise. Now here,
    I was the author of the bill who helped raise some of this
    money, and then, bingo, all of a sudden this was happening. And
    so, it was an element of surprise. I really appreciate your
    taking this action. I think it is the right way to go, and I
    will be just as supportive as I can.
        Senator Alexander.
        Senator Alexander. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
        Mr. Secretary, let me follow up on Senator Feinstein's
    comments. I think what she describes in California is a good
    indicator of what we hope doesn't happen, and I am dead serious
    when I think one of the important legacies you could leave, in
    addition to building up the Land and Water Conservation Fund
    and the other areas you mentioned, is to be able to look back
    and say that we had an expansion of renewable energy in the
    country, but we did it in the right way.
        That we didn't--that we recognized that from the days of
    John Muir and Ansel Adams through Lady Bird Johnson that the
    great American landscape is really what you are--that is your
    job, really, and it is what we all love. And we don't want to
    destroy the environment in the name of saving the environment.
        Your statement mentioned some very big numbers. The energy
    potential you mention, especially in the West, 1,000 gigawatts
    of wind potential off the Atlantic coast, 900 gigawatts off the
    Pacific coast in terms of 21 million acres of public land with
    high wind potential.
        Senator Feinstein talked about large size. I think it is
    important for us to keep in mind the size. This is not a point
    that I am not trying to say renewable energy is good or bad. I
    think it is good.
        But let us say a nuclear power plant produces about 1,000
    megawatts of power. To get that from a solar, thermal plant
    like Senator Feinstein was discussing, you would need 30 square
    miles, which is about 5 miles on each side that would just
    equal one nuclear plant, which is 1 square mile. And you would
    still need the nuclear plant because the sun only shines part
    of the time.
        Biomass in the South is what is said would be a good
    renewable energy for us. We talked about that in our hearing
    with the Forest Service last week. There are a couple of
    million tons of biomass in Tennessee forests, so said the head
    of the Forest Service.
        That sounds like a lot, but that would produce about 200
    megawatts of power, and the TVA uses 27,000 megawatts of power
    on a regular basis. You would need a forest the size of the
    Great Smoky Mountains, which is 550,000 acres, to feed a 1,000
    megawatt plant on a sustained basis. That is one nuclear power
    plant equals a forest the size of the whole Smoky Mountains.
        On wind, it is even bigger, 270 square miles at 16 miles on
    a side to equal one nuclear unit, and an unbroken line of 500-
    foot-tall wind turbines from Chattanooga to Bristol in our
    State, that is throughout all of east Tennessee, would give us
    one-fourth of the electricity from one unit of nuclear plant
    and really destroy the views that we treasure so much.
        T. Boone Pickens was asked whether he was going to put any
    of these 50-story wind turbines on his ranch, and he said,
    ``Hell, no. They are ugly.'' And we agree with him in our part
    of the woods.
        And I have up here a map, and you can see the blue part
    over in the East, we were talking about the West. But in the
    East, the place where the wind turbines would go is the
    foothills of the Smokies, up through the Blue Ridge Parkway, on
    up through Pennsylvania into the White Mountains. I mean, those
    are the treasured ridge tops, and the wind turbines only go on
    ridge tops in the East because the wind doesn't blow as much.
    And in our part of the world, it only blows about 20 percent.
        And then we have the coast. Now you and I were part of
    debates about oil and gas and how far off should it go. I think
    one of the proposals that Republicans had was that oil and gas
    drilling should be at least 10 miles off the coast. Well, maybe
    wind turbines should be 15 or 18 miles off the coast. Then you
    couldn't see them.
        Then there is also the question of why do we need these
    large transmission lines to go across our densely populated New
    York City or densely populated California to bring in wind
    power from the Dakotas when you have got 900 gigawatts in the
    Pacific Ocean and 1,000 gigawatts in the Atlantic Ocean?
        The Secretary of Energy and Environment for Massachusetts
    wrote a letter and said that is a big waste of money to bring
    renewable energy from the middle of the country to the coasts,
    when the coasts have hundreds of thousands of megawatts of wind
    power of their own, if they want it. And they can use their
    money to go offshore.
        So my question is this. Tell me more about your plan. If 20
    percent of our electricity were wind, as some people say it
    should, that would be an area the size of West Virginia. I
    think you said it could be 50 percent. Or replace coal. That
    would be an area two and a half times the size of West
    Virginia.
        Where is all this stuff going to go? And can we take your
    concept of renewable energy zones, for example, and be assured
    that we don't have the kind of renewable energy sprawl that one
    major conservation group talked about?
        That we can say, yes, we are going to have this much. We
    are going to have it here. Transmission lines are going to be
    here. So we don't have to wake up in the morning and find out
    that we have got a row of wind turbines three times as tall as
    our football stadium going along the edge of the Smoky
    Mountains, as Senator Feinstein found in the deserts of
    California.
        Secretary Salazar. Thank you, Senator Alexander.
        First, let me say I appreciate, again, your advocacy for
    the landscapes of America. I remember your long history with
    respect to your involvement back in the 1980s and into the
    1990s and our work together here on the Land and Water
    Conservation Fund, I remember concerns that you raised, which I
    believe are legitimate concerns relative to the aesthetic
    issues that you talked about with respect to wind.
        Let me say I appreciate the concerns that you raise. Let me
    also say that the new energy frontier I think is here, and we
    are going to move forward in a very robust way to develop
    alternative energies, including solar, wind, and geothermal.
        Now the numbers that you speak about are numbers that are
    technically developable numbers. Those are numbers which I did
    not create. Those are numbers that came out of the National
    Renewable Energy Lab in Golden, Colorado, which they have
    worked on over the years. And that is exactly what they are.
        It doesn't mean that you are going to develop all of those
    gigawatts or megawatts of power that you spoke about because
    there are going to be limitations relative to where you
    actually do the siting of some of these facilities.
        Second of all, I want us to continue to underscore the
    connection between the new energy world and jobs here in the
    United States. We expect that hundreds of thousands of jobs
    can, in fact, be developed with respect to the renewable energy
    industry. We have approximately 160,000 jobs today in America
    that you can connect up to both the solar and the wind
    industry.
        In Tennessee, for example, Senator Alexander, there is a
    company, Hemlock Semiconductor Corporation, which has opened up
    a solar energy facility that is creating 500 jobs for the State
    of Tennessee. There are other plants that are there as well.
    The combined solar and wind companies are already providing
    significant jobs to the United States as we develop these new
    forms of energy.
        Thirdly, I want to comment on an issue that I think is
    integral to your points, and that is the question of
    transmission. How do you get the renewable energy resources
    from the places where they are produced to the places where
    they are consumed? Let me focus in specifically just on the
    Atlantic coast.
        When you look at New Jersey, Delaware, New York, Governor
    Carcieri from Rhode Island, who has been a major leader in some
    of these efforts, their view is that with the potential of the
    1,000 gigawatts of power off of the Atlantic that you
    essentially could plug that energy into the grid without having
    to build a lot of new transmission because you essentially
    would take the power from the wind turbines offshore, run a
    cable, and plug it into an already-existing grid system.
        New Jersey has a host of projects which Governor Corzine
    and others are ready to move forward with. Delaware is in the
    same position. Rhode Island is in the same position. New York
    is in the same position. We hope to be able to move forward
    with the permitting of some of these facilities in the very,
    very near future. Now as they move forward, part of what we
    will have to do is the environmental analysis to make sure that
    we are taking care of the oceans in those particular areas
    where these projects are to be planned. We now have rules that
    we have issued with respect to offshore wind in the Atlantic.
    Those rules have been held in abeyance really for the last 3
    years.
        We now have broken through the logjam. Those rules are out
    there, and we are processing the permit applications.
        In terms of the aesthetic and landscape issues, which you
    raise, off the Atlantic--as an example, New Jersey has wanted
    to locate its wind projects, and they have, I think, six wind
    projects that they hope to be able to build in the very near
    term. Their proposal is to have those projects built somewhere
    in the neighborhood of 6 to 8 miles off the coast.
        The State of Delaware has a project which is a significant
    size project in the Atlantic, and their proposal is to build
    that project 13 miles off the coast of Delaware.
        I think the issues that you are raising, Senator Alexander,
    and which Senator Feinstein has raised with me as well, is that
    there is a way in which we can move forward with this renewable
    energy revolution and at the same time make sure that we are
    doing it in a thoughtful way that provides a balance of the
    need for energy and the protection of our landscapes.
        Senator Alexander. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
        Senator Feinstein. Thank you very much, Senator.
        And thank you, Secretary.
        Senator Tester, being the gentleman that he always is, will
    cede to Senator Reed because he has another appointment.
        So, Senator Reed.
        Senator Reed. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
        Thank you, Senator Tester. Thank you very much.

                           OFFSHORE WIND DEVELOPMENT

        Welcome, Mr. Secretary. And you have already commented on
    the activities in Rhode Island to develop wind power. In fact,
    our Coastal Resources Management Council is undertaking a great
    deal of scientific studies to help site these facilities
    appropriately.
        And the Minerals Management Service is a critical component
    of any siting. They have provided technical support. They have
    consulted with Rhode Island, but it has been sporadic and
    somewhat ad hoc. And I would very much encourage you to commit
    full-time personnel coordination so that we could move these
    projects along.
        As you point out in your statement, Rhode Island and other
    States along the Atlantic coast are actively moving to get
    these wind farms into production--not theoretically, not
    conceptually, but actually moving. And the early involvement of
    the MMS would be absolutely helpful on a full-time regular
    basis. So if you could consider that, I would really appreciate
    it, Mr. Secretary.
        Now also in terms of their participation, we are doing a
    lot of scientific research, our Coastal Resource Management
    Council. But it would be unfortunate if our research didn't
    comply with what ultimately the Minerals Management Service
    considers to be appropriate. So if that could be integrated
    also?
        And in fact, I would ask very sincerely if you could
    designate a team to work full time with the State, not only to
    coordinate on all these different activities, particularly to
    verify the science. And if you could consider that, I would
    appreciate it.
        Secretary Salazar. Absolutely.
        Senator Reed. Thank you.
        Secretary Salazar. Let me just, if I can, Senator Reed?
        Senator Reed. Yes.
        Secretary Salazar. Thank you for your leadership and your
    friendship as well. Thank you for the work that you and the
    leadership in Rhode Island have already done with respect to
    wind energy. I held four hearings around the country--one in
    Atlantic City, one in New Orleans, one in San Francisco, and
    one in Alaska in Anchorage, and actually, a fifth one in
    Dillingham, Alaska, as well--with respect to the OSC.
        It was really clear to me that in the Atlantic coast area,
    there is tremendous interest on the part of the leadership to
    move forward with renewable energy and wind projects off the
    Atlantic. We have included in this budget $24 million with
    respect to moving forward with renewable energy projects on the
    offshore.
        In the interim, we are not stopping, however, and using
    resources that we already have. We broke through the logjam on
    the rules, and we look forward to working hand-in-hand with you
    and Rhode Island to make these projects a reality.
        Senator Reed. Well, thank you, Mr. Secretary.
        Again, I think a formal designation of a team, some type of
    understanding between the State to working closely together,
    and even some financial support for our efforts.
        We have already put State dollars, and it would be helpful.
    I also noted that you have talked about establishing four
    regional officers in California, Nevada, Wyoming, and Arizona
    to help speed permitting of renewable projects.
        Are you considering something on the Atlantic coast?
        Because as you point out, there is a lot of activity there.
        Secretary Salazar. I think we would probably do it. There
    will be a focus on the Atlantic because I think that is the
    primary area for wind development offshore. And so, because we
    have MMS located here in Washington in the offshore area, it
    does seem to me to make sense to have a group of people that
    are specifically assigned to working on these wind projects on
    the offshore.
        Part of the conversation I have had with some of the
    Governors on the Atlantic is to see whether we can start a
    dialogue on how we do this across the Atlantic as a whole, as
    opposed to each State doing its own thing. And so, we are
    having some conversations about that. But this I will guarantee
    you, Senator Reed, that we are focused like a laser beam on the
    wind potential off of Rhode Island, and the other States have
    shown great interest and leadership.
        Senator Reed. Thank you.
        Just one final point. That is, in all of this, we can't
    forget the equities of many different parties. One is the
    fishing industry. In fact, one of the things that the State is
    doing through their modeling, through their analysis, is trying
    to minimize the impact of these developments on traditional
    fishing grounds. And again, I think that is something that
    should be within the context of your responsibilities.
        Secretary Salazar. I agree with you, and the money that we
    are currently using as we move forward with the environmental
    analysis for these wind projects and money that we requested
    for it from the Congress in this budget with respect to
    renewable energy projects will go into those kinds of analyses.
        Senator Reed. Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary.
        Senator Feinstein. Thank you very much, Senator Reed.
        Senator Tester.
        Senator Tester. Thank you, Senator Feinstein.
        And it is good to have you here, Secretary Salazar. I
    appreciate the work that you have done in this position. I
    appreciate your work ethic. I appreciate the long hours you put
    in because I know you have, and it shows. And your answers to
    many of the questions that were asked before me, in my opinion,
    are spot on. So thank you.

                                ABANDONED MINES

        I want to talk a little bit about abandoned mine dollars.
    It was eliminated in your budget. We have about 4,000 abandoned
    mines in Montana. Many, if not most, are on Federal lands. And
    they are a problem.
        They are problem for water quality. They are a problem.
    What is the plan? Because they are not going to go away.
        Secretary Salazar. First, Senator Tester, let me say the
    issue of abandoned mines is a major issue throughout the
    country, in particular in many places in the West--Montana,
    California, New Mexico, Nevada, and Colorado. We know that
    there are not dozens, but there are really thousands of
    abandoned mines that were created at a time when we didn't have
    the kinds of environmental laws in place that we have today.
    They create threats to the public safety, and they are issues
    that we have to deal with.
        Montana has used money that it gets from the reclamation
    fees from coal to try to address this very huge problem, which
    Montana faces. Our budget, the administration's budget looked
    at what the coal program had been set up to do with respect to
    those reclamation fees and made the determination that with
    respect to coal mine reclamation, that those monies were not
    needed for that particular purpose.
        Now having said that, that does not take away or minimize
    the importance of trying to do something with respect to the
    abandoned mine issue. It is my hope that we can figure out a
    way of addressing that issue, and it may be in part what we are
    able to do through mining law reform as we move forward with
    that agenda.
        Senator Tester. Okay. It is--and I don't need to tell you
    this. You know this as well if not better than I do. The AML
    monies, and Montana has accounts set up for it. If it goes in,
    it is used for mine clean-up. It works in Montana. We didn't
    use it to back fill our general fund. We used it to clean up
    mines.
        And I would hope that we do not take our eye off the ball.
    I know from your previous statement that you know that. And I
    look forward to working with you to make sure that we continue
    that program, and I know that the chairman feels the same way
    about it as far as getting those mines cleaned up.

                          NATIVE AMERICAN COMMUNITIES

        There are several things in the budget dealing with Native
    Americans. One of them is stripped funding for community
    development programs to train American Indians as skilled
    workers. Another one is to eliminate funding for critical
    housing improvement programs, which serves the poorest of the
    poor in Indian country.
        I guess my question is, is that is this being shifted to
    another agency out of Interior, BIA over to Labor or Housing,
    or what is going on? Because these are programs that I think
    are invaluable programs. And to eliminate them without a backup
    somewhere else, and I don't want duplication, so if it is being
    shifted somewhere else, I would like to know that.
        Secretary Salazar. Senator Tester, I appreciate the
    question. I will just communicate what I said in my opening
    statement earlier, and that is the issues of empowering our
    Native American communities are very important to me. I know
    how important they are to you in Montana, how they are to North
    Dakota, California, and lots of other places.
        We will have a robust agenda relative to the economic and
    the law enforcement and educational issues for Indian country.
    We invested significant amounts of money, as you well know from
    our conversations, concerning education and housing and law
    enforcement from the recovery funds received in the Department
    of the Interior.
        We also recognize that there are other agencies that are
    involved in delivering these services to Indian Country,
    including Housing and Urban Development and Health and Human
    Services. We are working to develop a coordinated approach to
    how we deliver these services to Indian Country.
        Senator Tester. I appreciate that. Once again, just as with
    the abandoned mine monies, and I think it is ridiculous, quite
    frankly, to have as many agencies dealing with the same problem
    as we do. And so, I think consolidation and making sure that we
    get the most bang for the buck and making sure the money gets
    to the ground, that effort is a noble effort and needs to be
    done.
        And I just don't want the programs to go away without
    something back there helping Native Americans so they just
    don't have to hold the stop sign. They can actually be running
    the piece of equipment that is behind that stop sign. So, and I
    think you see it the same way.

                            PREPARED STATEMENT deg.

        Just in closing, real quick, thanks for coming to Montana
    in April. Appreciate the visit. Don't forget we have got to
    write up the St. Mary's plan at some point in time, your
    schedule permitting.
        Thank you.

                              INSERT FOLLOWS deg.

        Secretary Salazar. I will be in Montana again, Senator
    Tester--as I will in Tennessee, as I will in California.
        Senator Feinstein. Better cover them all.

                                ABANDONED MINES

        Mr. Secretary, I would like to just continue on the
    abandoned mine subject because we have 47,000 abandoned mines
    in California, and an estimated 13,000 are on BLM land. Now
    thousands have major safety or water quality hazards, and some
    of these are really in popular recreation areas.
        Earlier this year, I introduced a bill, The Abandoned Mines
    Reclamation Act. It created an abandoned mine clean-up fund. It
    established spending priorities for the clean-up fund based on
    the severity of risk to public health and safety and the impact
    on natural resources, and it would direct you to create an
    inventory of abandoned mines on all Federal, State, tribal,
    local, and private land.
        I would like to ask that you take a look at the bill. Let
    me know what you think of it. I mean, if the subcommittee
    feels, I may well try to legislate on an appropriation bill
    just to get it done. It is a possibility. So if you would look
    at it, I would appreciate it.
        In 2008, I put $1.9 million into BLM and National Park
    Service budgets to identify and remediate hazards, hazardous
    abandoned mines in California. In 2009, I added $8.1 million,
    and under the stimulus, your Department allocated a total of
    $52 million for mine clean-up work that should be getting
    underway now.
        So one of the things I would like to do is ask you how that
    is going, in other words, the money appropriated by the
    stimulus. And the second question is do you have a prioritized
    list of abandoned mines on public lands?
        Secretary Salazar. On the second question, we should have
    one. I am not aware that one exists today, but it is something
    that we will work on as soon as I get my Assistant Secretary
    for Land and Minerals, my Solicitor, and a whole host of other
    people, the BLM director, that I need really to be able to do
    the work that you and others are asking of me. We will do it,
    and we will get it done.
        On the overall issue of the abandoned mine challenge that
    we face, let me just say I will work with this subcommittee. I
    understand the importance of the issue. I understand we have a
    major role because many of these mines are located on our
    public lands. Many, most of them on BLM lands. It is something
    that is of high importance to me.
        Senator Feinstein. Well, in a nutshell, what I am saying is
    we have specifically appropriated now $62 million to get
    cracking on these mines, and I am a little bit frustrated
    trying to find out what is happening. Is there a priority list?
    There should be.
        And therefore, I don't know, maybe we should have--I would
    like to have Senator Alexander take a look at the bill. Maybe
    we need to pass it? But the money is now there. And there has
    to be a priority, prioritized list, it would seem to me. This
    is 3 years of appropriating money, and we ought to get the
    list.
        Secretary Salazar. I will see if there is a list that we
    can get to you, Senator Feinstein.
        Let me just say this. Two points. First, with respect to
    the recovery project monies, which this subcommittee worked so
    hard to get to the Department of the Interior. What we did is
    we went through those funds, including the funds that were made
    available for reclamation of abandoned mines, and selected
    those projects which were shovel-ready because that was the
    purpose which you had given us in terms of the stimulative
    consequence that you wanted from the investment of those
    monies.
        The reclamation projects for abandoned mines that will be
    funded through the recovery dollars have been identified, and
    those projects will get, in fact, done.
        Senator Feinstein. Well, then would you send us the list,
    please? I would like to see the list.
        Secretary Salazar. I will get you the list with respect to
    the recovery-funded projects.
        [The information follows:]

                     AML PROJECTS SELECTED FOR ARRA FUNDING
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                              Project title                            State
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Upper Koyukuk Mine Hazard Inventory--Verify physical hazards and      AK
     initiate remediation program...................................
    Old Placer Gold Mines Restoration--Restoration of stream              AK
     channels impacted by historical placer min.....................
    Red Devil Fuel Spill Remediation--Measurement of the nature and       AK
     extent of diesel fuel contamination............................
    Red Devil Hazardous Waste Remediation--Treatment or disposal of       AK
     prior excavated petroleum contamination........................
    Times Gulch Mine--installation of access barrier to reduce risks      AZ
     and protect wildlife habitat...................................
    Times Vein Mine--installation of an access barrier to reduce          AZ
     public safety risks and protect sensitive......................
    San Diego Mine (Union Pass)--installation of access barrier to        AZ
     reduce risks and protect wildlife..............................
    Vulture Mine--backfill open mine shafts/install barriers to           AZ
     reduce risks and protect wildlife..............................
    Thumb Butte Mine (Union Pass)--install barrier to reduce risks        AZ
     and protect wildlife habitat...................................
    Mary Nevada Mine (Hualapai Mountains)--Install access barriers        AZ
     to reduce risk and protect wildlife............................
    Porter Mine (N. Black Mountains)--Install access barrier to           AZ
     reduce risk and protect wildlife...............................
    Fire Mountain Mine (N. Black Mountains)--Install barrier to           AZ
     reduce risks and protect wildlife..............................
    Wickenburg Mill site--monitor, sample, and assess soils and           AZ
     groundwater for contaminants...................................
    Gold Hill Mine and Vicinity bat gates...........................      AZ
    Octave Mill Site--Complete PA/SI site characterization work of        AZ
     abandoned mine tailings........................................
    Great West Mine (N. Black Mountains)--Install access barriers to      AZ
     reduce risks and protect wildlife..............................
    Gigi Girl Mine (Hualapai Mountains)--Install access barrier to        AZ
     reduce risk and protect habitat................................
    Swansea Mine and Adits (Lake Havasu)--Plug adits, install             AZ
     barriers, and fence to reduce risks............................
    Rand Historic Mining District--Air and biological monitoring....      CA
    Ruth Mine--fencing of tailings..................................      CA
    Darwin Mine--tailings remediation...............................      CA
    Barstow Off Highway Vehicle Physical Safety Hazards.............      CA
    Palm Springs Off Highway Vehicle Physical Safety Hazards........      CA
    El Centro Off Highway Vehicle Physical Safety Hazards...........      CA
    Ridgecrest Off Highway Vehicle Physical Safety Hazards..........      CA
    Needles Off Highway Vehicle Physical Safety Hazards.............      CA
    Edith E. Mine Physical Safety Hazard............................      CA
    Yuba, Nevada and Placer County Physical Safety Hazard Sites.....      CA
    El Dorado and Amador County Physical Safety Hazard Sites........      CA
    Calavera County Physical Safety Hazard Sites....................      CA
    Tuolomne and Mariposa County Physical Safety Hazard Sites.......      CA
    Archer Mine--Site cleanup and restoration.......................      CA
    Contact Mine--mercury contamination--EE/CA--mine waste removal..      CA
    Sonoma Mine--mercury contamination--EE/CA--mine waste removal...      CA
    Helen Mine--mercury contamination--EE/CA--mine waste removal....      CA
    Davis Mill Remediation--Site cleanup and removal................      CA
    Longfellow Mill--heavy metal contamination, physical safety           CA
     hazard remediation.............................................
    Islander Mine--install access barriers and fencing to reduce          CA
     risks and protect habitat......................................
    Deer Creek Brownfield Project--mercury tailings removal and           CA
     remediation/stabilization......................................
    Badger Hill Sluice Tunnel--mercury contamination................      CA
    AML Project Coordinator--monitor closures, inventory projects,        CO
     coordinate NEPA and contracts..................................
    Crystal Hill mine closure project...............................      CO
    Club Mesa mine closure project..................................      CO
    Kankakee mine closure project...................................      CO
    Long Park mine closure project..................................      CO
    Sillsville mine closure project.................................      CO
    War Eagle mine closure project..................................      CO
    Whale Hill mine closure project.................................      CO
    Box Canyon Mine closure.........................................      CO
    Dawson Mountain mine closure project............................      CO
    Grape Creek mine closure project................................      CO
    Jelly Roll mine closure project.................................      CO
    Montrose City Uranium mine closure project......................      CO
    Abandoned Mine Lands Grand Junction Field Office Mine Closure         CO
     and Reclamation................................................
    Eveline Mine Remediation Project................................      CO
    Field Validation AML Sites......................................      DC
    Zortman/Landusky Mine--Install wind turbine to run acid water         MT
     treatment system; install clarifier............................
    Maiden Rock Phosphate Site (Big Hole River)--Closures of              MT
     numerous physical safety hazards...............................
    Maiden Rock Phosphate District Phase II (Goat Mountain, Canyon        MT
     Creek)--inventory/assess hazards...............................
    Maiden Rock Phosphate District--Conduct environmental analysis        MT
     needed for mine closures.......................................
    Maiden Rock Phosphate Phase II (Goat Mountain, Canyon Creek)--        MT
     close physical safety hazards..................................
    East Pacific/Chartam Mine Reclamation...........................      MT
    Thistle Mine Tailings Reclamation (Rochester Area)..............      MT
    Great Divide Sand Tailings Removal..............................      MT
    Clark County Nevada Abandoned Mine Lands--Closures to prohibit        NV
     humans/allow wildlife access...................................
    Northern Nevada Abandoned Mine Lands--Install mine entrance           NV
     closures to eliminate hazards..................................
    Nevada Abandoned Mine Lands Biological and Cultural Surveys--         NV
     Surveys before closure of mines................................
    Ward Mountain Nevada Abandoned Mine Lands--Reclamation to             NV
     provide habitat and public safety..............................
    Rip Van Winkle Nevada Abandoned Mine Lands--Cleanup, stabilize,       NV
     restore, cap shafts, fence.....................................
    Golden Butte Nevada Abandoned Mine Lands--Revegetation of the         NV
     Golden Butte mines site........................................
    Tuscarora Nevada Cadastral Survey--Determine boundaries before        NV
     reclaiming abandoned mines.....................................
    Goodsprings Nevada Cadastral Survey--Determine boundaries before      NV
     reclaiming abandoned mines.....................................
    Nelson Cadastral Survey--Determine land boundaries in advance of      NV
     reclaiming abandoned mines.....................................
    Nevada American Flats/Comstock United Merger Mill Abandoned Mine      NV
     Lands--Record and remediate....................................
    Caselton Nevada Tailings Abandoned Mine Lands--Update action          NV
     plan and reapply dust controls on site.........................
    Almeda Mine Site--assessment for ultimate installation of system      OR
     to limit uncontrolled discharge................................
    Remediation of known Abandoned Mine Sites in SW Oregon--EE/CA         OR
     for physical danger and water quality..........................
    Inventory of Historic Areas for Abandoned Mine Features--             OR
     identification, prioritization, remediation....................
    Utah Shaft Closures--physical safety hazards....................      UT
    Physical Safety/Environmental Hazard Site Inspections--Inspect        UT
     sites 1 mile of populated areas................................
    Wyoming Abandoned Mine site reclamation--Secure and seal              WY
     hazardous mine openings in WY..................................
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Secretary Salazar. On your broader question on whether we
    have created that inventory across the country with respect to
    abandoned mines, let me take a look at that, and I will get
    additional information back to you. I understand the enormity
    of the problem and the importance of the problem.
        [The information follows:]
                  Abandoned Mine Sites on National Park Lands
        Abandoned mines are in 126 National Park System units. An ongoing
    inventory in the units so far revealed an estimated 3,100 sites with
    about 8,400 mine openings, piles of tailings, and hazardous structures
    and thousands of hectares of scarred lands.
        Does the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) have an inventory of
    Abandoned Mine Land (AML) Sites, and prioritization of it?
        Yes, the BLM does have an inventory and central repository for data
    regarding AML Sites. This data is stored in the BLM's Abandoned Mine
    Land Site Cleanup Module Database. The database tracks information on
    both Abandoned Mine Land sites and hazardous material sites. Though the
    database does not rank sites; there is an AML strategic plan and manual
    that both describe prioritization of AML sites based on water quality
    and physical safety hazard degradation criterion.
        The BLM maintains an inventory of nearly 20,000 AML sites. Most
    sites are small to medium in size and environmental impact. The most
    common site features are: open adits and shafts; waste dumps; highwalls
    and pits; and tailings piles. About 25 percent of the sites have either
    been remediated, have reclamation actions planned or underway, or do
    not require further action. The remaining 75 percent require further
    investigation and/or remediation. The Abandoned Mine and Site Cleanup
    Module database houses our inventory data. In fiscal year 2009, the
    system's Project Change Management Board/Users' Group is looking to
    improve data quality and make system improvements.

        Senator Feinstein. Right. Our subcommittee clerk actually
    went and took pictures of some of these, particularly in
    California and on BLM land. So we can share those with you as
    well.
        [The information follows:]

                                              ABANDONED MINE LANDS PROJECTS
                                                [In thousands of dollars]
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                             Project
            Region/area/district           Unit/          Unit name         State        Project title        cost
                                         facility                                                           estimate
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    AKR................................     DENA   Denali................      AK   Close Hazardous Mine          32
                                                                                     to Improve Visitor
                                                                                     Safety.
    AKR................................     KEFJ   Kenai Fjords..........      AK   Install Gate to              179
                                                                                     Protect Visitors and
                                                                                     Preserve Resource
                                                                                     Habitat at Remote
                                                                                     Locations (multiple
                                                                                     projects).
    AKR................................     WRST   Wrangell-St. Elias....      AK   Install Gate to               71
                                                                                     Protect Visitors and
                                                                                     Preserve Resource
                                                                                     Habitat (multiple
                                                                                     projects).
    MWR................................     BUFF   Buffalo National River      AR   Repair Fences to             396
                                                                                     Protect Visitors and
                                                                                     Preserve Resource
                                                                                     Habitat.
    IMR................................         CORCoronado..............      AZ   Install Gate to              868
                                                                                     Protect Visitors and
                                                                                     Preserve Resource
                                                                                     Habitat at Remote
                                                                                     Locations (multiple
                                                                                     projects).
    IMR................................     FOBO   Fort Bowie............      AZ   Install Gate to               54
                                                                                     Protect Visitors and
                                                                                     Preserve Resource
                                                                                     Habitat.
    PWR................................     PARA   Grand Canyon Para-          AZ   Install Gate to              164
                                                    shant.                           Protect Visitors and
                                                                                     Preserve Resource
                                                                                     Habitat (multiple
                                                                                     projects).
    IMR................................     SAGU   Saguaro...............      AZ   Install Gate to              189
                                                                                     Protect Visitors and
                                                                                     Preserve Resource
                                                                                     Habitat (multiple
                                                                                     projects).
    IMR................................     SAGU   Saguaro...............      AZ   Repair Fences to             324
                                                                                     Protect Visitors and
                                                                                     Preserve Resource
                                                                                     Habitat.
    IMR................................     SAGU   Saguaro...............      AZ   Remove Contaminated          418
                                                                                     Soil and Restore
                                                                                     Natural Landscape.
    IMR................................     SAGU   Saguaro...............      AZ   Install Steel Cupola          54
                                                                                     to Protect Visitors
                                                                                     and Preserve Resource
                                                                                     Habitat.
    IMR................................     SAGU   Saguaro...............      AZ   Seal Mine and Remove          54
                                                                                     Hazardous Structures
                                                                                     to Improve Visitor
                                                                                     Safety.
    IMR................................     SAGU   Saguaro...............      AZ   Seal Hazardous Mine to        54
                                                                                     Protect Visitor and
                                                                                     Restore Natural
                                                                                     Landscape (multiple
                                                                                     projects).
    PWR................................     DEVA   Death Valley..........        CA Install Gate to            1,688
                                                                                     Protect Visitors and
                                                                                     Preserve Resource
                                                                                     Habitat at Keane
                                                                                     Wonder Mine.
    PWR................................     DEVA   Death Valley..........        CA Install Gate to              304
                                                                                     Protect Visitors and
                                                                                     Preserve Resource
                                                                                     Habitat at Greenwater
                                                                                     Valley.
    PWR................................     DEVA   Death Valley..........        CA Install Gate to            1,958
                                                                                     Protect Visitors and
                                                                                     Preserve Resource
                                                                                     Habitat at Skidoo
                                                                                     Mine.
    PWR................................     DEVA   Death Valley..........        CA Install Gate to              939
                                                                                     Protect Visitors and
                                                                                     Preserve Resource
                                                                                     Habitat at Remote
                                                                                     Locations (multiple
                                                                                     projects).
    PWR................................     JOTR   Joshua Tree...........        CA Install Gate to            1,067
                                                                                     Protect Visitors and
                                                                                     Preserve Resource
                                                                                     Habitat (multiple
                                                                                     projects).
    PWR................................     MOJA   Mojave................        CA Perform Initial            1,625
                                                                                     Temporary Mine
                                                                                     Closure (multiple
                                                                                     projects).
    PWR................................     MOJA   Mojave................        CA Install Gate to              402
                                                                                     Protect Visitors and
                                                                                     Preserve Resource
                                                                                     Habitat at Abandoned
                                                                                     Paymaster Mine.
    PWR................................     MOJA   Mojave................        CA Install Gate to            4,494
                                                                                     Protect Visitors and
                                                                                     Preserve Resource
                                                                                     Habitat (multiple
                                                                                     projects).
    PWR................................     MOJA   Mojave................        CA Restore Natural              308
                                                                                     Landscape and
                                                                                     Resource Habitat.
    IMR................................     GRSA   Great Sand Dunes              CO Restore Natural            2,370
                                                    National Preserve.               Landscape and
                                                                                     Resource Habitat.
    PWR................................     LAME   Lake Mead.............      NV   Seal Hazardous Mine,         224
                                                                                     Install Gate, and
                                                                                     Restore Natural
                                                                                     Landscape (multiple
                                                                                     projects).
    PWR................................     LAME   Lake Mead.............      NV   Seal Hazardous Mine           21
                                                                                     and Restore Natural
                                                                                     Landscape (multiple
                                                                                     projects).
    PWR................................     LAME   Lake Mead.............      NV   Install Gate to              124
                                                                                     Protect Visitors and
                                                                                     Preserve Resource
                                                                                     Habitat (multiple
                                                                                     projects).
    MWR................................         CUVCuyahoga Valley.......      OH   Close Four Hazardous         126
                                                                                     Abandoned Oil and Gas
                                                                                     Wells and Restore
                                                                                     Natural Landscape.
    SER................................     BISO   Big South Fork              TN   Install Gate to              212
                                                    National River and               Protect Visitors and
                                                    Recreation Area.                 Preserve Resource
                                                                                     Habitat.
    SER................................     BISO   Big South Fork              TN   Close Eight Hazardous      2,862
                                                    National River and               Abandoned Oil and Gas
                                                    Recreation Area.                 Wells and Restore
                                                                                     Natural Landscape.
    IMR................................     BITH   Big Thicket...........      TX   Remove Two Oil and Gas       540
                                                                                     Wells and Restore
                                                                                     Natural Landscape.
    IMR................................       GLCA Glen Canyon...........      UT   Install Gate to               81
                                                                                     Protect Visitors and
                                                                                     Preserve Resource
                                                                                     Habitat.
    NER................................     NERI   New River Gorge             WV   Install Gate to              226
                                                    National River.                  Protect Visitors and
                                                                                     Preserve Resource
                                                                                     Habitat (multiple
                                                                                     projects).
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                 BRIAN O'NEILL

        Senator Feinstein. I also would like to thank you--I was
    reading your testimony--for including the statement on Brian
    O'Neill. His memorial service--this was a wonderful park
    superintendent of the Golden Gate recreation area, and he was
    enormously popular. And I think 3,000 people turned out for a
    memorial service, which is really quite unusual and wonderful.
    So thank you for your comments in your written testimony. They
    are appreciated.
        Secretary Salazar. I appreciate that, Senator Feinstein.
    Let me just say, if I may, that Brian O'Neill was one of the
    heroes of our National Park System, and one of the truths about
    this Department is the 73,000 employees, which include the
    seasonals that we have onboard, they are very good and
    wonderful public servants. And whether they work in Tennessee
    or in the Dakotas or in California, it has been one of the
    highlights of my time at Interior.
        Senator Feinstein. Thank you.
        Senator.
        Senator Alexander. Thank you.

                      GREAT SMOKY MOUNTAINS NATIONAL PARK

        Mr. Secretary, first, we very much hope you will be able to
    come to the Great Smoky Mountains 75th anniversary celebration
    in the fall. And if you can, you will be welcomed by lots of
    people. We hope the President can come as well. He has been
    invited by the Governors of North Carolina and Tennessee.
        Would you put on your list for after you get a few more
    employees onboard the Smokies, the air tour management plan,
    the overflights of the National Parks? That is an issue in some
    places, and a law was passed. Senator Akaka did a lot of work
    on it in 2000. It is an argument between the FAA and the
    National Park Service, and we can talk about it sometime. But I
    would like to get that going. I would like to see one, for
    example, for the Great Smoky Mountains area.

                                RENEWABLE ENERGY

        Second, just a couple of observations on what was said
    earlier, you mentioned Hemlock. Now I don't want to get into an
    energy debate with you because I am talking about landscape.
        We do have these two new solar plants making polysilicon in
    Tennessee. They are billion dollar investments. It goes to make
    solar cells. We are trying to be a solar hub down there of
    energy research with Oak Ridge and with Sharp Manufacturing in
    Memphis. But what is interesting to note is each of the two
    polysilicon plants, including the one you mentioned, use 120
    megawatts of electricity.
        Now the only--the Governor has started a 5 megawatt solar
    facility in Tennessee. It covers 20 acres. In other words,
    those solar jobs wouldn't be there if they were relying on
    windmills and solar energy. They have to get their energy from
    nuclear and coal and natural gas in order to be able to be in
    Tennessee. One hundred twenty megawatts is a huge amount.
        Second, I totally agree with your focus on wind power
    offshore. I mean, I think that makes the most sense. The
    question it raises to me, as you do your planning, is one
    reason we thought that 10 miles offshore might be good for oil
    and gas drilling is you couldn't see it 10 miles offshore. You
    would have to go 15 or 16 miles offshore not to be able to see
    the big wind turbines, and you might want to think about that.
        And that also raises the question to me again of if you are
    going to do that on the east coast and the west coast, then why
    would we spend hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars and
    ratepayer dollars trying to bring wind from North Dakota to New
    York City, when all you have got to do is plug it in, as you
    have said, from out there?
        But here is my question. Listening to Senator Feinstein and
    others, someone said, I believe the chairman, that there were
    47,000 abandoned mines across the country?
        Senator Feinstein. No, in California.
        Senator Alexander. In California. Well, if 20 percent of
    our electricity is wind, that would take 130,000 wind turbines
    that are 50 stories tall, 2 megawatts each. So even if we could
    think about an appropriate place to put them, wouldn't it be a
    good idea to require the developers to put up a bond to take
    them down if they don't use them anymore?
        Because the subsidy might go away, in which case many of
    them wouldn't be viable. The price of energy might change. Let
    us say we have a breakthrough in solar power, and suddenly, it
    is cheap. Everybody says rather than put up windmills, we will
    just put panels on our rooftops.
        Or they wear out after about 15 years, and wouldn't it be a
    good idea to require a bond so that we don't have Senators 20
    years from now coming with the abandoned windmill legislation,
    like Senator Feinstein is about to come forward with the
    abandoned mine legislation?
        Senator Feinstein. And you can be assured if I am around, I
    will.
        Senator Alexander. I am sure you will be around.
        Senator Feinstein. I hope so.
        Senator Alexander. But what about the bond idea?
        Secretary Salazar. The bond idea makes sense. What we need
    to do is make sure that as we are permitting renewable energy
    projects, that we are doing it cradle-to-grave. That is to say
    from the permit and the environmental assessments to the end of
    the project and the decommissioning of the project to make sure
    that the landscape and the environment is restored back to its
    original condition. It is very much something that is on our
    agenda.
        Just very quickly, I will get back to you on the helicopter
    flights in general.
        Senator Alexander. Sure.
        Secretary Salazar. On nuclear, you raised that a couple of
    times, Senator Alexander. We are very open, as part of the
    Obama energy comprehensive plan, to look at nuclear as being
    part of our energy program for the Nation.
        And third, I want to comment just a little bit in terms of
    the Dakotas and the height and the winds from the high plains.
    There is, at the end of the day, in terms of onshore wind, what
    we have to do is deal with the reality of transmission. It may
    be that the great wind resource, which we do have in the
    Dakotas and places like Wyoming, and other places, we will be
    able to provide power into places like Chicago and the Midwest
    and tie into a system where we can move energy around.
        That is why we have to be very thoughtful with respect to
    where we are locating the renewable energy generation
    facilities, but also be very thoughtful about how we are
    placing them relative to our transmission capabilities which we
    currently have and transmission capabilities to be built in the
    future.

                        LAND AND WATER CONSERVATION FUND

        Senator Alexander. Madam Chairman, if I could only--say I
    haven't asked the Secretary questions about the Land and Water
    Conservation Fund. But he knows how interested I am in
    supporting him in those efforts, how much I enjoyed working
    with him on those items before. And I do think--and I know of
    his interest in this, and I do think he has an opportunity to
    leave a great legacy in that area. And I hope to be able to
    support that and to work with him on it as we have before.
        Senator Feinstein. Thank you very much, Senator.
        We are joined by Senator Dorgan. Senator, please, take
    over.
        Senator Dorgan. Thank you very much, Senator Feinstein.
        I apologize that I have been delayed at another hearing.
        Secretary Salazar, thank you for being with us.
        Mr. Secretary, you were in North Dakota recently visiting
    an Indian tribe and some energy projects. I want to ask you
    about something we talked about then, and it is not a big
    national policy, but it is one that is an irritant for a lot of
    folks.

                    ELK AT THEODORE ROOSEVELT NATIONAL PARK

        We have the Theodore Roosevelt National Park in the
    Badlands, and we have a problem with overpopulation of elk. And
    so, the question was how do you thin the elk herd? And
    originally, the National Park Service talked about maybe hiring
    Federal sharpshooters and then using helicopters to transport
    out the carcasses, which is just completely devoid of common
    sense.
        And so, in the Grand Tetons, for 50 years, there has been
    an opportunity when they have to thin the herd, they go ahead
    and qualify certain hunters who are capable hunters, allow them
    to come in as agents and thin the herd, and take one elk
    carcass per hunter out of the park.
        Do it without any Federal cost at all, no helicopters,
    Federal sharpshooters. And so, I have been trying to get them
    to see if I could get to the same position in North Dakota, the
    Theodore Roosevelt National Park.
        So they have held a bunch of meetings now, a good many
    meetings across the State, not allowing anybody to speak at the
    meetings, which is a very curious thing. And now they are
    thinking maybe they will allow some hunters, but not allow any
    hunter to take the meat.
        So the problem is they have just got themselves wound
    around a tree, like the rope around a tree, trying to figure
    out what should take you and me about 10 minutes to come to a
    conclusion on.
        Can you help us get to a conclusion that just allows the
    Federal Government to get the elk herd thinned without spending
    Federal money and allowing qualified hunters to come in and
    take the meat home? And it is all over, and we can free up a
    little time with these big old planners down at the Park
    Service who have just met themselves coming and going trying to
    figure it out?
        Secretary Salazar. Senator Dorgan, the answer is yes. Let
    me say that I very much enjoyed my visit to North Dakota to
    review the carbon sequestration program, which is the only one
    in the Western Hemisphere which is actually up and running, and
    to do the work that we did at the Indian reservations and other
    things that we did at your invitation in North Dakota.
        The Theodore Roosevelt National Park and the elk issue is
    one I think which calls out for common sense solutions, and
    that is what we will push. I do now have a list of about 1,000
    items that have piled up from United States Senators, members
    of the United States Congress and Governors, and I need to get
    people into place so that I can start executing on some of the
    requests that have been made of me. This is one which is on my
    radar screen, as you and I had discussed.
        At Rocky Mountain National Park, we came up with a common
    sense solution that involved hunting and that uses the reality,
    which we all know, those of us who come from that background,
    that hunting is, in fact, a wildlife management tool. If we
    have elk as wildlife in our National Parks, there is a way in
    which we can do it in a common sense way that still protects
    the mission of the National Park Service and National Park
    units.
        Senator Dorgan. Mr. Secretary, I have a lot of confidence
    in you. So I look forward to working with you on that common
    sense solution.

                         INDIAN COUNTRY LAW ENFORCEMENT

        One final question. As you know, I chair the Indian Affairs
    Committee, and we have very serious law enforcement problems on
    Indian reservations. One in three Indian women will be raped or
    sexually assaulted during their lifetime. On some Indian
    reservations, on the Standing Rock Reservation that straddles
    North and South Dakota, the rate of violent crime is nearly six
    times that of the national average--not double, triple, or
    quadruple, six times.
        And you have I believe 9 law enforcement officers that are
    providing 24 hours a day, 7 days a week law enforcement on an
    area the size of the State of Connecticut. Obviously, an
    emergency call for law enforcement help might be answered in 8
    hours. It could be the next day on an emergency basis. So we
    have got all of these problems.
        We have a place called Artesia, New Mexico, training tribal
    police candidates. They get about 150 people a year into
    Artesia and graduate about 50 percent of them. So we get about
    80 new graduates each year in tribal law enforcement issues.
        And we need to establish a second area. I have talked to
    you about that. And I just wanted to especially call your
    attention to the need in the BIA that you are involved with
    down at Interior to help us address this serious law
    enforcement problem. It is urgent on many reservations in many
    States across the country.
        And if you would work with us on that, I would sure
    appreciate it. And we do need to establish a second location
    for an Indian police academy. We obviously need to be
    graduating more than 80 a year, and you and I have talked about
    that as well.
        So you inherit a pretty big job. And by the way,
    congratulations on your selection for the head of the BIA, the
    Assistant Secretary's job that has been open and vacant for
    half of the last, I believe, 5 or 6 years, which is shameful.
    But you have a good candidate that we have now moved through
    the United States Senate. I think that is going to help a great
    deal.
        Secretary Salazar. Thank you, Senator Dorgan.
        And let me say thank you as well for your leadership and
    advocacy in getting Larry Echo Hawk confirmed as Assistant
    Secretary for Indian Affairs. I have already met with him. This
    was his first week on the job, and we have placed these issues
    on his agenda.
        Since the Assistant Secretary for Policy, Management, and
    Budget was just confirmed and is sitting right behind me, I
    will ask Rhea Suh to take a look at the very question which you
    raise. I think we have a $500,000 increase to provide an
    outreach program for police training from the current existing
    academy.
        Senator Dorgan. That is correct.
        Secretary Salazar. It seems to me the concept that you
    raise of having an academy that is not in Artesia, New Mexico,
    but an additional one up in the northern part of the country is
    one that makes some sense conceptually. Let me put that on
    Rhea's screen and Larry Echo Hawk's screen and let us come back
    to you with something that we might be able to do.

                               ENERGY DEVELOPMENT

        Senator Dorgan. And one final thank you. On energy
    development, particularly oil development--in our State, as you
    know, oil development was occurring north, south, and west of
    the Indian reservation Three Affiliated Tribes.
        It was the largest assessed recoverable oil reserve in the
    history of the Lower 48 States, called the Bakken Shale.
        We had up to 100 rigs drilling new wells every 30 or 35
    days and moving. And if you got a map and see where they are
    going to drill the new wells, they weren't drilling them on the
    Indian reservation, despite the fact that was right in the
    middle of ground zero. It was because there was a 49-step
    process and 4 different Federal offices that had to do with all
    kinds of issues, and so the result was we didn't have any wells
    up there that were being drilled.
        You and your former Interior Secretary have addressed this,
    and we now have some capability, and we are seeing some wells
    drilled finally on the reservations. So that is a big start.
        I hope you will pay a lot of attention to that because the
    bureaucracy is like walking through wet cement. You have got a
    49-step process and 4 different agencies inside of the Interior
    that have to do approvals. We need to streamline that somehow
    because we need to have energy development on these Indian
    reservations as well.
        So thanks for your work on it, and your predecessor did
    some good work as well. We appreciate that.
        Secretary Salazar. I agree.

                         POINT REYES NATIONAL SEASHORE

        Senator Feinstein. If I might, Mr. Secretary, you might
    want to take a look overall at the policies. I think I told you
    about the whitetail deer in the Point Reyes National Seashore,
    and there was helicopters shooting of these deer by the Park
    Service.
        They are not a native species. They are loved by the
    residents. They are beautiful deer. And so, the Park Service
    decided they were going to shoot them all, and they put out the
    helicopters. And I heard immediately from the residents who
    were very upset about it, and it was a tussle. But finally, the
    way it was resolved was that the helicopters shooting would
    stop and that birth control would take care of the remaining
    population.
        But it is really concerning. I think there ought to be a
    review of what these policies are because elk is good to eat,
    too. Why shouldn't hunters be able to do some hunting on a
    regulated basis and take home the meat?
        I mean, this business of running helicopters over and
    shooting whitetail deer, I mean it is terrible.
        Senator Dorgan. Senator Feinstein, if I might just yield on
    that point? We generally have a no hunting provision in the law
    with respect to National Parks, but that should not apply to a
    program by which the Park Service or those that are running the
    parks decide they have got to thin a herd. Why would they not
    then use qualified hunters?
        But this nutty idea of going out and hiring a bunch of
    Federal sharpshooters and helicopters, you know, the sky is the
    limit apparently with the budgets of some of these agencies.
    All we need is just a good strong dose of common sense to fix
    these things.

                          WILD HORSE AND BURRO PROGRAM

        Senator Feinstein. One last issue, if I might? And that is
    the Wild Horse and Burro Program. This is run by the BLM, and
    it is proposed to increase from $41 million to $67 million. It
    is a 63 percent increase.
        And the budget attributes the problem to a dramatic
    increase in holding costs resulting from a decline in the
    adoption market. And it goes on to say that program costs--and
    this is a quote--``would continue to increase significantly in
    future years unless new and innovative management approaches
    are implemented.''
        So these costs are rising steadily. There is an
    alternative, and I would like to hear your thought.
        Madeleine Pickens has come in and spoken with me, proposing
    to create a horse sanctuary. I believe she is actually looking
    at some land in Nevada, whereby she would take many of the
    horses currently being held by the Government and allow them to
    roam free. This is a 540,000-acre ranch in Nevada. And in
    return, and the Government would give her $500 per head in an
    animal stipend.
        Now are you familiar with this proposal? Have you had a
    chance to look at it?
        Secretary Salazar. I am familiar, first, with the problem,
    and second, I am familiar with Ms. Pickens's proposal. I am not
    pre-judging what we will do there, but it, frankly, strikes me
    that paying $500 a year per horse, you will soon in 10 years
    pay $5,000 per horse. In 20 years, it is $10,000. In 30 years,
    it is $30,000.
        Senator Feinstein. So the problem is that $500?
        Secretary Salazar. Frankly, I think we need a whole new
    strategy with respect to how we deal with this mushrooming
    problem on our public lands. I can think of the needs that you
    have to balance out here in Congress, we have to balance in the
    administration.
        Frankly, having us come before you today and say $41
    million is not sufficient, we need $67 million in order to deal
    with the wild horse and burro problem, I think, is a reflection
    of a failed strategy that we have had with respect to wild
    horses and burros.
        I will, as soon as I have an Assistant Secretary for Land
    and Minerals and a BLM Director, put them on task to come up
    with a new strategic plan on how we deal with this issue.
        Senator Feinstein. Right. I would appreciate your keeping
    me advised. As an old horse person, these wild horses have a
    real place in our country. And I understand the growth, but
    there might be some response in terms of a proposal from the
    Government to her.
        I understand your per-head cost. Maybe it is a fixed fee
    for over a period of the next 5 to 10 years or something like
    that. If she were to obtain the ranch and run it, I mean, she
    would have to provide the people and the food, the feed, which
    is not inexpensive for so many horses.
        Secretary Salazar. If I may, Senator Feinstein, I would
    like to comment. The problem that we have with horses out in
    the wild range is that, frankly, because of the cost of feed,
    what many people have done who are horse owners is basically
    turn these horses out onto the public lands. What was once a
    horse owned in private ownership essentially becomes a charge
    of the Federal Government. I think there is an unfairness with
    respect to that.
        Senator Feinstein. That is right. I would agree.
        Secretary Salazar. It is no different, in fact, than what
    is happening in the Everglades, where Senator Nelson has made a
    legitimate significant issue of the Burmese python, where
    people with pythons have essentially decided that they are
    going to turn their pythons out into the Everglades. Today, we
    have 150,000, it is estimated, pythons that are taking over the
    Everglades. A nonnative invasive species.
        Senator Feinstein. Oh, my goodness.
        Secretary Salazar. And those are the kind of problems that
    end up becoming charges of the Federal Government, which then
    we have to deal with. Those are the kinds of issues that I
    think require us to do some strategic thinking about how we are
    going to deal with them, and I will do that.
        Senator Feinstein. I appreciate it. Thank you very much.
        Do you have any other comments?
        Senator Alexander. Only to say to the Senator from North
    Dakota, we will take some of the elk. We have been trying to
    get more into the Smokies.
        And second, we have some old boys in east Tennessee who
    they give night goggle visions to and they go out and shoot
    hogs at night, and that is how we get rid of them. And we will
    loan them to you.
        Senator Dorgan. We have got plenty of hunters in North
    Dakota that will find their mark. But are you looking for live
    elk or dead elk?
        Well, then you just send some trucks.

                         ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS

        Senator Feinstein. Well, we may have accomplished something
    this morning after all.
        Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary. It is good to have you
    aboard. It is good to work with you, and this subcommittee
    looks to do right by you, too. So thank you very much.
        Secretary Salazar. Thank you very much, Senator Feinstein,
    Alexander, Dorgan, and Reed, everybody else who is here.
        Senator Feinstein. Thank you.
        [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 Byron L. Dorgan

                         INDIAN GUARANTEED LOAN PROGRAM

        Question. The Department's Office of Indian Energy and Economic
    Development provides much needed access to capital in Indian country
    through its Indian Guaranteed Loan Program. This program provides
    access to financial capital by guaranteeing and insuring loans and
    tribal bonds to promote reservation economic development. The Program
    supports the development of Indian-owned businesses, which in turn
    creates reservation jobs. This program has proven to be one of the most
    successful Federal economic development programs in the Nation. The
    Program currently leverages appropriated dollars at a 13 to 1 ratio.
    This program has generated jobs and employment opportunities from the
    resulting growth and expansion of reservation economies. The default
    rate under this program is less than 1.5 percent annually, far
    outperforming other federally guaranteed loan programs. The Program has
    been underutilized in recent years. In fiscal year 2008, more than a
    dozen traditional and renewable energy projects were not funded because
    of the Office's limited budget. In addition, this effective program has
    historically not kept up with inflation.
        Are you able to meet demand for this program?
        Answer. In 2008 and 2009 the Department of the Interior worked with
    potential borrowers and lenders interested in the Guaranteed Loan
    Program to identify qualified projects and allocate the available loan
    ceiling for each fiscal year. Projects that could not be serviced
    during a given fiscal year are addressed the next fiscal year to the
    greatest extent possible.
        Question. What is the percentage of applications you are able to
    finance each fiscal year?
        Answer. In 2008, we were able to fund 27 guaranteed loans and 18
    insured loans and expend 100 percent of our loan ceiling. Because of
    the nature of the program and our hands-on coordination with the
    lenders, it is not possible to provide a percentage answer. During
    preliminary discussions, we indicate to the lending community whether
    or not the project would qualify for the program and if it does what
    the likelihood would be of obtaining an allocation during that fiscal
    year.
        Question. Are you able to finance energy projects with the current
    funding?
        Answer. We are able to fund projects similar to those we have
    funded in the past. This includes energy projects.
        Question. Would you support doubling or tripling the funding for
    the Indian Guaranteed Loan Program so that it can accommodate demand
    and energy projects that require greater capital investment?
        Answer. Development of renewable and conventional energy resources
    in an ownership position is critical for many tribes who rely on these
    resources for economic development or economic diversity. We would be
    able to manage any increased funding and have the technical staff
    available to evaluate energy development projects for inclusion in the
    Guaranteed Loan Program.

                           ADMINISTRATIVE COST GRANTS

        Question. Administrative Cost Grants are used by those self-
    governance tribes who take over the operation of Bureau of Indian
    Education schools. The Administrative Cost Grant funds are used to
    cover the costs of the vital administrative, management, auditing, and
    fiscal accounting functions that tribal school boards must perform
    pursuant to Federal law and prudent management practice. Currently,
    these costs are being funded at only 62.36 percent. This level of
    funding creates a shortfall that the tribe either must make up from
    some other funding source, or services to students must be cut back.
    The funding for administrative cost grants has not been increased since
    2003.
        In the fiscal year 2010 budget request, the administration did
    propose an increase in Bureau of Indian Affairs contract support costs
    of $5.5 million, and an increase of $107 million for Indian Health
    Service support costs. However, no increase was proposed for
    Administrative Cost Grants.
        Could you please explain the administration's reasoning in
    requesting increases in Bureau of Indian Affairs and Indian Health
    Service support costs, but not for tribally operated schools?
        Answer. The 2010 President's budget addressed many of the
    challenges in Indian Country. The $5.5 million increase for Contract
    Support and the $2 million increase for the Indian Self-Determination
    Fund support tribal management activities, and provide the resources
    necessary for tribes to manage their own programs.
        Although there is not an increase for Administrative Cost Grants,
    the 2010 President's budget sustains congressional increases for the
    Bureau of Indian Education (BIE) in 2009, and provides an additional
    increase of $72 million for several key activities that will improve
    Indian education. The 2010 request includes $391.7 million for Indian
    Student Equality Program (ISEP) formula funds, an additional $17
    million over 2009. This is one of the primary sources of funding for
    the BIE's 169 elementary and secondary schools and 14 dorms. Funds
    directly support schools for core operating costs, such as salaries for
    teachers, aides, administrators, support staff, and supplies, and
    classroom materials.
        Facility Operations, under Elementary and Secondary Programs, is
    provided an additional $2 million in this request. The program funds
    operational expenses, such as electricity and custodial services, for
    educational facilities at all 183 BIE schools and dormitories. Schools
    are operated and maintained in order to ensure their continued safety
    and usefulness for educational purposes. Additional funds are included
    in the construction program for major and minor improvement projects.
                                     ______

                   Questions Submitted by Senator Ben Nelson

        Question.  It is my understanding that the United States Geological
    Survey (USGS) and the University of Nebraska--Lincoln have completed a
    major global climate change/water study that is designed to form the
    basis for a major cooperative research agenda for the Platte River and
    the High Plains. As you know this is a very productive and ecologically
    diverse area. What are your plans for this study and have you included
    any funding in the fiscal year 2010 budget for pursuing
    recommendations?
        Answer. In 2009, the USGS is completing a science plan for the
    Great Platte River Basin to address the effects of climate impacts on
    sensitive ecosystems, natural resources, and human infrastructure. The
    report, Climate-Impacts Science Plan for the Greater Platte River
    Basin, is to be published by early 2010. The 2010 budget request does
    include funds for efforts such as this; however, project funding levels
    have yet to be determined.
        Question.  Since water availability and use are of increasing
    concern. There are many competing uses for water. Climate variability
    and land use are having an impact. How do you see the role of the
    Department of the Interior evolving or changing with respect to water?
    How do you expect to interact with other departments and agencies?
        Answer. USGS scientists are increasing their research focus on the
    links between water availability and climate change, climate
    variability and land use. Our studies have demonstrated a number of
    emerging problems associated with the effects of earlier snowmelt and
    increased rainfall versus snowfall in western mountains on water
    supply. A recent example of improved collaboration among Federal
    agencies (USGS, Bureau of Reclamation, NOAA, and U.S. Army Corps of
    Engineers) led to the 2009 USGS publication of ``Climate Change and
    Water Resources Management: A Federal Perspective'', jointly authored
    by the four agencies as USGS Circular 1331.
        To focus our efforts on the issue of water availability and water
    use, the USGS is preparing an implementation plan for a National Water
    Availability and Use Assessment of the United States as called for in
    both the USGS Science Strategy, Circular 1309, Facing Tomorrow's
    Challenges--U.S. Geological Survey Science in the Decade 2007-2017 and
    in the Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009 (Public Law 111-11)
    signed by the President on March 30, 2009.
                                     ______

                   Questions Submitted by Senator Jon Tester

        Question. If the Department of the Interior were to cut AML funding
    from certified States does the agency have plans for providing
    additional resources to cleanup mine sites in States like Montana?
        Answer. The President's budget for fiscal year 2010 proposes to
    eliminate payments to certified States and tribes. Therefore, the
    projection for payments to be made to States and tribes in fiscal year
    2010 will decrease by $141.5 million, to $232.4 million. The
    elimination of these payments will focus AML funding on the most
    hazardous coal sites and high-priority coal problems.
        Question. Has the Department considered alternative proposals that
    would ensure that all AML funding for certified States is directed
    toward either coal or hardrock mine cleanup to meet the original goals
    of the reclamation program to reduce threats to health and safety and
    clean up our air and water?
        Answer. The Surface Mining Control and Reclemation Act of 1977
    amendments allow certified States and tribes to use their AML funding
    for coal on hard rock mine reclamation. The President's budget for
    fiscal year 2010 proposes to eliminate payments to certified States and
    tribes. Therefore, the projection for payments to be made to States and
    tribes in fiscal year 2010 will decrease by $141.5 million, to $232.4
    million. The elimination of these payments will focus AML funding on
    remaining high-priority coal problems.
        Question. How will the Department make up for the critical shift in
    funding away from housing improvement in the Housing Improvement
    Program (HIP), which helps the poorest of the poor in Indian country?
        Answer. The 2010 President's budget requests $12.6 million for the
    HIP, and an additional $1.1 million in regional oversight for the
    management of the program. This combined funding of $13.7 million is
    equivalent to the 2009 enacted level. The reduction of $1.1 million
    from the HIP line item in 2010 and the corresponding $1.1 million
    increase in regional oversight was a necessary shift in funding to fill
    a gap in the oversight of the program.
        Question. What is the Department schedule for spending Recovery Act
    funds on replacement school construction, given the dramatic cut in the
    Education Construction budget for fiscal year 2010? If appropriated,
    will your budget eliminate the current school construction back-log? If
    not, how can you justify this Indian Country funding cut, given the
    well-documented need?
        Answer. The Replacement School Construction program provides for
    replacement of existing school campuses based on a pre-established
    priority list of 14 schools published in the Federal Register on March
    24, 2004. The priority is based on addressing the overall condition of
    education facilities.
        The first four schools on the priority list have already been
    funded. The fifth school received funding in fiscal year 2009 and
    planning for the sixth school is scheduled for fiscal year 2010. The
    next three replacement schools on the priority list were selected for
    funding under the Recovery Act, as well as two components of prior
    replacement schools.
        The 2010 Education Construction budget is funded at $113 million,
    $15.8 million below the 2009 enacted level. This reduction takes into
    account the five schools that will be replaced with Recovery Act
    funding. The budget still funds planning and design for three schools,
    provides funding for three school facility replacements, and maintains
    necessary annual school maintenance funding.
        Question. Given the well-documented need to improve Indian
    healthcare and economies, why did you eliminate funding for the Inter
    Tribal Bison Cooperative (ITBC), a group that enables tribes to produce
    culturally appropriate, reduced fat meats, while supporting tribal
    agricultural business enterprises?
        Answer. The Bureau of Indian Affairs Natural Resources Management
    program assists tribes in the management, development, and protection
    of Indian trust land and natural resource assets. The fiscal year 2010
    budget provides over $23 million for this crucial work. As in prior
    years, programs including the ITBC will be considered for funding via a
    merit-based process that considers programs with existing memoranda of
    understanding, legal settlements, treaty rights, or that have shown to
    be of merit in the past. The fiscal year 2010 BIA budget does not
    contain specific funding for the ITBC, however the ITBC has fared well
    in previous merit-based review processes.
                                     ______

                 Questions Submitted by Senator Lamar Alexander

        Question. The last Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) that was
    conducted by the Department of the Interior concerning the impacts of
    coal mining in Tennessee was done in 1985. Many things have changed
    since that time. These changes include developments in the technology
    and methods used for mining, changes in marketplace conditions, new
    effluent standards developed by EPA, new information about threatened
    and endangered species, and the experience of both the State and the
    Office of Surface Mining (OSM) in regulating mining.
        Does OSM believe that a new EIS needs to be undertaken?
        Answer. After careful review, the OSM determined that preparing a
    comprehensive programmatic EIS to address all Federal regulation of
    coal mining in Tennessee under the National Environmental Policy Act of
    1969 (NEPA) is not warranted.
        Question. If not, why not?
        Answer. Under section 702(d) of the Surface Mining Control and
    Reclamation Act of 1977, adopting or revising a Federal program for a
    State is not a ``major Federal action'' subject to section 102 of NEPA.
    Hence, revising the Tennessee Federal program at 30 CFR Part 942,
    including the State-specific standards and procedures contained in it
    would not be a ``major Federal action'' under NEPA subject to
    preparation of an EIS. Further, OSM already complies fully with NEPA
    for every permitting action under the Tennessee Federal program. Each
    environmental review under NEPA for permitting actions takes into
    account all relevant information, including site-specific information
    needed to ensure the validity of our NEPA evaluation.
        Question. If the agency believes it's necessary, when could the
    agency begin this process?
        Answer. For the reasons stated in the two previous questions, OSM
    does not believe the process is necessary.
        Question. How long would it take?
        Answer. For the reasons stated in the two previous questions, OSM
    does not believe the process is necessary.
                                     ______

                  Questions Submitted by Senator Thad Cochran

        Question. Mr. Secretary, Ship Island, one Mississippi's Gulf Coast
    barrier islands, is an extremely popular beach and tourist spot. Since
    Hurricane Katrina hit in 2005, Ship Island has received too little
    attention from the National Park Service (NPS). Two years passed before
    temporary bathrooms and temporary shade structures were put on the
    island. Now Fort Massachusetts, a historic Civil War site, is in danger
    of losing its structural foundations due to severe beach erosion. Does
    the National Park Service plan to address this situation?
        Answer. Hurricane Katrina dealt a very serious blow to the Gulf
    Coast. Reconstruction efforts were slow to start, but will be completed
    at the Gulf Island National Seashore in May of 2010. NPS has begun
    repairs and rehabilitation efforts at Fort Massachusetts and
    obligations to date equal $34,263. The current approved budget is
    $730,000. This project will be completed in two phases with phase I due
    to be completed in 2009 and phase II due to be completed in May of
    2010.
        Question. The National Heritage Area Program has become
    increasingly popular, and funding for the program in your budget has
    remained static. Now that there are 49 heritage areas across the United
    States (including three in Mississippi), most areas are hardly funded,
    and the program office is understaffed. How does the Department of the
    Interior intend to solve these fundamental and growing problems with
    this program?
        Answer. The 2009 Omnibus Appropriations Act, Congress directed NPS
    to develop new guidelines for the Heritage Partnership program which
    require self-sufficiency plans for all areas within a reasonable period
    of time. It further directed NPS to require the adoption of a credible
    self-sufficiency plan or satisfactory work towards development of such
    a plan to be a condition of continued funding for all plans after
    fiscal year 2009. These guidelines and the plans will assist NPS to
    better manage this program.
        Question. Mr. Secretary, I have been working for several years to
    protect Cat Island within the NPS' Gulf Islands National Seashore in
    Mississippi. In 2008, I secured $2 million in NPS Land Acquisition
    funding for Cat Island and expected this project to be completed at the
    end of last year. I now understand the long-term protection of Cat
    Island has been tied up by an issue within the Department of the
    Interior's Appraisal Services Directorate. This is one of many projects
    across the country that has been delayed by appraisal issues within the
    Department. Given your interest in ramping up funding for the Land and
    Water Conservation Fund as illustrated by the Department's fiscal year
    2010 budget, how do you plan to address appraisal issues and the
    Appraisal Services Directorate to ensure projects such as Cat Island
    are completed on a timely basis while maintaining full accountability
    in the DOI appraisal process?
        Answer. Due to the unique requirements of the Cat Island project,
    the standard appraisal process was not required and the current status
    of the project is not a result of the appraisal process. Rather than
    have Appraisal Services provide a list of qualified appraisal
    contractors, the Conservation Fund selected the appraiser. The State of
    Mississippi conducted the initial review of the appraisal. However,
    because of internal concerns with the appraisal, the NPS subsequently
    requested a technical review by the Department's Appraisal Services
    Directorate (ASD). This technical review identified some issues that
    needed to be resolved, and options were identified to move the process
    forward but the family was not willing to consider these options.
        The appraisal process plays a significant role in the mission of
    Interior by identifying the fair market value of parcels of land for
    acquisition or exchange to protect stakeholder interests. To support
    the Presidential initiative to increase the LWCF, the budget request
    included additional funding for the ASD to increase capacity. The
    additional funding will be used to hire two expert appraisers to manage
    complex projects. The Department will also continue efforts to refine
    business processes and streamline contracting. Interior will examine
    process improvements, assess cycle times at each of the levels of the
    appraisal process and ultimately ensure cost effectiveness. We are
    working to improve the process to provide fair analysis; however, a
    detailed appraisal that incorporates evaluations of resource issues may
    take time to complete.
                                     ______

                  Questions Submitted by Senator Susan Collins

        Question. I am pleased you are taking a thorough and careful
    approach to develop a program for energy development on the Outer
    Continental Shelf (OCS). Our Nation must work together on
    comprehensive, long-term actions that will stabilize gas and oil
    prices, prevent energy shortages, and achieve national energy
    independence. Resources on the OCS can contribute to these goals. The
    State of Maine has tremendous potential for offshore wind and tidal
    energy. Offshore wind resources just off the coast of Maine could
    provide more than 150 gigawatts of clean, renewable energy. Maine also
    has considerable potential for tidal energy. Yet, the OCS off the coast
    of Maine is not included in the potential areas of interest for
    renewable energy identified in your Draft Proposed Program (DPP) for
    OCS energy resources. When you release a revised program plan, will you
    add the tremendous resource off the coast of Maine to the areas of
    interest for renewable energy development?
        Answer. The DPP proposes an OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program
    covering the years 2010-2015. In addition to OCS Lands Act statutory
    considerations, the DPP considers OCS renewable energy opportunities
    and denotes the potential for renewable energy development offshore of
    the State of Maine. Material Management Services (MMS) encourages
    States interested in developing renewable resources to submit comments
    to the DPP and the Department has extended the public comment period
    through September 21, 2009, for this purpose. The MMS will include in
    its analysis the considerable potential for renewable energy offshore
    of Maine and consider projects for which information is available.
        Question. I am a strong supporter of the National Park Service
    Centennial Initiative. This program would celebrate the 100th
    anniversary of the National Park System (NPS) by infusing our parks
    with a $1 billion mandatory spending fund over 10 years, which will be
    matched by an additional $1 billion in private donations. Eligible
    projects will be prioritized through input from both the public and a
    broad cross-section of NPS employees. My State of Maine is home to the
    first National Park east of the Mississippi River, Acadia National
    Park, a true gem on Maine's rocky coast. I believe this Challenge Fund
    should remain a priority for the National Park Service, but I
    understand there has been some difficulty identifying offsets for it.
    Will you work with Congress to identify offsets for the Centennial
    Challenge Fund so that we can support this important infusion of parks
    funding?
        Answer. In 2008, the Centennial Challenge invited individuals,
    foundations, businesses, and the private sector to contribute at least
    $100 million annually to support signature programs and projects in our
    National Parks. To encourage philanthropy and partnerships, the 2008
    budget proposed a new National Park Centennial Fund of $100 million
    that would match up to $100 million of mandatory funding annually for
    the next 10 years. In the 2008 appropriations act, Congress supported
    the concept and funded this initiative at $24.6 million through
    discretionary funds.
        The NPS went out to the public with their request and received
    tremendous response from the public and State and local governments.
    The response proposed matching funds for projects and programs totaling
    $380 million. The NPS went through a rigorous process to select the
    signature projects and programs to fund and leveraged the $24.6 million
    in Federal dollars with the proposed matching funds resulting in $52
    million invested in National Parks.
        In 2010, NPS has requested $25 million in discretionary funding for
    this program that will require at least $25 million in matching funds.
    If enacted, NPS will again go out to the public and the State and local
    governments to seek proposals.
        No offsets are needed for this program.

                              SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS

        Senator Feinstein. The subcommittee will stand in recess.
        [Whereupon, at 11:08 a.m., Wednesday, June 3, 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 2010

                                  ----------

                                           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 1854 Treaty Authority

        The 1854 Treaty Authority is an inter-tribal natural resource
    organization which implements the off-reservation hunting, fishing, and
    gathering rights of the Grand Portage and Bois Forte Bands of the Lake
    Superior Chippewa in the area ceded to the United States in the Treaty
    of 1854. Our program is partially funded by a Public Law 93-638
    contract with the Bureau of Indian Affairs. The 1854 Authority
    respectfully requests an increase of $270,000 to our existing base
    funding in order to meet the increased cost of fulfilling our court-
    ordered responsibilities.
        For background purposes, the Grand Portage, Bois Forte, and Fond du
    Lac Bands are signatories to the Treaty of September 30, 1854, 10 Stat.
    1109. In that Treaty the Bands ceded approximately 5,000,000 acres in
    northeastern Minnesota, reserving the right to hunt, fish, and gather
    in that territory. For most of the 20th century, those off-reservation
    rights lay dormant and unrecognized and tribal subsistence activities
    were relegated to lands within reservation boundaries.
        In 1985 the Bands went to Federal court seeking a declaratory
    judgment that the 1854 Treaty did indeed reserve these off-reservation
    rights and that the State of Minnesota had no authority to regulate
    tribal hunting, fishing, and gathering in the ceded territory. In the
    course of that litigation, the Bands and the State entered into
    negotiations concerning the exercise of treaty rights in the ceded
    territory. The negotiations resulted in an agreement which was approved
    by both the Minnesota Legislature and the tribal governments. The
    agreement was then entered as a consent decree in the Federal
    litigation such that the obligations of the parties are enforceable in
    court.
        One of the Bands' obligations under the agreement and court order
    was to create a means by which the Bands could effectively regulate
    Band member activities. After the Fond du Lac Band exercised its right
    to opt out with notice, the two remaining Bands formed the 1854 Treaty
    Authority. To this day, the 1854 Treaty Authority is the entity
    responsible for management of the Bands off-reservation hunting,
    fishing, and gathering rights.
        The 1854 Treaty Authority employs 10 full-time employees,
    consisting of an Administrative Division (3), a Resource Management
    Division (4) and an Enforcement Division (3). Two of the Resource
    Management positions are grant (temporary) funded. The organization is
    overseen by a Board of Directors comprised of the elected Tribal
    Councils of the Grand Portage and Bois Forte Bands. The 1854 Treaty
    Authority also has a judicial services division which retains a judge
    to hear matters arising under the tribal code.
        The 1854 Treaty Authority is a shining example of cooperation as we
    gather and share biological information with State, Federal, local, and
    other tribal governmental units. The 1854 Treaty Authority is
    authorized through a Joint Powers Agreement with the State of Minnesota
    to enforce State natural resource laws over non-tribal users and State
    Officers are authorized to enforce tribal law applicable to tribal
    users. The 1854 Treaty Authority has also conducted many natural
    resource improvement and research projects with the previously
    mentioned government entities, as well as organizations from the
    private sector.
        However, the 1854 Treaty Authority has struggled to maintain its
    full-time staff as we have not had an increase in base funding for our
    programs of any significance in many years, and in fact the base
    funding has decreased the last seven funding cycles. Simultaneously,
    cost of living expenses have been increasing at a regular rate, and
    some expenses have been increasing at an alarming rate (e.g., health
    insurance, vehicle insurance, fuel, etc.). Staff pay costs (wages plus
    benefits) combined with a decrease in base funding has compelled the
    Treaty Authority to absorb all the cost increases internally at the
    expense of other programs and services. However, in 2007 we were unable
    to do so and two vacated positions (one biologist and one enforcement)
    remain unfilled due to lack of funding. Of particular concern is the
    fact that our current enforcement staffing level (three officers) is
    woefully inadequate to cover the 5 million acres of ceded territory.
    The funding would go toward filling the two current vacancies and
    adding an additional officer.
        I understand that this is not a unique situation as budgets are
    tight everywhere, but at the same time the Federal Government has a
    trust responsibility to protect and preserve treaty rights. Those
    rights will be jeopardized if the 1854 Treaty Authority cannot fulfill
    its obligations as an effective manager of treaty resources. We
    strongly believe that we can continue to be an integral and positive
    component of natural resource management in northeastern Minnesota. As
    history shows in the short 20 years of our existence we have been able
    to establish the Bands rightful place among all stakeholders and
    provide services that stretch beyond tribal benefit. In short, the work
    we do benefits all users and citizens of this region.
        Without an increase in base funding, the Treaty Authority will be
    forced to make further changes that will result in diminishment of
    services to the Band members and lose the Bands' ability to participate
    meaningfully in natural resource management and conservation in
    northeastern Minnesota.
        Finally, I would like to close with a sincere thank you for the
    years of funding which have enabled the tribes success in this area and
    respectfully reiterate the request of an additional $270,000 in base
    funding to continue our work in the natural resource realm which is a
    positive for everyone.
                                     ______

     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 is the world's largest scientific and professional geological
    association. The purpose of the association is to advance the science
    of geology, foster scientific research, and promote technology. AAPG
    has more than 34,000 members around the world, with roughly two-thirds
    living and working in the United States. These are the professional
    geoscientists in industry, government, and academia who practice,
    regulate, and teach the science and process of finding and producing
    energy resources from the Earth.
        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, 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
    annually from fiscal year 2006 through fiscal year 2010. Historical
    allocations for this program have ranged from $750,000 to $1,000,000
    per year. These funding levels are inadequate to achieve this program's
    objectives.
        AAPG supports President Obama's fiscal year 2010 request to fund
    the Energy Resources Program activities at $29.7 million, and asks the
    subcommittee 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 $59.7 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 more than $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, the
    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.
        AAPG supports President Obama's fiscal year 2010 request for the
    Mineral Resources Program at $53.1 million, and urges the subcommittee
    to appropriate at that level.

                   GEOLOGIC LANDSCAPE AND COASTAL ASSESSMENTS

    National Cooperative Geologic Mapping Program (NCGMP)
        AAPG supports the 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 President Obama's request of $28.1 million in funding
    for the NCGMP in fiscal year 2010, and to consider future 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.
                                     ______

         Letter from the Alliance for Community Trees; American Forest
       Foundation; City of Chicago Department of Streets and Sanitation,
       Bureau of Forestry; City of Milwaukee Department of Public Works,
         Forestry Division; Davey Institute; International Maple Syrup
          Institute; National Association of State Foresters; Natural
      Biodiversity; The Nature Conservancy; New York State Department of
     Environmental Conservation; North American Maple Syrup Council, Inc.;
       Partnership for Saving Threatened Forests; The Pennsylvania Game
      Commission; Purdue University, Department of Entomology; Society of
       Municipal Arborists; The State University of New York College of
    Environmental Science and Forestry; Union of Concerned Scientists; and
     the University of Georgia, Center for Invasive Species and Ecosystem
                                     Health
                                                         April 7, 2009.
    Hon. Dianne Feinstein,
    Chairperson, Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related
            Agencies,
    Washington, DC.
    Hon. George Voinovich,
    Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related
            Agencies,
    Washington, DC.

    RE: Fiscal year 2010 appropriation for the USDA Forest Service
        Dear Chairperson Feinstein and Ranking Member Voinovich: We urge
    the subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies to
    appropriate adequate funding for the USDA Forest Service to manage
    nonnative insects and plant diseases that threaten America's forests.
    We recommend an fiscal year 2010 appropriation of $140 million for the
    USDA Forest Service forest health management program. This level is
    about $17 million more than the current level of funding. In addition,
    we ask that you provide an increase of $3 million more than the fiscal
    year 2008 appropriations level for the ``Invasives R&D'' line item
    within the Forest Service research program.
        Our proposed funding levels would maintain 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 nonnative 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.
        Our proposed significant increase in funding for the forest health
    protection program is intended to allow expanding that program so that
    it may address several newly detected pests (such as the ``1000-
    canker'' disease killing black walnuts and the goldspotted oak borer in
    southern California) while simultaneously increasing efforts targeting
    the Asian longhorned beetle and maintaining programs that help contain
    the sudden oak death pathogen, emerald ash borer, hemlock woolly
    adelgid, Sirex woodwasp, laurel wilt disease, gypsy moth, wiliwili gall
    wasp, and ohia rust.
        The forest health program provides vital expertise in forest pests'
    biology and detection and management methodology that is crucial to the
    success of pest eradication and containment programs implemented by the
    USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS). As these
    forest pests are detected in new areas, the importance of the Forest
    Service's contribution rises. A particularly significant expansion is
    needed for forest health programs targeting the Asian longhorned beetle
    as a result of the detection in 2008 of a well-established and large
    infestation in Worcester, Massachusetts. This infestation places the
    Asian longhorned beetle on the very edge of the highly vulnerable
    northern hardwood forests reaching from New England into Minnesota.
    These forests support hardwood timber, maple syrup, and autumn foliage
    tourism industries as well as important biological and watershed
    values. The forest health program must significantly increase its
    funding for detection and control methods, which in recent years have
    received only $200,000.
        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
    infected plants continue to appear in Eastern States as a result of the
    movement of infected nursery plants.
        The emerald ash borer has now been detected in nine States. The
    Forest Service's forest health protection program provides expertise in
    detecting this elusive insect, in developing more effective tools to
    curtail its spread, and in advising landowners on how to respond to the
    threat. For example, the Forest Service helps to fund a Web site
    maintained by the Continental Forest Dialogue
    (www.dontmovefirewood.org) in order to educate the public not to
    transport possibly infested wood that can spread pests. It is vitally
    important that the Forest Service effort targeting this insect not be
    reduced.
        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. The
    detection program now covers all States on a 3-year rotation. It now
    must develop and deploy methodologies to detect the highly damaging
    wood-boring beetles.
        The agency bearing the principal responsibility for eradicating
    newly introduced forest pests is not the USDA Forest Service, but
    rather the USDA 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--in close coordination with APHIS plant protection
    and quarantine and through cooperative funding agreements with State
    forestry, State departments of agriculture and State Land Grant
    Universities.
        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, Rural Development, Food and
    Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Subcommittee
    to find ways to increase funding for forest pest line items in the USDA
    APHIS emerging plant pest account.
                Sincerely,
                        Alice Ewen Walker, Executive Director, Alliance for
                                Community Trees; Drue DeBerry, Senior Vice
                                President--Conservation, American Forest
                                Foundation; Joseph J. McCarthy, Senior City
                                Forester, Bureau of Forestry, City of
                                Chicago Department of Streets and
                                Sanitation; David B. Sivyer, Forestry
                                Services Manager, Forestry Division, City
                                of Milwaukee Department of Public Works;
                                Anand B. Persad, Ph.D., B.C.E., Regional
                                Technical Advisor, Davey Institute; Gary
                                Gaudette, President, International Maple
                                Syrup Institute.
                        Jay Farrell, Executive Director, National
                                Association of State Foresters; Kristin
                                Sewak, Director, Natural Biodiversity;
                                Robert L. Bendick, Director, Government
                                Relations, The Nature Conservancy; Robert
                                K. Davies, New York State Forester, New
                                York State Department of Environmental
                                Conservation; Michael A. Girard, President,
                                North American Maple Syrup Council, Inc.;
                                Fred Hain, Director, Partnership for Saving
                                Threatened Forests.
                        Carl G. Roe, Executive Director, The Pennsylvania
                                Game Commission; Steve Yaninek, Professor
                                and Head, Department of Entomology, Purdue
                                University; Dan Hartman, President, Society
                                of Municipal Arborists; Cornelius B.
                                Murphy, Jr., Ph.D., President, The State
                                University of New York College of
                                Environmental Science and Forestry; Phyllis
                                N. Windle, Director, Invasive Species,
                                Union of Concerned Scientists; Dr. G. Keith
                                Douce, Co-Director, Center for Invasive
                                Species & Ecosystem Health, and Professor
                                of Entomology, College of Agricultural &
                                Environmental Sciences, University of
                                Georgia.
                                     ______

                Prepared Statement of the Americans for the Arts

        Americans for the Arts is pleased to submit written testimony to
    the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on the Interior, Environment,
    and Related Agencies supporting fiscal year 2010 funding for the
    National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) at a level of $200 million.
        In March, my organization hosted Arts Advocacy Day on Capitol Hill,
    an annual grassroots gathering cosponsored by 82 national organizations
    representing dance, theatre, music literature, visual, and media arts--
    the full landscape of American culture. Collectively, these groups
    represent tens of thousands of nonprofit and governmental cultural
    organizations at the State and local levels across the country. The
    united request that I present today is the result of the collaborative
    work of these passionate groups. My gratitude goes to all my colleagues
    who worked on bringing this important summit together.
        Last year Americans for the Arts testimony was devoted to the
    argument that the arts are a driver of industry whose jobs and
    collateral expenditures are proven economic catalysts that are the
    rival of any other segment of our economy. A year later I ask you to
    continue to help save those jobs which are still integral parts of the
    solution in solving this severe downturn.
        Trying economic times; a phrase I use intentionally not only for
    dramatic effect, but for the unavoidable truth of knowing that this
    testimony is offered to a subcommittee that deals with our country's
    purse strings. There will be no unseen elephant in the room about the
    severe economic downturn that is gripping our country--we know the
    elephant is in the room. The Nation's financial crisis is indeed having
    a devastating effect on our families, jobs, and communities and is
    appropriately at the forefront of all of our minds. And this
    subcommittee has shown leadership in advancing increased Federal
    resources for the arts and arts jobs during these most trying of
    economic times as we saw recently with the $10 million increase in this
    year's fiscal year 2009 omnibus bill and with the $50 million
    appropriation in the economic recovery bill.
        The arts community is eternally grateful for the congressional
    effort to preserve jobs in the cultural sector with the $50 million in
    the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act for the NEA. These funds
    will throw a much needed lifeline to the thousands of cultural
    institutions, artists, and community businesses that rely on a robust
    arts sector. It is hard for me to put into the proper context how
    grateful the creative community is that our sometimes overlooked
    contribution to the Nation's workforce was recognized by the new
    administration and Congress.
        This sentiment also extends, of course, to the $10 million boost to
    the annual NEA appropriation as well. Madam Chairman, your leadership
    has set a direct course toward restoring the NEA to the $176 million
    level it once had, and I hope that we will soon be looking beyond that
    marker in the years to come.
        The NEA, more so than many Federal agencies, has the infrastructure
    and dexterity to expedite relief to workers immediately, in accordance
    with the Obama administration's wishes that that these expenditures are
    of a quick and stimulative nature. And these are real jobs--jobs that
    cannot be outsourced. Creating the ability to extend production seasons
    means the employment of not just performers but of the entire apparatus
    that it takes to execute high-quality performances. These jobs are
    created in the United States and stay in the United States. I spoke
    earlier of the collateral benefits of cultural centers, but they are
    not the only beneficiaries of the recovery effort. By keeping those
    artists, artisans, production crews, educational programs, and local
    businesses working, you are relieving the burden on local governments
    as tax revenue keeps coming to the public coffers and eases pressure on
    the social safety net. This, of course, is like any other industry. NEA
    funding can be directly related to that effort.
        At the core of our membership are 4,000 local arts agencies. A
    local arts agency (LAA) is a community organization, or an agency of
    local government that supports cultural organizations, provides
    services to artists and/or arts organizations, and presents arts
    programming to the public. One of the most valuable aspects of an LAA
    to the community it serves is its ability to take public funds and
    responsibly re-grant the funding to grant applicants, often building in
    a requirement for those funds to be matched by corporate or private
    contributions. The NEA's economic recovery funding strategy recognized
    this and provided a grant category specifically for LAA's as a method
    of providing $100,000 or $250,000 grants at the local level. These
    grants awarded to LAAs will (a) speedily disburse local funding to all
    the arts disciplines; (b) help preserve and in some cases restore jobs
    for artists and administrators in the cultural workforce; and (c) serve
    to increase access to the arts by continuing their high-quality
    programs for audiences in towns across the country. I want to encourage
    this subcommittee to create a formal re-granting partnership program
    for local arts agencies to help the NEA better serve arts organization
    of all sizes in communities across the country.
        Local arts agencies also have their ear closest to the ground to
    provide Federal and State agencies with programmatic trends and a
    snapshot of the health of the arts field in every discipline. For
    example, in February, the Seattle Mayor's Office of Arts and Cultural
    Affairs, the Seattle Foundation, 4Culture, and the Paul G. Allen
    Foundation commissioned Helicon Collaborative to provide a quick scan
    of the key impacts that the economic recession has had on the cultural
    communities in the Pacific Northwest. Measuring the effects on revenue,
    programming, personnel, venues, and audiences revealed a multi-layer
    dilemma that is in direct consequence to the economic downturn. Decline
    in ticket sales to events ranges from 5 percent to 30 percent;
    contributed income is down 7 percent to 20 percent; and corporate
    donations and sponsorships a whopping 20 percent-50 percent. Arts
    organizations in previously immune cultural hub communities like
    Seattle have been cancelling or curtailing programming, and delaying
    openings of new installations and concert series.\1\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ The Economic Recession's Impact on Cultural Organizations in
    the Puget Sound, February, 2009.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Here are some recent examples of the downturn's effects on specific
    institutions in communities across the country:
      --The City of Riverside, California funded the arts and cultural
            affairs division at a limited level of $3 million last year.
            This year's budget is expected to drop 7 percent.
      --Some of the largest Tacoma-area businesses have eliminated or
            curtailed performing arts sponsorships for this year, and
            possibly longer, including Russell Investments and Boeing.
      --Staff reductions and layoffs have taken place at the Phoenix Art
            Museum, Phoenix Symphony, and Free Arts of Arizona.
      --Theatre West Virginia in Beckley was forced to sell off its assets
            due to the loss of a $100,000 State grant. The 38-year-old
            company's shows benefit the entire economy of the region--from
            hotels to gas stations and restaurants.
      --The Tennessee Art Commission and Community Foundation grants saw a
            9 percent cut in their grants budget.
      --The United Arts Council of Greensboro, North Carolina was forced to
            cut 5 percent from the grants it planned to give to 13 local
            arts groups. The council was forced to cut its budget by 12
            percent for the year.
        But we do not believe that Government is the only answer in
    addressing the gaps in funding. Arts organizations are tightening their
    belts and using their creative talents to try and keep delivering the
    same high-quality productions, services and programming our communities
    have been used to. But Government is a necessary and vital partnership
    that is the catalyst for the large majority of the art community's
    support, the private sector, and individual giving.
        Earlier this year, the National Governor's Association issued a
    report titled, ``Arts & the Economy: Using Arts and Culture to
    Stimulate State Economic Development'' which provides excellent
    strategies to assist State governments in their efforts to develop new
    cultural assets and increase revenue streams. The report states,
    ``Governors increasingly recognize the importance of the creative
    sector to their states' economy and ability to compete in the global
    marketplace.''
        In March, I had the opportunity to testify before the House
    Education and Labor Committee and Chairman George Miller on the impact
    of the arts in the economy and workforce. The Committee is charged with
    the authorization of the NEA and in my testimony it was incumbent on me
    to demonstrate how the vast diversity of support that enables the
    cultural sector to flourish is actually sparked by the infusion of
    Federal, State, and local government dollars.
        As much benefit as the arts provide to their communities, Federal
    funding has failed to keep pace to capture these upsides of the arts--
    neither in terms of tracking with inflation, nor with as a steady share
    of the nonmilitary discretionary spending.

        Thirty years ago, the NEA received a modest 12 cents per $100 of
    nonmilitary discretionary spending. Today, that is just 3 cents per
    $100. If the NEA simply maintained its 1979 percentage of discretionary
    funding (0.12 percent), its 2008 budget would have been $613 million.

        If the NEA's 1992 budget had merely kept pace with inflation, its
    2009 budget would be $265 million instead of $155 million.
    Conclusion
        The arts must not be taken for granted. They are not only integral
    to our lives but also to our economy. Most citizens throughout America
    appreciate the arts for their intrinsic values--their beauty, vision,
    and inspiration; their ability to open new horizons and sharpen and
    challenge our thinking.
        But everyone should understand the essential contribution of the
    arts to the growth of our economy. The arts are not a frill. Rather,
    they provide cultural and economic benefits, and real jobs for real
    people. They are at the heart of countless U.S. industries that rely on
    talents fueled by design and creative content. Arts-centric jobs are
    core to building a new kind of workforce to compete in the 21st century
    global economy. The arts are fundamental to putting Americans back to
    work.
                                     ______

      Prepared Statement of the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies

        On behalf of the national Teaming with Wildlife Steering Committee,
    we urge you to support the president's request of $115 million for the
    State and Tribal Wildlife Grants program in the fiscal year 2010
    Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act. This
    funding level would enhance the ability of State fish and wildlife
    agencies and their partners to implement Comprehensive Wildlife
    Conservation Strategies (State Wildlife Action Plans) and address the
    impacts of climate change on wildlife and their habitats.
        Teaming with Wildlife (www.teaming.com) is a coalition of more than
    6,000 organizations and businesses who support increased funding for
    State-level wildlife programs aimed at keeping wildlife from becoming
    endangered. The Teaming with Wildlife coalition includes a diverse
    partnership of organizations and businesses that represent hunters and
    anglers, birdwatchers, hikers, nature-based businesses, community
    organizations like visitors' bureaus, zoological institutions, and
    other conservationists who are working together to advance proactive
    wildlife conservation.
        The State and Tribal Wildlife Grants Program is the only Federal
    program dedicated to implementation of State Wildlife Action Plans,
    designed to conserve declining species and to keep more common species
    common. Congress required State and territorial fish and wildlife
    agencies to develop and implement these plans to reverse the decline of
    at-risk fish and wildlife. These plans are being used across the
    country to prioritize and guide wildlife conservation work. This work
    is helping to protect vital ecosystem services and recreational
    opportunities that are valued in the hundreds of billion of dollars and
    helping to sustain an economic engine that contributes millions of jobs
    to the economy.
        Addressing climate change is one of the most daunting tasks facing
    the conservation community. We support the addition of $40 million in
    climate change funding through the State Wildlife Grants program that
    will provide States and tribes with the resources they need to plan and
    implement conservation actions needed to mitigate the impacts of
    climate change and help wildlife adapt. However, State fish and
    wildlife agencies are facing significant budget declines during the
    economic downturn making it increasingly difficult to secure matching
    funds. Therefore, we respectfully ask that the subcommittee consider
    reducing the Federal:State match requirement for climate change
    activities to 90:10.
        The State and Tribal Wildlife Grants program makes efficient and
    effective use of scarce Federal resources and puts them on the ground
    in a smart and proactive manner before species become imperiled.
    Efforts to restore wildlife are often more costly and less successful
    after they become severely imperiled. Through conserving wildlife and
    therefore providing opportunities for hunting, fishing, and wildlife
    viewing, the State and Tribal Wildlife Grants program is helping to
    sustain an economic engine that contributes millions of jobs to the
    economy. The State and Tribal Wildlife Grants program provides States
    with a tool to avoid conservation catastrophes, concurrently saving
    wildlife and taxpayer dollars.
        Conservation organizations and private foundations are doing their
    part to augment Federal funding provided to State and Tribal Wildlife
    Grants Program. One such example is the Wildlife Opportunities Action
    Fund which has, since 2006, supported more than 35 grants and provided
    $3.2 million to a variety of local, regional, and national nonprofit
    conservation organizations for projects that strive to implement
    priority conservation activities outlined by the State Wildlife Action
    Plans.
        Following are two examples of projects funded by the State and
    Tribal Wildlife Grants program:

    Conserving Tri-colored Blackbirds
        California is home to 99 percent of the world's population of
    tricolored blackbirds, which are listed as a State species of special
    concern. Along with the decline of native wetlands in California's
    Central Valley, the Tricolored Blackbird population has dropped
    severely in the last 60 years. While recent trends appear to indicate
    that the species population has stabilized at 250,000-300,000 birds,
    these numbers are far below the population in the 1930s. The birds
    commonly nest in silage fields, ditches and other areas around dairy
    farms in the San Joaquin Valley and in limited areas in southern
    California. This presents a serious risk when fields are ready for
    harvest and young birds cannot yet fly. An alliance of 16 partners have
    come together to conserve habitat and restore tricolored blackbird
    populations without listing the species as threatened or endangered.
    This diverse partnership includes the California Department of Fish and
    Game, Audubon California, California Farm Bureau, California
    Cattlemen's Association, Pacific Gas & Electric Company, and University
    of California. This voluntary and proactive effort will conserve the
    tricolored blackbird and may avoid another costly endangered species
    listing.

                           RECLAIMING AQUATIC HABITAT

        Panther Branch, a tributary to Island Creek, Morgan County,
    Tennessee had been severely impacted by acid mine drainage (AMD) and
    mine refuse from old underground mine workings. The mining activity
    occurred in the early 1900s and the workings have been abandoned for
    about 100 years. During the mining process thousands of cubic yards of
    refuse was produced and disposed of in the channel of Panther Branch.
    Acid mine drainage lowered the pH of the water to an uninhabitable
    level. The stream was virtually devoid of aquatic life. Using State
    Wildlife Grant funds, the Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency partnered
    with the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation, to
    remove the refuse, restructure the stream channel, build an alkaline
    drainage system to reduce water acidity, and construct artificial
    wetlands to remove any dissolved metals. Completed in the spring of
    2007, Panther Branch is recolonizing with aquatic life.
        We are grateful for your past leadership in providing funding for
    the State and Tribal Wildlife Grants program. You have helped make this
    program and its emphasis on preventive conservation a priority for the
    U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. We look forward to the U.S. Congress
    continuing to provide reliable and adequate funding to ensure the
    continued success of fish and wildlife conservation in all 50 States,
    the District of Columbia, and territories. Thank you for your time.
                                     ______

      Prepared Statement of the American Institute of Biological Sciences

        The American Institute of Biological Sciences (AIBS) encourages
    Congress to provide the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Office
    of Research and Development (ORD) with at least $700 million for fiscal
    year 2010. Within this amount, we encourage you to provide at least
    $190 million for human health and ecosystem research. This funding
    level would help restore past funding cuts and make an important
    investment in our Nation's environmental sciences research enterprise.
        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 1950's. 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.
        As EPA's scientific division, ORD supports valuable extramural and
    intramural research that is used to understand, prevent, and mitigate
    environmental problems facing the United States. ORD research informs
    decisions made by public health and safety managers, resource managers,
    businesses, and other stakeholders concerned with climate change, air
    and water pollution, land management and restoration, and environmental
    contaminants. In short, ORD provides the scientific basis upon which
    EPA monitoring and enforcement programs are built.
        Unfortunately, a lack of investment in EPA science in recent years
    has hindered ORD's ability to fully meet its mission. Funding for
    research programs at EPA peaked in fiscal year 2004, when ORD was
    funded at $646.5 million. Since then, the budget has declined by more
    than $100 million. These budget cuts have come at the expense of the
    research needed by EPA to address emerging environmental challenges.
        Within ORD, research on human health and ecosystems has also been
    negatively affected by a shrinking budget. These programs have
    collectively suffered a 15 percent decline in their budgets since
    fiscal year 2004. Restoration of funding to at least the fiscal year
    2004 levels, as adjusted for inflation, would be an important first
    step to meeting our Nation's environmental science research needs.
        The Ecosystem Services Research (ESR) program is one of the
    important areas within ORD that would benefit from increased funding.
    The ESR is responsible for enhancing, protecting, and restoring
    ecosystem services, such as clean air and water, rich soil for food and
    crop production, pollination, and flood control. Research conducted by
    the ESR program provides scientific data, methods, models, and tools
    needed by State and local resource managers to account for the cost and
    benefits of using and preserving ecosystem services.
        Another key program affected by the declining human health and
    ecosystem research budget is the Science To Achieve Results (STAR)
    Graduate Fellowship. This program supports graduate students pursuing
    an advanced degree in environmental science. Since the program's
    inception in 1995, EPA has awarded STAR Fellowships to 1,500 promising
    scientists who have gone on to pursue careers as scientists and
    educators. This fellowship contributes to the role of the United States
    as a world leader in scientific discovery and innovation. Despite the
    program's success, the STAR Graduate Fellowship has lost approximately
    35 percent of its funding in real dollars between fiscal year 2004 and
    fiscal year 2008. Even with repeated restorations of funding by
    Congress, the number of STAR Fellowships awarded each year has been
    drastically reduced, down from 124 fellowships in 2004 to 32
    fellowships in 2008. The President's budget request of $10.9 million
    for the program will restore funding to the fiscal year 2005 level and
    provide 131 new fellowships.
        Revitalization of ecosystem research has also been a concern of the
    EPA Science Advisory Board. Over the past several years, the EPA
    Science Advisory Board has made multiple requests to then-EPA
    Administrator Stephen L. Johnson for increased funding for ecological
    research. In a letter dated May 2008, Dr. M. Granger Morgan, Chair of
    the EPA Science Advisory Board, expressed grave concerns about EPA's
    funding declines. He stated his concern about not being able to
    adequately address future problems due to current underinvestment of
    emerging scientific needs. Dr. Morgan stated that we ``run the risk of
    incurring much larger future costs because we do not understand the
    subtle intricacies of these risks and hence could blunder into
    difficulties . . . from which it may be much more expensive to
    recover.'' Clearly, the EPA Science Advisory Board feels that the
    current funding levels are jeopardizing the EPA's ability to fulfill
    its missions down the road.
        We urge Congress to consider the Board's concerns and provide EPA
    with at least $700 million for ORD for fiscal year 2010 and at least
    $190 million for human health and ecosystem research. Providing these
    amounts to ORD will restore them to fiscal year 2004 levels and begin
    to provide the resources needed to address a backlog of research needs.
        Thank you for your thoughtful consideration of this request and for
    your past support of EPA science programs.
                                     p_____

     Prepared Statement of the American Indian Higher Education Consortium

                                REQUEST SUMMARY

        On behalf of the Nation's Tribal Colleges and Universities (TCUs),
    which compose the American Indian Higher Education Consortium (AIHEC),
    thank you for this opportunity to present our fiscal year 2010
    appropriations recommendations for the 28 colleges funded under the
    Tribally Controlled Colleges and Universities Assistance Act (Tribal
    College Act), 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 (BIE),
    administers these programs, save for the Institute of American Indian
    Arts, which is funded directly by the Interior Department.
        In fiscal year 2010, TCUs seek $80.6 million to fund all of the
    programs under the Tribally Controlled Colleges and Universities
    Assistance Act of 1978 or Tribal College Act. Specifically, we seek $78
    million for institutional operations grants; of which, $53.3 million
    for title I grants (25 TCUs); $17.7 for title II (Dine College); and $7
    million for title V ($4.5 million for United Tribes Technical College
    and $2.5 million for Navajo Technical College). This request represents
    an increase of $6.9 million for title I grants; $5.4 million for Dine
    College; and an increase of $1 million for title V, more than fiscal
    year 2009 levels. Additionally, we seek $601,000 for the technical
    assistance contract authorized under the act, which is the same level
    as annually appropriated since fiscal year 2006, and $2 million to help
    the TCUs establish and fund endowments under title III of the act,
    which has been severely cut over the past few budget cycles.
        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 of 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 made available to the TCUs
            until late November, 2 months into the new fiscal 3 months into
            the academic year.
      --In fiscal year 2007, due to the protracted appropriations process,
            TCUs did not receive basic operating funds until mid-March; 5
            months into the fiscal year and 6 months after the academic
            year began.
      --In fiscal year 2008, TCUs did not gain access to any institutional
            operations funds made in order under the first continuing
            resolution until mid-December, almost a full month after the
            second continuing resolution had been enacted. Once again, the
            TCUs were more than 2 months into the new fiscal year, and more
            than 3 months into their academic year and unable to access
            even a partial payment toward their basic day-to-day operating
            budgets.
      --As for this year, the fiscal year 2009 omnibus appropriations
            legislation was only signed into law on March 11, 2009, more
            than 5 months after the start of the fiscal year and more than
            6 months into the academic year. Most of the TCUs had to obtain
            costly lines of credit, cancel programs, and/or make temporary
            staff layoffs in order to keep their doors open for the
            remainder of the academic year, which for many will end in the
            very near future or have already ended.
        The President's budget includes a one-time payment of $50 million
    to transition TCU institutional operations grants to a forward funded
    program, which would correct this most unfortunate cycle of delayed
    payments, expensive short-term loans, and layoffs that perennially
    plague TCUs. Additionally, it would, for the first time, give these
    institutions the resources they need at the beginning of each academic
    year. Forward funding is authorized under the Tribal College Act (25
    U.S.C. 1810(b)(2)) and is consistent with the existing funding
    practices of other Indian education operating accounts within the
    Department of the Interior, BIE.

                       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. Distribution of funds under title I of the
    Tribal College Act is enrollment driven. In fiscal year 2009, the 25
    title I institutions received $5,494 per Indian student toward their
    operating budgets. If you factor in inflation, 28 years later the
    buying power of this appropriation is $1,115 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

        TCUs provide critical access to vital postsecondary education
    opportunities. TCUs provide access to higher education for American
    Indians and others living in some of the Nation's most rural and
    economically depressed areas. The 2000 Census reported the annual per
    capita income of the U.S. population as $21,587. However, the annual
    per capita income of Native Americans was $12,923 or about 40 percent
    less. In addition to serving their students, TCUs serve their
    communities through a variety of community outreach programs.
        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/healthcare providers. Just as
    important, the vast majority of tribal college graduates remain in
    their tribal communities, applying their newly acquired skills and
    knowledge where they are most needed.
        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, California, for
    the American Indian College Fund, indicated that more than 80 percent
    of respondents who attended a mainstream college prior to enrolling at
    a TCU did not finish the degree they were pursuing at the mainstream
    college. The rate of completion markedly improved for those who
    attended a TCU prior to beginning a degree program 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 earn a bachelor's degree. This illustrates TCUs' 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

        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 more than 310 percent.
    Between fiscal year 2005 and fiscal year 2009, four more TCUs became
    eligible to receive funds under title I of the Tribal College Act. TCUs
    are in many ways victims of their own successes. The growing number of
    tribally chartered colleges and universities and added students have
    forced TCUs to slice an already inadequate annual funding pie into even
    smaller pieces.
        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 8.1 percent.
        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 1
    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 enrolled members of a federally recognized
    tribe or the biological child of a tribal member may be counted as
    Indian students when determining an institution's share of the
    operating funds, TCUs have open enrollment policies. Approximately 20
    percent of TCU enrollments are non-Indians. These institutions are
    simply and effectively providing access to quality higher education
    opportunities to reservation community residents.

                    THE PRESIDENT'S FISCAL YEAR 2010 BUDGET

        The President's fiscal year 2010 budget includes $62.5 million for
    the institutional operations of 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, Minnesota joined the list of eligible
    institutions, with Keweenaw Bay Ojibwa Community College in Baraga,
    Michigan expected to be eligible in fiscal year 2010. We are hopeful
    that Congress will build on the President's fiscal year 2010 budget.
    The President's fiscal year 2010 budget also includes $50 million to
    transition the TCUs' institutional operating grants to a forward funded
    program finally giving these institutions the resources they need at
    the beginning of each academic year. Additionally, funding is included
    in the budget for institutional operations funding for two tribally
    controlled postsecondary career and technical institutions, two BIE-
    operated postsecondary institutions, and the Institute of American
    Indian Arts.

                  APPROPRIATIONS REQUEST FOR FISCAL YEAR 2010

        TCUs respectfully request the following for the programs authorized
    under the Tribal College Act (25 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.): $78 million for
    fiscal year 2010 institutional operations grants; of which, $53.3
    million for title I grants (25 TCUs); $17.7 for title II (Dine
    College); and $7 million for title V ($4.5 million for United Tribes
    Technical College and $2.5 million for Navajo Technical College).
    Additionally, we seek $601,000 for the technical assistance contract
    authorized under the act, which is the same level as annually
    appropriated since fiscal year 2006, and increased funding to help the
    TCUs establish and fund endowments under title III of the Tribal
    College Act, which has been dramatically reduced in the past few
    budget/appropriations cycles. We also request a one-time appropriation
    of $50 million, which is included in the President's fiscal year 2010
    budget and authorized under the act (25 U.S.C. 1810(b)(2)), needed to
    transition basic institutional operating grants to a forward-funded
    program.

                                   CONCLUSION

        TCUs 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 TCUs and your serious consideration of our fiscal year 2010
    appropriations requests.
                                     ______

              Prepared Statement of the Appalachian Mountain Club

        Dear Madam Chairwoman and honorable members of the subcommittee: 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 2010 Interior,
    Environment, and Related Agencies appropriations bill, including:
      --$125 million for the USDA Forest Service Forest Legacy Program
            (FLP);
      --$450 million for the Department of the Interior Land and Water
            Conservation Fund (LWCF) (including $325 million for Federal-
            side and $125 million for stateside programs);
      --$11 million for the Department of the Interior Highlands
            Conservation Act;
      --$12 million for the National Parks Service (NPS) Rivers, Trails,
            and Conservation Assistance Program.
      --$75 million for the Community Forest and Open Space Conservation
            Program.
        The above programs are essential to a healthy, happy, and thriving
    populous and provide economic, ecological, and recreational benefits to
    Americans 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. The demands on these programs
    continue to grow despite the fact that funding for most of these
    programs have declined in recent years. There is a great need to fund
    these programs at the above requests and to work toward their full
    funding. The availability of public open space amid the populous
    Northeast and Mid-Atlantic regions benefits the well-being of the
    regions' citizenry and economy.
        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, photography,
    and paddling. Conservation of these resources is needed now more than
    ever. According to a report by the U.S. Forest Service (USFS), Forests
    on the Edge, more than 44 million acres of private forests in the East
    will be developed in the next 30 years.
    Priority Fiscal Year 2010 FLP Needs in the Northeast
        For fiscal year 2010, we have assembled a list of exemplary FLP
    projects in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic. Some of these projects,
    like the Katahdin Forest, Mahoosuc Gateway II, Musconetcong and
    Rockaway Rivers Watersheds are in need of funds to be completed. Others
    projects, such as the Tulmeadow Farm and Wolf Hill in Connecticut are
    new priorities that would protect unique and critical forests in the
    Eastern United States.
        AMC respectfully requests a substantial increase in overall funding
    for the FLP at no less than $125 million in fiscal year 2010. The FLP
    has protected more than 1.7 million acres of forestland since 1990. For
    fiscal year 2010, the USFS received 84 project proposals from 44 States
    and territories to protect 288,530 acres with a total project value of
    more than $363 million. The FLP conserves working forests threatened by
    conversion to development or other uses, and promotes economic
    viability as well as recreational open space and wildlife protection.
    Public lands provide innumerable social and economic benefits including
    a healthy lifestyle, protection of watersheds and drinking water
    supplies, wildfire reduction and prevention, and assistance to wildlife
    and fisheries as they adapt to climate change.
        For fiscal year 2010, the AMC supports funding requests for the
    following FLP projects:

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                       State                               Project
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    ME........................................  Katahdin Forest
    ME........................................  Rangeley High Peaks
    NH........................................  Cardigan Highlands
    NH........................................  Mahoosuc Gateway II
    MA........................................  Monson Forest Lands
    MA........................................  Southern Monadnock Plateau
                                                 Phase II
    MA........................................  Metacoment-Monadnock Forest
    NY........................................  Follensby Pond
    CT........................................  Tulmeadow Farm
    CT........................................  Wolf Hill
    NJ........................................  Musconetcong and Rockaway
                                                 Rivers  Watersheds
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Priority Fiscal Year 2010 LWCF Program Needs in the Northeast
        AMC respectfully requests a substantial increase in overall funding
    for the LWCF specifically $325 million for the Federal LWCF and $125
    million for the LWCF stateside program, in the fiscal year 2010
    Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies appropriations bill. We
    applaud the LWCF funding increases provided by this subcommittee in
    fiscal year 2009. And, we are most thankful that the Obama
    administration budget recognizes the importance of this program by
    proposing significant increases for fiscal year 2010 and setting a goal
    to achieve full funding of the LWCF in the next 5 years.
        The LWCF is our Nation's premier program to acquire and protect
    lands in national parks, national wildlife refuges, national forests,
    Bureau of Land Management units, and other Federal land systems. This
    program faces an extensive and growing backlog of land acquisition
    needs across the Nation. The LWCF will provide important funds to
    obtain inholdings and lands adjacent to Federal lands such as the White
    Mountain National Forest, Silvio O. Conte National Wildlife Refuge
    (NWR), Wallkill NWR and Monongahela National Forest.
        The LWCF stateside program provides close-to-home recreation
    through thousands of State and local parks across the country. These
    parks provide millions of urban and suburban residents the benefits of
    access to natural areas while promoting much needed tourism in local
    communities.
        In fiscal year 2010, the AMC supports the following LWCF projects
    in our region:

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                       State                          Federal land unit
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    ME........................................  Rachel Carson NWR
    ME/NH.....................................  White Mountain National
                                                 Forest
    NH, VT, CT, MA............................  Silvio O. Conte NWR
    NH........................................  Lake Umbagog NWR
    NH........................................  Mahoosuc Gateway I
    CT........................................  Stewart McKinney NWR
    NJ........................................  Wallkill NWR
    NJ........................................  Great Swamp NWR
    MD........................................  Blackwater National Wildlife
                                                 Refuge
    WV........................................  Monongahela National Forest
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Fiscal Year 2010 Highlands Conservation Act (HCA) Needs
        AMC respectfully requests a substantial increase in overall funding
    for HCA, including $10 million for land conservation and $1 million for
    USFS technical assistance funding. The HCA, passed in 2004, authorizes
    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 HCA 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 USFS to work with Highlands States and local
    municipalities to implement the conservation strategies outlined in the
    three comprehensive USFS studies of the region completed in 1992, 2002,
    and 2008.
        This program has received only $5.25 million since it was initiated
    5 years ago. While we greatly appreciate the subcommittee's efforts to
    support this program, and are thrilled that the program had its own
    line-item in the fiscal year 2009 omnibus bill, we are in dire need of
    additional funds to fulfill the purposes of the HCA and complete
    projects that have strong public support. According to a study by the
    USFS, open space in New York and New Jersey alone is disappearing at a
    rate of 5,000 to 6,000 acres a year. The four 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. 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 2010, the AMC supports funding for the following HCA
    projects:

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                       State                               Project
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    CT........................................  Ethel Walker II
    CT........................................  Naugatuck/Mad River
                                                 Headwaters
    NY........................................  Greater Sterling Forest
    NJ........................................  Northern Highlands
    PA........................................  Texter Mountain
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Fiscal Year 2010 Community Forest and Open Space Conservation Program
            Needs
        AMC respectfully requests funding of $75 million for this important
    new program. The Community Forest and Open Space Conservation Program
    will provide communities matching funds to purchase critical forestland
    tracts and provide technical assistance through State forestry agencies
    for outstanding forest management. The program provides 50-50 matching
    funds to help local governments, tribes, and nonprofit organizations
    acquire forest areas that are economically, culturally, and
    environmentally important to that locality and threatened by
    development. The program differs from the FLP by providing grants
    directly to local governments and nonprofits for full fee acquisition,
    not conservation easements. The program's criteria are built around
    evaluation of a project's community impact and it requires public
    access and active community engagement in forest planning for parcels.
    Priority Fiscal Year 2010 Recreational Programs Needs
        In addition to the important land conservation projects from the
    Katahdin Forest in Maine to Texter Mountain 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.
    Fiscal Year 2010 Rivers, Trails and Conservation Assistance Needs
        AMC respectfully requests a substantial increase in overall funding
    for Rivers, Trails Conservation Assistance program and requests $12
    million nationwide. Through this NPS program, partners protect 700
    miles of rivers, create 1,300 miles of trails and conserve more than
    60,500 acres of open space annually, promote alternative
    transportation, brownfield redevelopment, youth conservation and
    floodplain planning. Funding would counteract the steady erosion of
    funding and reduced staffing. This program receives less than 1 percent
    of NPS funding, but Federal funds are leveraged many times over with
    State, local, and partnership cooperation and in-kind matches.
        Thank you for the opportunity to submit this testimony for your
    consideration.
                                     ______

                  Prepared Statement of Amigos de la Sevilleta

        Dear Madam Chairman and members of the subcommittee: I would like
    to thank you for the opportunity to present testimony in support of an
    appropriation of $2 million from the Land and Water Conservation Fund
    (LWCF) to protect land at the Sevilleta National Wildlife Refuge (NWR)
    in New Mexico. This funding will allow the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
    Service (FWS) to acquire the 250-acre first phase of the Indian Hill
    Ranch property.
        Before I begin describing this project, I would like to discuss the
    importance of the LWCF to Sevilleta NWR and to national wildlife
    refuges around the country. The LWCF is the premier Federal land
    protection program and enables refuges to protect vital wildlife
    habitat, water resources, and recreational lands and improve public
    access and land management by consolidating holdings and acquiring
    inholdings.
        I respectfully urge a substantial increase in overall funding for
    the LWCF, specifically urging the subcommittee to provide $325 million
    for the Federal LWCF in the fiscal year 2010 Interior, Environment, and
    Relted Agencies appropriations bill. And, we are most thankful that the
    Obama administration budget recognizes the importance of these programs
    by proposing significant increases for fiscal year 2010 and setting a
    goal to achieve full funding of the LWCF in the next 5 years.
        Covering an area of approximately 360 square miles and located just
    40 miles south of Albuquerque, the largest city in the State, the
    Sevilleta NWR serves as a vast, protected landscape in the heart of New
    Mexico. The refuge supports four major ecological habitats,
    encompassing two mountain ranges and containing approximately 4 miles
    of the Rio Grande River. Much of the refuge is managed to enhance
    riparian habitat and compensate for marsh loss along the Rio Grande
    basin. The refuge provides important habitat for a large variety of
    birds, insects, reptiles, and mammals such as beaver, coyote, bobcat,
    fox, jackrabbit, and elk. Parts of the refuge are flooded from November
    to February in order to provide habitat for migrating shorebirds and
    waterfowl including herons, ducks, geese, and sandhill cranes. The
    refuge is also managed to combat nonnative species such as the
    extremely invasive salt cedar. This nuisance species is being cleared
    and replaced with native willow and cottonwood to restore the natural
    bosque/riparian habitat native to the area.
        Available for acquisition in fiscal year 2010 is the first phase of
    the 1,250-acre Indian Hill Farms property, which lies adjacent to 3
    miles of the Rio Grande as well as current refuge lands. Indian Hill
    Farms comprises more than 600 acres of prime irrigated farmland and a
    very significant quantity of senior water rights which will provide the
    refuge with excellent opportunities for the creation of wildlife
    habitat, including moist soils, wetlands, and restored river bosque.
    The Sevilleta NWR is home to the second largest population of the
    endangered southwestern willow flycatcher along the Rio Grande River.
    If Indian Hill Farms is added to refuge ownership, there are plans to
    restore a portion of the property to provide additional prime
    flycatcher habitat. Because the farm is the first to take water rights
    off the important San Acacia Dam, located just off the edge of the
    farm, control of the water rights by the FWS should also provide
    additional protection and benefit to the endangered silvery minnow,
    found within portions of the Rio Grande that run through the refuge.
        Given the water rights associated with the property and its
    location along the Rio Grande, acquisition of the Indian Hill Farms
    property could provide the refuge system a tremendous opportunity for
    habitat manipulation for a number of different wildlife uses, including
    endangered species habitat, wintering waterbird habitat, migratory
    landbird use, as well as raptor and resident big game habitat. Its
    location between two major wintering waterfowl areas, Ladd S. Gordon
    Complex to the north and Bosque del Apache NWR to the south, makes this
    a key acquisition to enhance waterfowl populations in the Middle Rio
    Grande area.
        Currently, Sevilleta NWR offers limited public access as much of
    its acreage has been designated to ongoing research projects. Sevilleta
    NWR is the host to the University of New Mexico's (UNM) Long-Term
    Ecological Research program initiated in 1988 and funded through the
    National Science Foundation. This program focuses on examining the
    responses of different ecological communities to climate change, among
    other topics, and UNM has expressed great interest in research projects
    that would be associated with the planned conversion of farmland to
    wildlife habitat should Indian Hill Farms be acquired by the refuge.
        An appropriation of $2 million in fiscal year 2010 will ensure that
    the first phase of the Indian Hill Farms property is protected in
    perpetuity. The FWS is pursuing the administrative steps necessary to
    include the Indian Hill Farms property within refuge boundaries. The
    addition of this priority parcel to the Sevilleta NWR will allow for
    the creation and restoration of important wildlife habitat types along
    the Rio Grande River, increase public access to refuge lands, and
    increase unique research opportunities for local scientists.
        Thank you again, Madam Chairman, for the opportunity to present
    this testimony in support of the acquisition effort at Sevilleta NWR in
    New Mexico.
                                     ______

      Prepared Statement of the Association of Performing Arts Presenters

        The Association of Performing Arts Presenters (Arts Presenters)
    urges the subcommittee to approve fiscal year 2010 funding for the
    National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) at a level of $200 million. With
    audiences of 6 million people per week for performances in virtually
    every community in the Nation, the American performing arts presenting
    industry has combined annual expenditures in excess of $9.8 billion.
    The performing arts presenting field supports more than 900,000 jobs,
    including the employment of artists and those who help manage and
    present them, and supports many more services related to performing
    arts events, such as hotel stays, restaurants, transportation, and
    parking.
        Many of the organizations in the performing arts presenting field
    offer educational outreach to school children, programs for the
    elderly, and provide artists who reach deeply into their communities to
    bridge social gaps and improve the quality of life for those who may be
    less advantaged. Founded in 1957, Arts Presenters is the national
    service organization for the field of performing arts presenting.
    Nearly 2,000 members represent the Nation's leading performing arts
    centers, civic and university performance facilities, amphitheaters,
    college and university theatres, local arts agencies, festivals, fairs,
    park sites, and museums. Arts Presenters also provides services to
    touring artists and companies, their managements and agents. Our
    membership includes a range of organizations with multi-million dollar
    budgets to budgets of $3,000 and individuals who are artists or
    independent performing arts professionals; two-thirds of the membership
    and wider presenting field are organizations with small budgets under
    $1.5 million (the largest segment of which is under $500,000).
        We continue to track the value and impact of the performing arts to
    communities, including our economic impact, and recent survey
    indicators point to an industry concerned with the overall impact the
    current economic crisis has on the operating environment for our field
    and the increased difficulty of resolving the many challenges
    presenting organizations already faced before the deep recession. We
    must ensure that every performing arts presenter continues to build
    upon and contribute to the economic engine and cultural infrastructure
    in those communities in which they serve.
        While we are far from achieving a cultural democracy, the idea that
    arts and culture be woven into all aspects of life is essential to both
    preparing an innovative workforce in the 21st century and bridging the
    deep socioeconomic gaps that continue to plague underserved and
    underprivileged communities in various pockets of the country. As a
    Nation, we are wise to look back on our rich history of integrating the
    arts and culture in times of need to help us move forward. Like many of
    the cultural projects President Franklin Roosevelt launched to get the
    United States out of the Great Depression, and the decades of United
    States Information Agency support of arts encounters and exchanges that
    provided powerful images of a diverse American citizenry and cultural
    landscape, the NEA should have an opportunity to expand its ability to
    serve the American public with an increased level of funding to help
    projects that capture the spirit, optimism, creativity, and imagination
    as well as demonstrate the value the performing arts offer in critical
    times to a Nation in crisis.
        In the most completed grant year, fiscal year 2008, the NEA's
    Grants to Organizations included 90 grants to 85 Arts Presenters
    organizations and the communities they serve, supporting arts education
    for children, adults, disabled, underserved and underprivileged,
    preserving great classical, jazz and choreography works, fostering the
    creative endeavors of contemporary classical musicians and composers,
    and expanding public access to performances and exhibitions.

                          2009 NEA FUNDING HIGHLIGHTS

    Learning in the Arts for Children and Youth
        A grant designed to advance arts education for children and youth
    in school-based or community-based settings, this category supports in-
    depth, curriculum-based arts education experiences that occur over an
    extended period.
        (Burlington, Vermont). Flynn Center for the Performing Arts, Ltd.
    (Consortium)
        To Support Words Come Alive.--Designed and implemented in
    partnership with the Burlington School District, summer training,
    workshops, and classroom collaborations will be featured activities for
    elementary school teachers in theater and dance--$45,000
    American Masterpieces: Presenting
        A grant designed to celebrate the extraordinary and rich
    contribution that presenters make in American communities.
        (Hanover, New Hampshire). Dartmouth College (on behalf of Hopkins
    Center).
        To Support Presentations of Influential Works and Residency
    Activities at the Hopkins Center.--Performer Meredith Monk, Pilobolus
    Dance Theatre, Vanguard Jazz Orchestra, and choreographer Trisha Brown
    will participate in workshops, postperformance discussions, school
    visits and matinees, master classes, and public discussions--$60,000
    Challenge America
        A grant designed to identify and support projects that connect the
    arts--and artist--to their broader communities through collaborative
    works.
        (Billings, Montana). Alberta Bair Theater Corporation.
        To support New Music for the Old West, a concert series featuring
    diverse musical styles. Proposed guest artists ScrapArtsMusic (rooted
    in world music traditions), the string quartet Ethel, jazz vocalist
    Rachael Price, Edgar Meyer, and Mike Marshall (masters of modern
    acoustic music), and the American Chamber Players will perform and
    participate in outreach activities for audiences from Montana and
    northern Wyoming--$10,000
    Access to Artistic Excellence
        A grant designed to encourage and support artistic creativity,
    preserve our diverse cultural heritage and make the arts more widely
    available in communities throughout the country, especially by
    providing access to underserved populations.
        (San Francisco, California). Yerba Buena Center for the Arts (aka
    YBCA) (Consortium).
        To Support the African Consortium.--In partnership with Mapp
    International Productions in New York City, the international exchange
    initiative is designed to create a new level of artistic collaboration
    between artists and arts organizations and develop cultural dialogue
    between the United States and African countries through activities such
    as panels, seminars, workshops, performances, residencies, interview,
    and a Web site--$40,000
        (Providence, Rhode Island). FirstWorks.
        To Support the Production of FirstWorksProv Festival 2009.--The
    program of performing arts premieres will be accompanied by community
    and outreach activities, such as forums, workshops, master classes,
    school programs, and discounted admissions--$15,000
        (Helena, Montana). Helena Presents (aka Myrna Loy Center).
        To Support a Series of Commissioning, Presenting, and Residency
    Projects at the Myrna Loy Center.--Guest artists will create new works
    in collaboration with local and regional artists. $35,000
    State Partnership Grants
        Arkansas Arts Council; Little Rock, Arkansas; $697,800 to support
    Partnership Agreement activities
        California Arts Council; Sacramento, California; $1,194,800 to
    support Partnership Agreement activities
        I would like to thank you for this opportunity to reinforce the
    positive and meaningful contributions the NEA makes to ensure access to
    participation in the performing arts for tens of millions of Americans
    throughout the country each year and for thousands of performing arts
    presenters to serve the millions of audience members they directly
    reach across the country. We believe that arts experiences exemplify
    and ignite the ingenuity and creativity needed to prepare a competitive
    workforce ready to meet existing and emerging global challenges. We
    also believe access to quality arts programs for students of all ages
    enrich their academic achievements and advance their overall
    development. The Endowment provides an exemplary platform for upholding
    the highest standards for artistic endeavors while increasing access to
    and participation in the arts for the underserved and underprivileged
    communities. Together with the NEA, we are committed to building and
    supporting a strong cultural infrastructure nationwide and
    opportunities for direct participation in the arts in each and every
    community. We urge you to actively support the funding level increase
    for fiscal year 2010 by approving $200 million in funding for the NEA.
                                     ______

          Prepared Statement of the American Public Power Association

        The American Public Power Association (APPA) is the national
    service organization representing the interests of more than 2,000
    municipal and other State and locally owned utilities throughout the
    United States (except but Hawaii). Collectively, public power utilities
    deliver electricity to 1 of every 7 electric consumers (approximately
    45 million people), serving some of the Nation's largest cities.
    However, the vast majority of APPA's members serve communities with
    populations of 10,000 people or less.
        We appreciate the opportunity to submit this statement outlining
    our fiscal year 2010 funding priorities within the jurisdiction of the
    Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Subcommittee.

             ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY: ENERGY STAR PROGRAMS

        APPA was pleased that the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of
    2009 included $300 million for the Energy Star program. We urge the
    subcommittee to allocate the same amount for fiscal year 2010 for
    Energy Star program.
        Energy Star is a voluntary partnership program pairing the
    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) with businesses and consumers
    nationwide to enhance investment in underutilized technologies and
    practices that increase energy efficiency while at the same time
    reducing emissions of criteria pollutants and greenhouse gases. In
    particular, APPA member systems across the country have been active
    participants in a subset of the Energy Star program called ``Green
    Lights.'' The Green Lights program encourages the use of energy
    efficient lighting to reduce energy costs, increase productivity,
    promote customer retention, and protect the environment.
        According to the EPA, Energy Star is saving businesses,
    organizations, and consumers more than $9 billion a year, and has been
    instrumental in the more widespread use technological innovations like
    LED traffic lights, efficient fluorescent lighting, power management
    systems for office equipment, and low-standby energy use.

       ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY: LANDFILL METHANE OUTREACH PROGRAM

        APPA supports robust funding for the Landfill Methane Outreach
    Program (LMOP) at EPA under the Environmental Program Management,
    Climate Protection Program budget. While we recognize that LMOP is not
    a budget line-item, APPA encourages the subcommittee to highlight the
    importance of LMOP by including report language directing the EPA to
    provide adequate funding for the program. The Landfill Methane Outreach
    Program helps to partner utilities, energy organizations, States,
    tribes, landfill gas industry, and trade associations to promote the
    recovery and use of landfill gas as an energy source. According to the
    EPA, LMOP has more than 700 partners that have signed voluntary
    agreements to work with EPA to develop cost-effective, landfill-gas-to-
    energy (LFG) projects. There are approximately 445 operational LFG
    energy projects in the United States with approximately 110 projects
    currently under construction or exploring development options and
    opportunities. LMOP has also developed detailed profiles for more than
    1,300 candidate landfills.
        Landfill gas is created when organic waste in a landfill
    decomposes. This gas consists of about 50 percent methane and about 50
    percent carbon dioxide. Landfill gas can be captured, converted, and
    used as an energy source rather than being released into the atmosphere
    as a potent greenhouse gas. Converting landfill gas to energy offsets
    the need for nonrenewable resources such as coal and oil, and thereby
    helps to diversify utilities' fuel portfolios and to reduce emissions
    of air pollutants from conventional fuel sources.
        In 2005, all operational LFG energy projects in the United States
    prevented the release of 19 million metric tons of carbon equivalent.
    This reduction is the carbon equivalent of removing the emissions from
    13.3 million vehicles on the road or planting 19 million acres of
    forest for 1 year. This reduction also has the same environmental
    benefit as preventing the use of 162 million barrels of oil or
    offsetting the use of 341,000 railcars of coal.
        As units of local and State governments, APPA's member utilities
    are uniquely positioned to embark on LFG projects. EPA's LMOP
    facilitates this process by providing technical support and access to
    invaluable partnerships to our members and the communities they serve.

                     COUNCIL ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY (CEQ)

        APPA is disappointed with the enacted level of $2.7 million for
    fiscal year 2009 for the White House's CEQ, and urges the subcommittee
    to consider allocating at least $3.2 million for this office. Public
    power utilities have experienced a general lack of consistency in
    Federal Government regulations, particularly involving environmental
    issues. While additional layers of government should be avoided, a
    central overseer can perform a valuable function in preventing
    duplicative, unnecessary and inconsistent regulations. CEQ is
    responsible for ensuring that Federal agencies perform their tasks in
    an efficient and coordinated manner.

         UNITED STATES GEOLOGICAL SURVEY: CARBON SEQUESTRATION STUDIES

        APPA urges the subcommittee to include at least the fiscal year
    2009 funding level of $3 million to implement the required geological
    and biological carbon sequestration studies as required in the Energy
    Independence and Security Act of 2007. As the Federal Government moves
    to enact legislation to address global climate change, the research the
    United States Geological Survey (USGS) is doing on carbon sequestration
    will become increasingly important. The USGS has been doing research on
    storing CO2 in depleted oil and gas reservoirs, deep coal
    seams, and brine formations.
                                     ______

                     Prepared Statement of American Rivers

        American Rivers, on behalf of our 65,000 supporters nationwide
    urges the subcommittee to provide $5,684,662,000 for the following
    programs in the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies
    appropriations bill for fiscal year 2010. I request that this testimony
    be included in the official record.

                        ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

        The Clean Water State Revolving Fund (SRF) provides capitalization
    grants to States, which in turn provide low-cost loans to communities
    for a variety of programs to clean up impaired water bodies and protect
    pristine waters. This program has been extremely effective in helping
    communities to improve water quality and provide safe drinking water.
    The annual need for clean water funding is close to $20 billion.
    Historically, the Federal Government has provided between 10 and 20
    percent of those funds or what should be $2 to $4 billion. The SRF
    programs have also been used to fund nonstructural projects that reduce
    nonpoint source pollution, protect estuaries, prevent contamination of
    drinking source waters, and reduce polluted runoff by protecting
    natural areas and other ``green infrastructure,'' such as stream
    buffers. These approaches are often more cost-effective then
    traditional pipe and cement options and provide a wide array of
    environmental and social benefits, including open space, wildlife
    habitat, recreation, and improved water supply. American Rivers urges
    the subcommittee to appropriate $2.4 billion for the Clean Water SRF
    and $2 billion for the Drinking Water SRF in fiscal year 2010.
    Additionally, within the funds appropriated for the Clean Water SRF at
    least 20 percent should be dedicated to low-impact development or
    nonstructural green infrastructure to deal with stormwater run-off and
    combined sewer overflows; and within the funds appropriated for the
    Drinking Water SRFs at least 20 percent should be dedicated to water
    efficiency projects that reduce overall demand for clean drinking
    water.
        WaterSense is modeled on the highly successful, universally
    recognized and sought after EnergyStar program--it works with local
    water utilities, product manufacturers, and retailers to encourage the
    use of water-efficient products and practices among individuals and
    developers. Water efficiency is a much more cost-effective way to help
    local markets manage water supplies than developing new sources. Water
    supply infrastructure is a major local and Federal cost across the
    United States, and water efficiency can lessen the stress on both water
    treatment and wastewater treatment systems and extend their useful
    life. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) estimates that if all U.S.
    households installed water-efficient appliances, the country would save
    more than 3 trillion gallons of water and more than $18 billion per
    year, and reduce Americans' water and sewer bills by one-third.
    American Rivers urges the subcommittee to appropriate $7.5 million for
    the WaterSense program in fiscal year 2010.
        The establishment of Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) allows
    States and the EPA to identify all sources of water quality impairment
    to rivers, streams and lakes that do not meet water quality standards,
    develop specific goals for improvement, and design plans to reduce
    pollutant loads into receiving water bodies. The development of strong
    TMDLs by the States done through funding under section 106 of the CWA
    requires a commitment of adequate resources. American Rivers urges the
    subcommittee to appropriate $250 million for State Program Management
    Grants in fiscal year 2010.
        Nonpoint Source Management Program (Clean Water Act, section 319)
    grant money that States, territories, and Indian tribes can use for a
    wide variety of nonpoint source pollution reduction activities
    including technical and financial assistance, education, training,
    technology transfer, demonstration projects, and monitoring. American
    Rivers urges the subcommittee to appropriate $250 million for section
    319, the Non-point Source Management Program in fiscal year 2010.
        The Targeted Watersheds Grants program provides direct grants to a
    limited number of watershed groups, tribes, and communities working to
    improve water quality. Portions of these funds are designated for
    technical assistance programs and to train community groups engaged in
    watershed-level protection and restoration projects. This training is
    essential to protect and restore the Nation's rivers and watersheds.
    American Rivers urges the subcommittee to appropriate $35 million,
    including $3.5 million dedicated to technical assistance for Targeted
    Watersheds Grants in fiscal year 2010.

                             WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS

        The National Wild and Scenic Rivers System protects free-flowing
    rivers with outstandingly remarkable scenic, recreational, geologic,
    fish and wildlife, historic, cultural, or other similar values. The
    Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS),
    National Park Service (NPS), and Forest Service (USFS) share
    responsibility for conducting studies to determine if rivers qualify
    for designation, and administering and developing river management
    plans for designated rivers. Unfortunately, none of these agencies
    receive sufficient funding to adequately protect the Wild and Scenic
    Rivers System, as Congress intended. Streams are becoming degraded and
    restoration is needed in many locations. Increased funding will allow
    these agencies to better manage and protect designated rivers and
    promote their values to the public. American Rivers urges the
    subcommittee to appropriate a total of $38.862 million for the
    management of the Wild and Scenic River System fiscal year 2010. These
    funds should be split as follows: USFS--$9 million for wild and scenic
    river management, $6 million for the completion of river studies and
    the creation of river management plans; BLM's National Landscape
    Conservation System--$7 million for WSR management and $5 million for
    completion of WSR studies; FWS--$1,787,000 for wild and scenic river
    management, restoration and studies; NPS Rivers and Trails Studies--$1
    million for wild and scenic rivers studies and $16 million for wild and
    scenic river management; NPS Partnership Wild and Scenic Rivers--$2.746
    million for management of the wild and scenic rivers.

                           KLAMATH RIVER RESTORATION

        PacifiCorp operates five mainstem dams--two in Oregon and three in
    California--on the Klamath River. These dams cut off more than 300
    miles of once-productive salmon spawning and rearing habitat in the
    Upper Klamath. The dams also create toxic conditions in the reservoirs
    that threaten the health of fish and people. Salmon populations have
    plummeted to less than 10 percent of historic numbers, and the
    commercial salmon fishing industry was virtually shutdown along 700
    miles of coastline in California and Oregon in 2006. The fishery
    closure caused more than $100 million damage to California and Oregon
    economies, and harmed numerous fishing communities. Native American
    tribes throughout the Klamath basin have treaty rights to fish salmon,
    but lower basin tribes have had to drastically reduce their catch to
    protect the salmon runs, and upper basin tribes have not seen salmon in
    their waters for nearly 100 years. The Agreement in Principle released
    November 13, 2008 is intended to guide the development of a final
    settlement agreement in June 2009 and includes provisions to remove
    PacifiCorp's four mainstem dams in 2020. The Restoration of the Klamath
    River will represent the biggest dam removal and river restoration
    effort the world has ever seen. PacifiCorp will be responsible for much
    of the costs, but the Department of the Interior will be required to
    provide on the ground support and technical assistance. American Rivers
    urges the Committee to appropriate the Klamath River Restoration $7.5
    million in fiscal year 2010 through the Department of the Interior.

                                      FWS

        The National Fish Passage Program has opened more than 3,750 miles
    of river and restored 69,000 acres of wetlands for fish spawning and
    rearing habitat. Restoring fish migration enhances entire watersheds
    and benefits birds and mammals, such as eagles, ospreys, herons,
    kingfishers, brown bears, otters, and mink. Since its inception in
    1999, working with local, State, tribal, and Federal partners, the Fish
    Passage Program has leveraged Federal dollars nearly 3 to 1. The Fish
    Passage Program is also one-half (with NOAA) of the $12 million Open
    Rivers Initiative which will provide grants to communities and local
    dam owners to remove their dams that no longer make sense. Many others
    are either dilapidated, having outlived their 50-year life expectancy,
    or are no longer providing the benefits for which they were built.
    These dams are unnecessarily degrading the riverine ecosystem and
    holding up economic development. These restoration projects provide
    significant environmental improvements and offer noteworthy economic
    and societal benefits. They create new opportunities for recreational
    fishing, river rafting, and kayaking; provide cost savings by
    eliminating the need for dam repairs; and remove safety and liability
    risks associated with outdated structures. American Rivers urges the
    subcommittee to appropriate the National Fish Passage Program $11
    million in fiscal year 2010, of which $6 million should be dedicated to
    the implementation of the Open Rivers Initiative.
        The Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program provides financial and
    technical assistance to landowners to restore degraded habitat on their
    property. The program completed thousands of projects across the
    country, restoring more than 150,000 acres of wetlands and more than
    300 miles of riverine habitat. American Rivers urges the subcommittee
    to appropriate $52 million for the Partners for Fish and Wildlife
    program in fiscal year 2010.
        The Coastal Program is an effective partnership that brings
    together FWS scientists, land trusts, biologists, and other
    conservation partners to protect and restore habitat in coastal regions
    and coastal rivers. These partnerships allow the Coastal Program's
    dollars to be matched at least 2 to 1 for on-the-ground work. The
    Coastal Program completed hundreds of projects in across the country,
    restored more than tens of thousands of acres of wetlands and miles of
    riverine habitat. American Rivers urges the subcommittee to fund the
    FWS's Coastal Program at $15 million in fiscal year 2010.

                                      NPS

        The Rivers, Trails and Conservation Assistance Program (RTCA) has
    helped produce some of the best examples of conservation based local-
    Federal partnerships by providing communities with assistance to help
    revitalize riverfronts, protect open space, and build trails and
    greenways. If funded at $12 million, RTCA could expand to assist
    approximately 200 additional projects in new and currently underserved
    locations. American Rivers urges the subcommittee to fund the RTCA
    program at $12 million in fiscal year 2010.
        Elwha River Restoration.--Removal of Glines Canyon and Elwha dams
    will restore salmon access to the Elwha river's wilderness heart in the
    Olympic National Park for the first time in 100 years. This dam removal
    will produce a landmark in river restoration for our national parks and
    an unprecedented opportunity to study a large dam removal and its
    impact on the river and wild salmon populations. American Rivers urges
    the subcommittee to provide $40 million to complete the restoration of
    the Elwha River ecosystem and its fisheries in fiscal year 2010.

                             U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

        These water resource investigation programs provide a strong and
    unbiased source of information on water quality conditions and trends
    on the health of our Nation's rivers and water supply. American Rivers
    urges the subcommittee to provide the following amounts in fiscal year
    2010:
      --National Water Quality Assessment Program: $70 million
      --Toxic Substances Hydrology Program: $17.4 million
      --National Streamflow Information Program: $28.4 million

                        LAND AND WATER CONSERVATION FUND

        LWCF provides much-needed dollars for purchasing ecologically
    important watersheds. LWCF has proven highly successful, projects have
    helped States and localities purchase millions of acres of land and
    advanced river restoration through acquisition of riverside lands to
    serve as buffer zones. The highest-priority projects for river
    conservation are the FWS's $2.5 million need for the acquisition of the
    500-acre Bower Hill parcel to add to the Rappahannock River NWR in
    Virginia; NPS's $3.1 million need to complete the 95 acres acquisition
    of the Hyde Farm parcel to add to the Chattahoochee River NRA in
    Georgia, $2.69 million need for the acquisition of the 1,840 acres of
    the Riverstone tract to be part of the Congaree NP in South Carolina,
    $1 million for the acquisition of 534 acres to be added to the New
    River Gorge National River in West Virginia; BLM's $1.2 million need
    for the acquisition of 101 acres along the Crooked River Canyon to add
    to Oregon's Wild & Scenic Rivers; and USFS's $1.5 million need for the
    acquisition of the 901 acres Cedar Creek parcel to add to
    Chattahoochee/Oconee Riparian Project in Georgia, $1.2 million to
    acquire the 84 acres of Bear Mountain adding to the Charrahoochee NF in
    Georgia, $8 million to acquire 5,025 acres of the Little Truckee &
    Middle Yuba Headwaters to add to the Sierra Checkerboard, Tahoe NF in
    California, $4 million to purchase 735 acres of Reeb Mining Claims to
    protect three headwater tributaries of the Yellowstone and Stillwater
    Rivers adding to the Custer and Gallatin NF in Montana, $3 million to
    purchase 7,800 acres of the Bear Creek Ranch adding to the Gila
    National Forest in New Mexico, $4.5 million to purchase 5,000 acres
    along the John Day River adding to the Malheur National Forest in
    Oregon, $5 million to purchase 2,700 acres along the Blackwater River
    adding to the Monongahela National Forest in West Virginia, and $2.2
    million need for the acquisition of the 160 acres Morgan Ranch parcel
    to add to Idaho Wild & Scenic Rivers in Idaho. American Rivers urges
    the subcommittee to appropriate at least $450 million for the LWCF in
    fiscal year 2010.
                                     ______

             Prepared Statement of the American Society of Agronomy

        Dear Chairwoman Feinstein, Ranking Member Alexander, 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), I am pleased to submit comments in strong support of enhanced
    public investment in the U.S. Forest Service (USFS), U.S. Geological
    Survey (USGS), and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as
    critical components of Federal appropriations for fiscal year 2010 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 budgetary challenges the Senate
    Appropriations Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Subcommittee
    faces in fiscal year 2010. We also recognize that the Interior,
    Environment, and Related Agencies appropriations bill has many valuable
    and necessary components, and we applaud the efforts of the
    subcommittee to fund the USFS, USGS, and EPA.
        USFS 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 USFS's strategic goals, yet
    vital programs that are essential for improved soil quality have been
    consistently under-funded. The Societies are concerned with past
    transfers of funding for USFS away from base programs to support
    wildland fire suppression. ASA-CSSA-SSSA appreciate the more than 3
    percent increase provided by the subcommittee to USFS core (without
    wildland fire management funds) programs which brought fiscal year 2009
    funding to $2,614,164,000. For fiscal year 2010, we recommend
    $2,875,580,400, a 10 percent increase more than fiscal year 2009, thus
    putting USFS back on track toward 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.
        USGS provides reliable scientific information to describe and
    understand the Earth; minimize loss of life and property from natural
    disasters; and protect the Nation's natural resources. ASA-CSSA-SSSA
    applaud the subcommittee's support for an additional $200 million in
    the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 to repair and
    modernize USGS science facilities and equipment and support other
    areas. For fiscal year 2010, we recommend $1.3 billion for USGS, a 24.5
    percent increase more than the fiscal year 2009 level of $1.043
    billion. Only a concerted, long-term effort to boost USGS funding will
    produce the knowledge and tools needed to appropriately manage and meet
    the many challenges facing the Nation's water, biological, energy, and
    mineral resources, while enhancing and protecting our quality of life.
        In order to fulfill its mission, the EPA needs increased
    investments in socioeconomic, sustainability, ecological, and
    exploratory research as well as partnerships with academia and State
    and local government. These areas are essential to move environmental
    protection from a command-and-control regulatory system to a more
    rational, compliance-based approach. For EPA Science and Technology for
    fiscal year 2010, ASA-CSSA-SSSA recommend a funding level of
    $845,354,570, a 7 percent increase more than fiscal year 2009 and for
    Environment Programs and Management, $2,559,524,000, also a 7 percent
    increase.

                                      USFS

    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 applaud the more than 3 percent increase provided by the
    subcommittee for Forest and Rangeland Research in fiscal year 2009, and
    for fiscal year 2010 we recommend increasing Forest and Rangeland
    Research funding by 7 percent ($20,746,600) bringing total funding to
    $317,126,600. Within Forest and Rangeland Research, we urge the
    subcommittee to fund Resource Management and Use at the highest level
    possible. If funding increases do not occur, USFS 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 USFS sustainability
    requirements.

                          NATIONAL FOREST SYSTEM (NFS)

        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
    support a funding level of $179,310,000, a 7 percent increase, for
    inventory and monitoring program in fiscal year 2010. We also recommend
    $193,067,590, a 7 percent increase, in funding for vegetation and
    watershed management. Soil is the natural filter, often overlooked,
    vital for healthy watersheds. Past investments in NFS have yielded
    enormous benefits to society--Soil scientists annually provide critical
    soil resource information to Burned Area Emergency Response teams
    evaluating the environmental effects and developing rapid management
    responses for hundreds of wildfires. Strong funding for NFS will allow
    USFS 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.

                                      USGS

    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 the USGS, EPA, National Science Foundation (NSF), and
    United States Department of Agriculture (USDA); Universities-land
    grants and private; and private sector environmental managers and
    planners. 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 are concerned with the 6.96 percent ($5,407,000) cut made to
    geographic research, investigations, and remote sensing in fiscal year
    2009. We urge the subcommittee to fund the geographic analysis and
    monitoring program at $11,339,860, a 7 percent increase more than
    fiscal year 2009. This funding level will help ensure access to a
    common set of current, accurate, and consistent data and scientific
    information that describe the Earth's land surface to help inform
    decisions by policymakers, resource managers, researchers, citizens,
    and the private sector.

                         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.
    ASA-CSSA-SSSA recommend $161,962,960 in funding, a 7 percent, for
    hydrologic, monitoring, assessments and research (HMAR) for fiscal year
    2010. Within HMAR, critical programs--ground water resources, toxic
    substances hydrology, and hydrologic research and development--deserve
    special funding consideration. ASA-CSSA-SSSA appreciate the
    subcommittee's support for National Water Quality Assessment (NAWQA)
    program which raised total funding to $65,056,000 for fiscal year 2009.
    For fiscal year 2010, we recommend an additional $4,553,920 (7 percent
    increase) for NAWQA which will bring total funding to $69,609,920. This
    strong funding level will significantly increase the ground water
    monitoring capacity in USGS and allow for annual monitoring at the 113
    active sites, demonstrating the Government's commitment to providing
    clean available water under increasing demands. 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. ASA-CSSA-SSSA request a funding
    level of $8.8 million, a 35 percent ($2,300,000) increase more than
    fiscal year 2009, 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.

                              BIOLOGICAL RESEARCH

        For fiscal year 2010, ASA-CSSA-SSSA recommend funding for
    biological research be increased by $12,973,000 (7 percent) which will
    provide $198,303,000 in total funding and thus strong support for
    biological research and monitoring, biological information management
    and delivery, and cooperative research units.

                                SCIENCE SUPPORT

        Climate change is a major focus for many agencies in fiscal year
    2010 and ASA-CSSA-SSSA which are interested in the role agriculture can
    play to mitigate climate change. ASA-CSSA-SSSA are pleased to see
    overwhelming support provided by the subcommittee to global climate
    change research which brought funding from $7,383,000 in fiscal year
    2008 to $40,628,000 for fiscal year 2009, an increase of $33,245,000
    (450 percent). Support for the geographic research program is critical
    to provide the United States the ability to effectively 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 research to $2,000,000
    to develop new tools and understanding of the role that our managed
    lands play in carbon sequestration.

                                      EPA

        In order to fulfill its mission, EPA needs increased investments in
    both its intramural and extramural science programs as well as
    associated services such as environmental education and libraries.
    Long-term, deep budget cuts in research areas are devastating and
    compromising EPA's ability to adequately monitor and safeguard and the
    Nation's air, soil, and water resources. ASA-CSSA-SSSA recommend that
    EPA increase investments in socioeconomic, sustainability, ecological,
    and exploratory research as well as partnerships with academia and
    State and local government. These areas are essential to move
    environmental protection from a command-and-control regulatory system
    to a more rational, compliance-based approach. For EPA science and
    technology for fiscal year 2010, ASA-CSSA-SSSA recommend a funding
    level of $845,354,570, a 7 percent increase more than fiscal year 2009.
    We urge the subcommittee to fund environment programs and management at
    $2,559,524,000, a 7 percent increase more thanfiscal year 2009.
        Thank you for your thoughtful consideration of our requests.
                                     ______

       Letter from the Association of State Drinking Water Administrators
                                                       January 5, 2009.
    Hon. Dianne Feinstein,
    Chairman, Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations
            Subcommittee,
    Washington, DC.
        Dear Madam Chair: I am writing on behalf of the membership of the
    Association of State Drinking Water Administrators (ASDWA) to request
    the opportunity to present oral testimony at the forthcoming Senate
    Appropriations hearings regarding the Environmental Protection Agency's
    fiscal year 2010 budget. ASDWA members are responsible for implementing
    the numerous provisions of the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) in the 50
    States, territories, the Navajo Nation, and the District of Columbia.
    In continuing their efforts to implement the act's provisions, the
    States are looking to Congress for additional support.
        Since enactment of the 1996 SDWA amendments, State drinking water
    programs responsibilities have continued to grow as we strive to ensure
    that public health is protected through clean and safe drinking water.
    These time and resource intensive responsibilities extend beyond
    traditional activities such as working with utilities to ensure
    compliance with both new and existing drinking water regulations. They
    also include undertaking initiatives to protect source waters; working
    to ensure that drinking water systems can demonstrate that they have
    adequate technical, managerial, and financial capabilities to meet
    Federal and State requirements; and ensuring that drinking water system
    operators are adequately trained and certified. Since September 11,
    2001, and underscored in recent years by the growing number of large
    natural disasters, these responsibilities have expanded to include
    additional initiatives directed toward ensuring the safety and security
    of our Nation's drinking water supplies. State drinking water programs
    are also being directed to focus limited resources on issues such as
    water quantity issues associated with climate change, carbon
    sequestration, energy conservation, and sustainable infrastructure.
        Federal funding to administer these critical State efforts through
    the Public Water Supply Supervision is woefully inadequate to the task
    at hand and has actually remained the same or declined since fiscal
    year 2004. Similarly, Federal funding for the Drinking Water State
    Revolving Loan fund is clearly insufficient to bridge the
    infrastructure ``gap'' in the United States and, in fact, has never
    been appropriated at authorized amounts.
        Today, State drinking water programs are experiencing extreme
    fiscal constraints that affect their ability to undertake federally
    mandated responsibilities for drinking water protection without
    additional Federal funding support. As a result, State drinking water
    programs are being forced to prioritize their public health protection
    initiatives. This situation cannot and must not be allowed to
    deteriorate to the point where public health is compromised or where
    States will have to return the drinking water program to the Federal
    Government. ASDWA, through its testimony, would like to provide the
    subcommittee with a realistic picture of State activities and needs for
    the coming year as well as about critical drinking water infrastructure
    needs associated with the Drinking Water State Revolving Loan Fund.
        Thank you for your consideration of ASDWA's request to provide oral
    testimony during the forthcoming budgetary hearings. I look forward to
    learning the specifics of the hearing schedule and the possibility of
    securing time on the agenda.
                Sincerely,
                                                 James D. Taft,
                                                    Executive Director.
                                     ______

       Letter from the Alliance to Save Energy; American Council for an
      Energy-Efficient Economy; Environmental and Energy Study Institute;
         Green Buildings Initiative; Johnson Controls, Inc.; National
        Association of State Energy Offices; North American Insulation
           Manufacturers Association; and U.S. Green Building Council

        Dear Chairwoman Feinstein and Ranking Member Alexander: We the
    undersigned represent a broad-based coalition of hundreds of energy
    efficiency and environmental organizations, public interest
    organizations and corporations. We write to commend the success of the
    EPA Energy Star Program to date and ask for its continued support. We
    request that the subcommittee approve funding in the amount of $100
    million for the EPA Energy Star Program in fiscal year 2010, an
    increase of $49.3 million more than the President's fiscal year 2010
    budget request.
        The EPA Energy Star Program is the single most effective Federal
    consumer information program on energy efficiency. Indeed it is one of
    the most successful efforts anywhere to promote marketplace solutions
    for greater energy efficiency. The program works with thousands of
    business partners to make it easy for consumers to find and buy energy-
    efficient products, buildings, and services by awarding the well-known
    Energy Star label and by providing other consumer information. The
    Energy Star program reduces energy demand, lowers energy bills, and
    helps avoid pollution and greenhouse gas emissions.

                       ABOUT THE ENERGY STAR PARTNERSHIPS

        These initiatives have proven to be an extremely effective way for
    us to capitalize on the potential of energy efficiency as a resource.
    Energy Star's voluntary partnership program, which includes Energy Star
    Buildings, Energy Star Homes, Energy Star Small Businesses, and Energy
    Star Labeled Products, works by removing marketplace barriers to
    existing and emerging technologies, providing information on technology
    opportunities, generating awareness of energy-efficient products and
    services, and educating consumers about life-cycle energy and cost
    savings.
        Energy Star serves broad constituencies in every State in the
    country. The program currently has more than 14,000 partners who are
    committed to improving the energy efficiency of our homes, businesses,
    and products. Among those partners are more than 2,000 manufacturing
    partners who make and market more than 40,000 different models of
    Energy Star qualifying products, and more than 1,000 retail partners
    representing thousands of storefronts, as well as building owners and
    operators, utilities, State and local governments, and nonprofit
    organizations. Energy Star counts more than 5,000 builder partners and
    partners who supply products and services for energy-efficient home
    construction. More than 840,000 families now live in Energy Star
    Homes--locking in financial savings for homeowners of more than $200
    million annually.

                           MUCH HAS BEEN ACCOMPLISHED

        The program helps consumers to visualize the long-term benefits,
    through lower energy bills, that can be realized through investment in
    energy efficient appliances. Approximately one-third of U.S. consumers
    report using the Energy Star label as an information tool for making
    purchase decisions, and an even higher number report using Energy Star
    as an information tool to help them save energy. With this high level
    of consumer awareness, the potential for Energy Star to tap into even
    greater energy efficiency is limited only by the availability of
    resources to fund its programs. The return on investment in EPA Energy
    Star is unparalleled: The EPA estimates that for every Federal dollar
    spent on the Energy Star program, $75 or more in consumer energy bills
    is saved, and about 3.7 tons of carbon dioxide emissions is avoided.
        In 2007 alone, Energy Star helped Americans save 35,000 megawatts
    of peak power, avoiding the need for about 70 new power plants. The
    electricity savings--180 billion kilowatt-hours--represent 5 percent of
    total 2007 electricity use. Working together with Energy Star,
    Americans prevented the emission of 40 million metric tons of
    greenhouse gas emissions, which is equivalent to removing 25 million
    cars from the road. And Americans, with the help of Energy Star, saved
    $16 billion on their energy bills. As these statistics exemplify, the
    Energy Star program is helping millions of Americans get the energy
    they need, while saving money and avoiding pollution.

                        HUGE POTENTIAL REMAINS UNTAPPED

        Although EPA Energy Star is already making a tremendous impact on
    U.S. energy consumption, many opportunities exist to expand existing
    programs and initiate new efforts, greatly increasing the energy
    savings potential. Funding for the Energy Star Program declined
    precipitously in the last several years.
        The fiscal year 2008 funding level of $43.9 million was a reduction
    of more than 25 percent from fiscal year 2002 levels, after accounting
    for inflation. We were pleased to see an increase in funding to $50
    million in fiscal year 2009, but this level still represents a decrease
    from fiscal year 2002 levels in real dollars. The recommended increase
    of only $700,000 in the fiscal year 2010 administration budget request
    is insufficient. Dramatic increases in the program are necessary for
    the program to fully utilize the opportunities to reduce energy
    consumption that still remain untapped. A $100 million budget in fiscal
    year 2010, representing a $50 million increase more than fiscal year
    2009 funding, will enable the program to label additional products,
    update its criteria, increase its consumer outreach, and address
    energy-efficient home improvements nationwide.

                                RECOMMENDATIONS

        We recommend that the funding for the Energy Star Program be
    increased to $100 million. The $50 million in increased funding that we
    are requesting should in our view be directed to the following
    initiatives:
      --An expanded program for improvements to energy-inefficient existing
            homes: $12.5 million
        Homeowners can save 10 to 20 percent on their home energy bills--
    which now average $2,100 a year--with a set of new Energy Star programs
    that go beyond the labeling of efficient products. These include:
        --Home Performance with Energy Star (HPES).--HPES is a whole-home
                retrofit program that can be offered by a State, utility,
                or other local program sponsor in partnership with EPA. It
                gives homeowners access to trained building professionals,
                information on the best home improvement projects for their
                home, and quality assurance and quality control on the work
                performed, which commonly includes adding insulation and
                sealing ductwork and air leaks. This program is being
                offered in a dozen locations around the country and is
                providing homeowners with an average of 20 percent savings
                on their home energy bills.
        Additional funding would bring this program to many more cities and
    homeowners around the country. HPES is uniquely valuable to homeowners
    because it goes beyond household appliances to improve the residential
    building envelope holistically, while offering consumers the confidence
    that comes with the Energy Star name.
        --Quality Installation of Heating and Cooling Equipment.--Ensuring
                that heating and cooling equipment is of appropriate size
                and that it is correctly installed and maintained is
                essential to getting the most out of energy efficiency.
                Many air conditioners are oversized and improperly
                installed, so often even high-efficiency units consume much
                more energy than necessary. Cooling and heating equipment
                are key drivers of peak demand, and therefore improving the
                effective efficiency of this equipment can decrease the
                need for new power plants.
        EPA Energy Star and its partners have developed and piloted
    programs to address the challenges to proper equipment sizing,
    installation and maintenance. Additional funding would enable Energy
    Star to spread these program models across the country, ensuring that
    gains in appliance efficiency are not mitigated by a failure to address
    these challenges.
      --An expanded program for rating the energy performance of all
            building types: $7.5 million
        Providing a comprehensive yet simple measurement of building energy
    consumption is a powerful tool in motivating energy efficiency
    improvements. EPA Energy Star has established a performance rating
    system that offers a standardized, consistent measurement of energy use
    for more than 60 percent of U.S. commercial building space, and this
    system has already been used to assess the energy consumption of about
    10 percent of U.S. building space. Additional funding would expand this
    system to apply to the vast majority of the Nation's buildings, and
    would help Energy Star to partner with States, local governments,
    builders, and other groups to make effective use of the rating system.
      --An expanded focus on medium and small manufacturing and small
            business: $10 million
        EPA Energy Star has developed specialized approaches for working
    with medium-sized manufacturers and with small businesses to improve
    their energy efficiency. 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
      --A new program to aid sponsors of emerging energy efficiency
            programs in program development and implementation: $10 million
        EPA already partners with hundreds of utilities, States, local
    governments, and other organizations to help them run their efficiency
    programs. There is growing interest, especially at the State level, in
    funding organized energy efficiency programs. The Energy Star energy
    efficiency platform can help these emerging program sponsors to develop
    new programs quickly and to build on existing best practices, leading
    to greater program effectiveness and cost-effectiveness. EPA Energy
    Star should target its outreach toward programs for elementary and
    secondary schools, among others.
      --An expanded outreach effort to State and local governments: $10
            million
        State and local governments can save significant energy and money
    through investments in 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.
      --An expanded focus on exploring new technologies and practices: $5
            million
        In many sectors technology is advancing at lightning speed,
    offering opportunities to improve the energy efficiency of new homes,
    buildings, and products. Additional funding would expand EPA Energy
    Star's ability to study these innovations 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. This would
    speed the adoption of the most energy-efficient products and drive
    further innovation.

                                   CONCLUSION

        The Energy Star program proves that we can protect the environment
    while simultaneously saving consumers money on their energy bills and
    enhancing the economy. Energy Star provides the catalyst for many
    businesses, State and local governments, and consumers to invest in
    energy efficiency, which in turn yields multiple private and public
    benefits. It does this by providing access to information, improving
    brand recognition, and providing positive publicity.
        While there are many demands on the country's financial resources,
    Energy Star has proven tremendously cost-effective, and it returns
    important benefits to the Nation. Every added Federal dollar invested
    in Energy Star in fiscal year 2010 will return a significant and cost-
    effective yield in pollution reduction, economic stimulation, energy
    security, and consumer savings. On behalf of the Energy Efficiency
    Coalition, we strongly urge the subcommittee to approve $100 million in
    funding for the EPA Energy Star Program in fiscal year 2010.
                                     ______

          Prepared Statement of the American Society for Microbiology

        The American Society for Microbiology (ASM) is pleased to submit
    the following testimony on the fiscal year 2010 appropriation for the
    U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) research and education
    programs. ASM is the largest single life science membership
    organization in the world with more than 43,000 members. 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.
        ASM urges Congress to support essential research and provide at
    least $595 million for the ORD in fiscal year 2010, the same as the
    funding level provided in fiscal year 2006. While EPA received
    substantial funding in both the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act
    of 2009 and the Omnibus Appropriations Act of 2009, the need remains
    for a steady annual increase of fiscal year appropriations funding, to
    offset the past detrimental trend of budget cuts and loss of EPA's
    spending power to inflation.
        The EPA relies on sound science to safeguard both human health and
    the environment. The EPA Office of Research and Development (ORD)
    sponsors leading-edge research that provides a solid underpinning of
    science and technology for EPA's regulatory and public outreach
    activities. ORD conducts research on pollution prevention, human health
    protection, and reduction of risks from a variety of hazardous
    chemicals and microbes. The work at ORD laboratories, research centers,
    and offices across the country helps optimize use of our natural
    resources and improve the quality of the Nation's air, water, and soil.
    Excellence in research is crucial to ORD's mandated responsibilities:
      --Perform research and development to identify, understand, and solve
            current and future environmental problems;
      --Provide responsive technical support to EPA's mission;
      --Integrate the work of ORD's scientific partners (other agencies,
            nations, private sector organizations, and academia); and
      --Provide leadership in addressing emerging environmental issues and
            in advancing the science and technology of risk assessment and
            risk management.
        ASM is very concerned with the trend in recent years of decreasing
    the annual budget for EPA's research and development programs. Optimal
    EPA oversight of public health and the environment clearly depends upon
    EPA's access to exemplary scientific expertise within and outside the
    EPA, as well as the ability to respond quickly to our changing
    environment.
        Both access to expertise and timely response to the environment
    depend on sufficient and sustained investments in research and
    development programs. The fiscal year 2009 budget allocation for the
    ORD was $541 million, a significant 1.3 percent decrease from fiscal
    year 2008. These funding decreases will likely undermine the basic
    scientific foundation essential for the EPA to make decisions and
    formulate regulations to protect both human health and the environment.
    The fiscal year 2009 decreases are part of a longer-term pattern of
    funding erosion that is cause for serious concern.

            SCIENCE TO ACHIEVE RESULTS (STAR) GRANTS AND FELLOWSHIPS

        ASM urges Congress to increase funding for the STAR grants program
    to at least the fiscal year 2002 level of $102 million. The fiscal year
    2009 budget continued a disturbing 7-year trend of shrinking STAR
    resources by recommending only $61 million for STAR, a 4.6 percent
    reduction from fiscal year 2007. Currently, the STAR program focuses
    research on drinking water, water quality, global climate change, human
    health risk assessment, children's health, and the health effects of
    particulate matter, among other equally important areas. Cuts to STAR
    funding will have almost certain detrimental effects on both human
    health and the environment.
        The STAR grants support extramural research in numerous
    environmental science and engineering disciplines, awarded 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 own intramural research and that
    conducted by partners in other Federal agencies. Cuts to the STAR
    program significantly reduce American competitiveness in the important
    areas of scientific research and discovery, an effect that cannot be
    ignored in the current economic climate.
        Reductions in the STAR program will severely limit EPA's ability 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 its fellowships foster
    workforce development in environmental science and technology.

                              CLEAN AND SAFE WATER

        The EPA is tasked with ensuring the safety of our drinking and
    recreational waters, an enormous regulatory task that is entirely
    reliant on sufficient funding. Through Amendments to the Safe Drinking
    Water Act (SDWA), Congress has mandated that the EPA must conduct
    adequate research to ensure a solid scientific foundation for EPA's
    mission of reducing and limiting public exposure to dangerous drinking
    water contaminants. ASM is concerned with adverse impacts of past ORD
    budget cuts on EPA's Drinking Water and Water Quality programs.
        The Drinking Water Program has suffered the greatest reductions,
    with an 8 percent decrease from fiscal year 2008 to 2009. Such
    decreases in the Drinking Water Program severely compromise the EPA's
    ability to ensure safe drinking water for all Americans. Health
    problems from microbial contamination of drinking water are
    demonstrated by localized outbreaks of waterborne disease. Many of
    these outbreaks have been linked to contamination by bacteria or
    viruses, likely from human or animal wastes. For example, in 1999-2000,
    there were 39 reported disease outbreaks associated with drinking
    water, some of which were linked to public drinking water supplies.
        ASM supports the following as priority research areas for the
    fiscal year 2010 budget for drinking water and water quality: (1)
    studies on impacts of subsurface carbon dioxide (CO2)
    storage on drinking water quality; (2) analysis of aquatic life
    guidelines, recreational water criteria, the effects of emerging
    contaminants, nutrients, biocriteria, and multiple stressor effects on
    stream biota; (3) watershed management research that supports diagnoses
    of impairment, mitigations, and pollutant load reduction in headwater
    streams and isolated wetlands; and (4) improvements in the control of
    microbial releases from publicly owned treatment works during periods
    of significant wet weather events. It is also imperative that the EPA
    continues to develop analytical methods for accurately measuring
    contaminant levels in drinking water and surface water; that the EPA
    ensures proper certification and assessment of laboratories that
    analyze drinking-water samples; and that the EPA conducts research that
    strengthens the scientific basis for standards that limit public
    exposure to contaminants. Topics of growing concern include: the
    dissemination of diverse anthropogenic compounds, such as
    pharmaceuticals and estrogens or estrogen-like compounds into the
    environment through water and wastewater treatment systems. These
    compounds are now ubiquitous, but their fates in the environment and
    impacts on humans and other organisms are inadequately known.
        ASM also supports increased funding for the Water Quality program.
    Expanding ORD-supported research is needed to more fully protect the
    Nation from waterborne illnesses that persist in our environment. For
    example, 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 percent of gastrointestinal outbreaks associated with
    disinfected swimming venues, such as swimming pools and water parks--
    likely due to the parasite's high resistance to free chlorine, the main
    barrier to infectious disease transmission in pools. Since 2005,
    reports of cryptosporidiosis have increased substantially. Clearly, the
    EPA needs continued support to address water-borne diseases such as
    this.

                 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 for ensuring sustainability, and ASM encourages EPA to
    pursue collaborative efforts in this area with the National Science
    Foundation (NSF), the 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 ``sinks.''
    Energy efficiency is an important but often overlooked consideration
    when addressing the Nation's water supply. At present, the Nation's
    water distribution infrastructure consumes approximately 5 percent of
    total electricity use. The development of nonfossil fuel energy sources
    for water distribution 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 thus
    improve water quality. This approach uses the bacteria that naturally
    occur in wastewater, requiring no special bacterial strains or unusual
    environmental demands. The benefit of microbial fuel cell applications
    is that they purify wastewater while generating electricity; water
    purification, the goal of wastewater treatment facilities, normally
    requires the consumption of energy.
        ASM urges Congress to support a collaborative relationship between
    the EPA and the DOE, the NSF, and the 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 the
    ubiquitous microbes that dominate the living mass of many ecosystems.
    While climate-related disturbances can have many effects, it is
    abundantly clear that they directly and indirectly affect the incidence
    of serious infectious diseases. Climate changes can also impact air and
    water pollution, which adversely affect human health. The effects of
    these changes on microbial activities are often unpredictable, but
    microbes nonetheless play major roles in water quality, environmental
    integrity and human health. Thus, it is essential that the EPA retains
    and expand its ability to support research on climate change, including
    the subsequent impacts on beneficial and pathogenic microorganisms.
        ASM is concerned that past budget reductions to the Global Climate
    Change research program at ORD will limit its ability to understand
    links between certain diseases and pathogens and climate change. The
    Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change noted in 2007 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, are
    also projected to spread into new areas due to global warming. Climate
    change may increase the risk of other infectious diseases, particularly
    those diseases that appear in warm areas and are spread by aquatic
    pathogens. For example, shellfish-borne outbreaks of gastroenteritis
    caused by the aquatic bacterium Vibrio parahaemolyticus have been
    associated with temperature increases in United States coastal waters
    in recent years. In addition, increased frequencies of harmful algal
    blooms in warmer waters, particularly in areas subject to nutrient
    pollution, can lead to more frequent outbreaks of diseases like
    cholera. Thus, ASM supports the administration's dedication to slow
    global warming, and asks Congress to provide sufficient funding for the
    ORD to continue this important research.

                                   CONCLUSION

        The EPA requires sound scientific information to meet its mandates
    to protect 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
    provision of clean and safe water. ASM urges Congress to provide at
    least $595 million for the ORD in fiscal year 2010. ASM appreciates the
    opportunity to provide written testimony and would be pleased to assist
    the subcommittee as it considers the fiscal year 2010 appropriation for
    the EPA.
                                     ______

            Prepared Statement of the Appalachian Trail Conservancy

        Dear Madam Chair and members of the subcommittee: On behalf of the
    Appalachian Trail Conservancy (ATC), for reasons described below, I am
    requesting a fiscal year 2010 appropriation from the Land and Water
    Conservation Fund (LWCF) in the amount of $2.625 million for the
    National Park Service (NPS) and $15.02 million for the USDA Forest
    Service (USFS) for the acquisition of lands and interests in lands
    surrounding or bordering the Appalachian National Scenic Trail (ANST)
    in the States of New Hampshire, Vermont, Tennessee, and North Carolina.
    ATC also is supporting two fiscal year 2010 Forest Legacy Program (FLP)
    projects in Maine and New Hampshire totaling $7.613 million.
        Background.--The Appalachian Trail (AT) 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 ANST land-acquisition
    program of the NPS and USFS has become one of the most successful land-
    conservation efforts in the Nation's history with the acquisition of
    more than 189,000 acres, more than 3,360 parcels, in 14 States. Today,
    only approximately 5 miles of the 2,178-mile AT remain to be protected
    through public ownership.
        Resource Characteristics.--The AT is a 2,178-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, which is considered a unit of the
    National Park System, connects 8 National Forests, 6 other units of the
    National Park System, and approximately 60 State parks, forests, and
    game-management units. With an estimated 3 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 units from the standpoint
    of natural diversity.
        The AT 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 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 2008, for example, more
    than 6,000 volunteers contributed more than 203,000 hours of labor
    along the trail. As an outgrowth of an agreement between the NPS and
    ATC, the Conservancy has accepted management responsibility for most
    lands 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. ATC also provides ongoing, volunteer-based stewardship for
    other trail lands, totaling more than 250,000 acres.
        Need for Appropriations.--As noted previously, while the ANST
    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. Nevertheless,
    a number of critical parcels are now ``ripe'' for land acquisition from
    willing sellers and we are seeking fiscal year 2010 LWCF appropriations
    to secure those properties. A brief description of each of those
    critical parcels follows.
        Rangeley High Peaks Project Phase I, Maine.--ATC is supporting a
    request by the State of Maine and the Maine Appalachian Trail Land
    Trust to acquire conservation easements affecting three large parcels
    totaling 13,446 acres in the towns of Rangeley and Madrid and Mount
    Abrams Township in the Rangeley Lakes region of western Maine utilizing
    fiscal year 2010 FLP funding. The three properties are known as the
    Ridge, Orbeton, and Rangeley properties. Of particular interest is the
    Ridge tract, which borders the AT corridor near Saddleback Mountain and
    Mt. Abram and includes an important snowmobile crossing of the AT. It
    abuts other lands acquired by the NPS and the ATC. ATC is supporting a
    request for $4.613 million from the fiscal year 2010 USDA FLP.
        Mahoosucs Gateway/Success Township, New Hampshire.--This project
    affects a 20,000-acre project area that has been the focus of
    conservation and economic-development efforts by 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 AT. 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 4,772 acres in fee-
    simple and an additional 15,200 acres under easement for 6 miles along
    the northern edge of the narrow AT 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 fee-simple portions of
    the property require Federal LWCF monies, while the easement portions
    will rely on additional funding through the FLP. Approximately one half
    of the LWCF monies were provided in the fiscal year 2009 omnibus
    appropriations bill. ATC and The Conservation Fund (TCF) are requesting
    a fiscal year 2010 LWCF appropriation of $1.375 million for the NPS to
    complete the fee-simple portion of the project. ATC also is supporting
    a request by TCF for $3 million in fiscal year 2010 FLP funding for
    acquisition of easements affecting the remaining 15,200 acres.
        Chateauguay-No Town Project, Vermont.--This project involves four
    parcels, totaling 1,000 acres, in the towns of Barnard and Bridgewater,
    Vermont. Negotiations have been spearheaded for several years by TCF,
    which also has secured a $500,000 private contribution toward the
    project. The four properties straddle more than 1\1/2\ miles of the AT
    in an area where earlier acquisitions by the NPS provided only a narrow
    buffer for the footpath. They include a high-value wetland complex and
    feeding habitat for migratory birds, black bears, and moose as well as
    the headwaters of the Locust Creek watershed, a Vermont Class A stream.
    ATC and TCF are requesting an fiscal year 2010 LWCF appropriation of
    $1.25 million for the NPS for this project.
        Rocky Fork, Tennessee/Cherokee National Forest.--In mid-December,
    2008, the USFS acquired approximately 2,200 acres of this 10,000-acre
    property in eastern Tennessee situated midway between Johnson City and
    Asheville, North Carolina, and adjacent to Interstate 26. TCF provided
    bridge funding to acquire the balance of the property in anticipation
    of future sale to the USFS and the State of Tennessee. The property
    includes many game and nongame wildlife values, including 16 miles of
    ``blue-ribbon'' trout streams and outstanding black bear, white-tailed
    deer, and wild turkey habitat. The property also includes 1.2 miles of
    the ANST and its recent acquisition will permit the construction of a
    5-mile relocation to provide a much-improved alignment for the
    footpath. Total costs for the acquisition were approximately $43
    million and ATC is working closely with TCF, the Southern Appalachian
    Highlands Conservancy, and a number of other conservation and sportsmen
    organizations to complete the overall funding package for the project.
    ATC and TCF are requesting an fiscal year 2010 LWCF appropriation of
    $13.5 million for the USFS which will permit the USFS to acquire the
    eastern portion of the property while the central portion will be
    acquired by the State of Tennessee.
        Rich Mountain, Tennessee/Cherokee National Forest.--This 100-acre
    privately-owned in-holding is situated in the northwest corner of the
    Rocky Fork property (see previous) and unfortunately was carved out by
    New Forestry, LLC--the previous owners of the Rocky Fork property--at
    the time the remainder of the property was sold to the USFS and TCF. It
    includes the highest point of land for the overall property as well as
    prominent cliffs locally known as Buzzard Rock. The cliffs are only a
    short distance from the AT through a high-elevation health bald. The
    property provides sweeping views of the Sampson Mountain Wilderness and
    northeast Tennessee/southwest Virginia. ATC is requesting an fiscal
    year 2010 LWCF appropriation of $600,000 for the USFS to acquire this
    critical in-holding.
        Shook Branch, Tennessee/Cherokee National Forest.--This 20-acre
    property is situated in eastern Tennessee in the Cherokee National
    Forest. The AT 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 USFS 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 2010 LWCF appropriation of
    $500,000 for the USFS.
        Buck Mountain, Tennessee/Cherokee National Forest.--This is an 18-
    acre property situated in rural northeast Tennessee near the Village of
    Roan Mountain. The southern boundary of the property is within 10 yards
    of the AT and is clearly visible as it occupies the high ground above
    the AT for about one-quarter mile. The property includes views of Beech
    Mountain, Hump Mountain, and the Highlands of Roan. Previously devoted
    to Christmas tree and ornamental shrub agriculture, the area is under
    development pressure due to the outstanding views and proximity to the
    Cherokee National Forest. ATC is requesting an fiscal year 2010 LWCF
    appropriation of $150,000 for the USFS to acquire the property from a
    willing seller.
        Wesser Bald, North Carolina/Nantahala National Forest.--This 82-
    acre property is situated in western North Carolina in the Nantahala
    National Forest. The AT 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 (SAHC) with the aid of a bridge loan
    from TCF 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 USFS. 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 2010 LWCF appropriation in the amount of $270,000 for
    the USFS.
        With the acquisition of the previously described properties, ATC
    hopes to complete a substantial portion of the remaining land-
    acquisition needs in the ANST program. Again, we respectfully request
    an fiscal year 2010 LWCF appropriation of $2.625 million for the NPS
    and $15.02 million for the USFS. We also support a total of $7.613
    million in fiscal year 2010 Forest Legacy funding for the Rangeley High
    Peaks project in Maine and the Mahoosucs Gateway/Success Township
    project in New Hampshire.
        Thank you for the opportunity to submit this testimony and for your
    consideration of our request.
                                     ______

               Prepared Statement of the Animal Welfare Institute

        The Animal Welfare Institute (AWI) respectfully requests that the
    Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and
    Related Agencies appropriate a total of $83.1 million to the U.S. Fish
    and Wildlife Service (FWS) including an additional $45 million to
    increase and expand activities of the Office of Law Enforcement, $26
    million for special agents, $3.1 million for ports of entry, $5 million
    for the Clark R. Bavin National Fish and Wildlife Forensics Laboratory
    and $4 million for the Multinational Species Conservation Fund. The
    President's fiscal year 2010 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 from being used to kill healthy horses as a
    way to balance its books or implement sales authority language.
        Office of Law Enforcement (OLE).--An apparent 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 $45 million be allocated to the FWS to increase and
    expand the activities of its OLE in its critical role of combating
    wildlife crime. The OLE investigates both domestic and international
    wildlife crimes that involve the transgression of more than one dozen
    Federal wildlife and conservation laws. Though it is well known that
    the illegal trade in wildlife and wildlife products is third only to
    the illicit trade in narcotics and weapons 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. Given the severity of illegal wildlife trade and its inherent
    underground nature, covert investigations are essential for enforcing
    wildlife laws and, capturing as well as prosecuting those guilty of
    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 pre-eminent 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 more than 12,000 investigations
    resulting in more than$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 2010 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 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 inspectors are willing 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), wildlife and
    livestock health (e.g., Newcastle's disease, foot and mouth disease),
    or to our native flora. According to a news report, ``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.'' Couple the threats from legal trade with those from
    illegal trade, including the amount of illicit bushmeat entering the
    country, and the threat to public health is potentially catastrophic.
        The North American Free Trade Agreement has exacerbated the problem
    through increased movement of wildlife and wildlife products across the
    United States border with Mexico. Such contraband includes highly
    endangered neotropical parrots, cacti, reptiles, and exotic wildlife
    leather products. The United States border with Canada is a conduit for
    the illegal import of a variety of international species including the
    Asian arowana fish, the rare Madagascar radiated tortoise, and
    protected corals and domestic species including black bear gall
    bladders, bald eagle parts, and other wildlife products. The current
    lack of sufficient operational funds for the FWS port inspection
    program weakens FWS efforts to promote the conservation of species of
    international concern, to protect all natural resources, and to sustain
    biological processes. The virtually unregulated smuggling of parrots
    not only has put new pressure on Western Hemisphere parrot species, 30
    percent of which are already on the brink of extinction, but also
    presents a disease transmission risk to the U.S. poultry industry and
    native U.S. birds. The illegal import of parrots into California has
    been linked to an outbreak of Newcastle's disease in that State.
    Moreover, smugglers are dealing in both illegal wildlife and illegal
    aliens. For example, a cooperative investigation by FWS, Immigration
    and Customs Enforcement (ICE), and the U.S. Coast Guard documented the
    smuggling of illegal aliens and live Clarion angelfish from Mexico,
    resulting in a Los Angeles man being sentenced to 46 months in prison
    and fined $60,000.
        In fiscal year 2007, Service wildlife inspectors processed more
    than 179,000 wildlife shipments entering or leaving the United States.
    An example of how understaffed the FWS port inspection staff can be
    found at the United States/Canada border crossing at Blaine,
    Washington, where a single inspector is responsible for inspecting all
    imports even though that point of entry has experienced a 45 percent
    increase in the number of wildlife shipments in the past decade.
    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
    agents 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 as a whole is running
    4 to 8 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-based illegal wildlife trade 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 175 Convention for International Trade in Endangered Species
    (CITES) member countries. The backlog, however, jeopardizes this
    cooperation and has forced it to stop accepting samples from State and
    international wildlife investigators, weakening the long-standing
    partnerships supporting cooperative conservation efforts in this
    country and around the world. The backlog is largely a product of
    staffing shortages. These shortages, combined with a loss of expertise
    when seasoned veteran forensics experts retire before new experts are
    trained, threaten the lab's ability to solve wildlife crimes. To reduce
    both these staffing shortages and existing analytical workload and
    backlog, $5 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 ($2.2 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 Free-roaming Horses and Burros Act.--BLM uses the majority of
    its budget to round up and warehouse wild horses and burros, despite
    the fact that numerous herds have been eliminated. In 2004, the BLM
    embraced a devastating congressional rider requiring the sale of
    certain wild horses and burros without restriction. With no legal
    authority to protect these horses once sold, they very likely will end
    up at the slaughterhouse--the very outcome which prompted Congress to
    act to protect wild horses more than 35 years ago. Further, in 2008 the
    BLM announced they were considering mass euthanasia of horses in its
    holding facilities as a means of dealing with the program's dire
    financial situation--the direct effect of the BLM's overzealous removal
    of the animals from the range. While congressional and public outrage
    at such a proposal was swift and clear the BLM has never withdrawn the
    possibility so the Congress and public must remain vigilant. For years,
    AWI worked with Congress to ensure language was included in the annual
    Interior Appropriations bill to prevent such a travesty from occurring.
    The language was maintained until former Senator Conrad Burns removed
    it while inserting his ``sales authority'' language back in 2004. AWI
    requests that this ``no-kill'' language be reinserted to ensure the BLM
    does not kill healthy wild horses and burros:

        ``Provided, that appropriations herein made shall not be available
    for the sale of wild horses and burros pursuant to 16 U.S.C. 1333(e) or
    for the destruction of healthy, unadopted, wild horses and burros in
    the care of the Bureau of Land Management or its contractors.''

        With almost as many animals in holding facilities as are in the
    wild today, AWI respectfully requests that Congress instruct the BLM
    that, until such time as the agency either finds qualified adopters for
    those animals now being held and/or returns animals to suitable herd
    areas (particularly those from which all wild horses and burros have
    been removed or whose populations are not self-sustaining), that no
    funds be used to conduct further round-ups. In addition, Congress
    should instruct the BLM to designate ranges on public lands for the
    protection and preservation of wild horses and burros as provided in
    the act.
        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 3,500 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 remains largely mired in
    step 1. In addition, though based on the concept of adaptive
    management, the plan has only recently been adjusted, albeit minimally,
    largely in response to criticisms of the plan made in a 2008 Government
    Accountability Office report. These adjustments, however, have not
    addressed the 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 consequence of their lethal management actions. 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 2010 Interior, Environment, and Related
    Agencies 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 more than the President's request for each of these funds.
                                     ______

                  Prepared Statement of the Beartooth Alliance

        Madam Chairman and honorable members of the subcommittee: I
    appreciate the opportunity to provide testimony on behalf of an
    important land acquisition funding need on the Gallatin National Forest
    in Montana. An appropriation of $4 million from the Land and Water
    Conservation Fund (LWCF) is requested in fiscal year 2010 for the U.S.
    Forest Service to complete the acquisition of mining claims near Cooke
    City. We were very pleased to learn that your subcommittee provided $4
    million to begin this project in fiscal year 2009.
        Roughly the same size as West Virginia, the Greater Yellowstone
    Ecosystem (GYE) encompasses approximately 18 million acres in Wyoming,
    Montana, and Idaho. The GYE includes Yellowstone and Grand Teton
    National Parks, portions of seven different national forests, and three
    national wildlife refuges. The headwaters of the Yellowstone, Missouri,
    Snake, and Green rivers are found in its mountains; these rivers lead
    to the Gulf of Mexico, Pacific Ocean, and the Gulf of California in
    Mexico. The varied topography of the GYE consists of arid high plains,
    verdant river valleys, high-elevation plateaus, and spectacular
    mountain ranges, as well as the most diverse and intact collection of
    geysers and hot springs in the world. Additionally, the Greater
    Yellowstone is one of the largest, relatively intact, temperate zone
    ecosystems remaining in the world.
        Remarkably diverse, the GYE provides some of the best wildlife
    habitat in the country, including home for one of the last viable
    grizzly bear populations in the lower 48 States. It hosts the largest
    elk and free-roaming bison herds in North America, and provides the
    only U.S. wintering ground for the rare trumpeter swan. Wolverines,
    lynx, fishers, and pine martens still roam the GYE's mountains, as do
    bighorn sheep, black bears, and mountain goats. Other flourishing
    species include pronghorn antelope, wolves, moose, mountain lions, mule
    deer, beavers, coyotes, osprey, bald eagles, and peregrine falcons. The
    GYE hosts a total of 316 bird, 94 mammal, 24 reptile and amphibian, and
    more than 1,700 vascular plant species. The rich, biological diversity
    of the GYE is truly exceptional--nowhere else in the lower 48 States
    can you find a large and relatively intact ecosystem containing nearly
    all the living organisms present in pre-Columbian times.
        In addition to its impressive wildlife values, the GYE offers some
    of the best recreational opportunities in North America. Its fisheries
    are world-renowned and attract fly fishers from all over the globe. Big
    game hunting opportunities are abundant. In addition to these sporting
    opportunities, the GYE offers a wide range of backcountry recreational
    opportunities including skiing, snowshoeing, snowmobiling, hiking,
    camping, whitewater rafting, horseback riding, and wildlife viewing.
        Available within the GYE in fiscal year 2010 is the phase II
    acquisition of 735 acres of mining claims located near Cooke City just
    outside Yellowstone National Park in Montana. In 1989, a massive mining
    enterprise was proposed near Cooke City, Montana, next to the Absaroka-
    Beartooth Wilderness Area and only 2 miles from the northeastern
    boundaries of the National Park. The plan to mine gold, silver, and
    copper so close to the National Park and three important headwater
    tributaries of the Yellowstone River sparked an international
    controversy.
        As the controversy grew, it reached the attention of officials in
    Washington, including President Bill Clinton, who visited the site in
    1995. In August 1996, after months of talks, President Clinton, mining
    company officials, and a coalition of environmental groups announced
    that they had reached an agreement that would cease development of the
    mine. In return for $65 million in Federal land and other assets, the
    mining company agreed to suspend the project and create a special $22.5
    million fund to clean up past contamination. But in a potentially fatal
    flaw, Crown Butte failed to consult with a retired Livingston, Montana
    schoolteacher named Margaret Reeb, who owned most of the claims that
    Crown Butte had the right to mine and wanted to hand over to the U.S.
    Government as part of the deal.
        The daughter of a pioneering mining family that had owned claims in
    the Cooke City region for decades, Ms. Reeb quietly acquired additional
    claims in the area long after most of the old mines had been shut down
    in the years after World War II. New survey technologies later revealed
    that the old prospectors had just missed striking the mother lode and
    that an immense body of ore still remained buried in the ground.
        In the wake of the agreement between the Federal Government, the
    mining companies, and environmental organizations, Ms. Reeb continued
    to hold onto her claims. Even though the mining company eventually
    convinced Ms. Reeb to sign an agreement that prohibited her and her
    successors from developing a mine on her claims, the risk of mining
    remains very real since the agreement specifically States that the ban
    can be overturned by Federal statute. Moreover, the majority of Ms.
    Reeb's claims are highly developable and would make a perfect place to
    build backcountry homes and cabins.
        Ms. Reeb died in 2005 at the age of 91, leaving her estate to her
    nephews, who have finally agreed to sell their aunt's mining claims so
    that they can be put into public ownership as originally proposed.
    Recognizing this opportunity, Congress appropriated $4 million to the
    project in fiscal year 2009. An appropriation of $4 million in fiscal
    year 2010 from the LWCF for phase II is needed to ensure this project
    is brought to a successful close. Inclusion of the Reeb Mining Claims
    project in the President's fiscal year 2010 budget recommendation,
    within the Forest Service's LWCF account, recognizes the national
    significance of this purchase to Yellowstone National Park and the GYE.
    However, the project needs an appropriation of $4 million to be
    completed, rather than the $1 million level included in the President's
    proposal. Not only will successful purchase of the Reeb property
    permanently remove the threat of future mining and conserve incredible
    scenery and wildlife habitat next to Yellowstone National Park, but it
    will also bring a happy ending to one of the most contentious and hard
    fought land use battles in the American West.
        I also respectfully request a substantial increase in overall
    funding for the LWCF, specifically urging the subcommittee to provide
    $325 million for the Federal LWCF in the fiscal year 2010 Interior,
    Environment, and Related Agencies appropriations bill. I applaud the
    LWCF funding increases provided by this subcommittee in fiscal year
    2009, which included the funds for this project. And, we are most
    thankful that the Obama administration budget recognizes the importance
    of these programs by proposing significant increases for fiscal year
    2010 and setting a goal to achieve full funding of the LWCF in the next
    5 years.
        The LWCF is our Nation's premier program to acquire and protect
    lands in National Parks, national wildlife refuges, national forests,
    Bureau of Land Management units, and other Federal land systems. This
    program faces an extensive and growing backlog of land acquisition
    needs across the Nation. Public lands provide innumerable social and
    economic benefits including a healthy lifestyle, protection of
    watersheds and drinking water supplies, wildfire reduction and
    prevention, and assistance to wildlife and fisheries as they adapt to
    climate change. We urge you to renew this wise investment in America's
    natural heritage and take steps to toward full and consistent funding
    of these vital programs.
        Madam Chairman and distinguished subcommittee members, I want to
    thank you for this opportunity to testify on behalf of this important
    national protection effort in Montana. On behalf of the Beartooth
    Alliance, I thank you for your consideration of this funding request.
                                     ______

              Letter from the Bird Conservation Funding Coalition
                                                          May 15, 2009.
    Hon. Dianne Feinstein,
    Chairwoman, Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations
            Subcommittee,
    Washington, DC.
    Hon. Lamar Alexander,
    Ranking Member, Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies
            Appropriations Subcommittee,
    Washington, DC.
        Dear Chairwoman Feinstein and Ranking Member Alexander: The Bird
    Conservation Funding Coalition (BCFC) consists of national
    organizations that, together, advocate for Federal funding to advance
    bird conservation. This year we ask that you once again provide funding
    to programs we believe are crucial for maintaining healthy and abundant
    bird populations throughout the United States. These programs are:
       neotropical migratory bird conservation act grants program (nmbca)
        NMBCA supports partnership programs to conserve birds in the United
    States, Latin America and the Caribbean, where approximately 5 billion
    birds representing 341 species spend their winters, including some of
    the most endangered birds in North America. Projects include activities
    to benefit bird populations and their habitats such as research and
    monitoring, law enforcement, outreach, and education. The BCFC
    respectfully requests the subcommittee prioritize fiscal year 2010
    funding for the NMBCA at $6.5 million, an increase of $1.75 million
    from the appropriated amount in fiscal year 2009.

                                 JOINT VENTURES

        Joint ventures are regionally based partnerships of public and
    private organizations dedicated to the delivery of bird conservation
    within their boundaries. Originally formed to support programs
    involving waterfowl and wetlands, the migratory bird joint ventures
    have recently adopted a 5-year growth strategy to embody an ``all-bird
    approach,'' to provide additional capacity for partnership development
    and enhancement, and to expand monitoring and assessment efforts. The
    BCFC respectfully requests the subcommittee allocate $19 million for
    fiscal year 2010, an increase of $6.5 million from the appropriated
    amount in fiscal year 2009.

                             SCIENCE AND MONITORING

        Science and monitoring done within the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
    Service (USFWS) Office of Migratory Bird Management provides invaluable
    information on the status and trends of bird species necessary for
    sound management decisions. This scientific information helps to ensure
    that funds are allocated wisely within all other BCFC priorities. The
    slight increase in funds requested by the BCFC will help to close a
    multimillion dollar shortfall which currently exists within the Office
    of Migratory Bird Management. Therefore, the BCFC respectfully requests
    the subcommittee provide $36 million for this important program, an
    increase of approximately $6.2 million from the appropriated amount in
    fiscal year 2009.

                NORTH AMERICAN WETLANDS CONSERVATION ACT (NAWCA)

        NAWCA provides funding for conservation projects for the benefit of
    wetland-associated migratory birds in the United States, Canada, and
    Mexico. Unfortunately, more than half of the original wetlands in the
    United States have been lost, contributing to the steady decline of
    migratory birds. NAWCA, in existence since 1989, has preserved more
    than 24.8 million acres of wetlands by leveraging $945.2 million in
    Federal funds with more than $1.94 billion in partner contributions.
    The BCFC respectfully requests the subcommittee prioritize fiscal year
    2010 funding for NAWCA at $50 million, an increase of $7.4 million from
    the level appropriated in fiscal year 2009.

                             STATE WILDLIFE GRANTS

        State Wildlife Grants fund is the Nation's core program for
    preventing wildlife from becoming endangered, and supports a wide
    variety of wildlife-related projects by State fish and wildlife
    agencies throughout the United States. In order to receive Federal
    funds through the State Wildlife Grants Program, Congress charged each
    State and territory with developing an ``action plan.'' Every State and
    territory submitted their wildlife action plan to the USFWS for review
    (and approval) by the October 1, 2005 deadline. The State Wildlife
    Action Plans are the result of a collaborative effort by scientists,
    sportsmen, conservationists, and other members of the community. The
    BCFC respectfully requests the subcommittee allocates $85 million for
    fiscal year 2010, an increase of $10 million from the level
    appropriated in fiscal year 2009.

        INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS WITHIN THE U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE

        Wildlife Without Borders (WWB), which is within the USFWS Division
    of International Conservation, is a mainstay of bird conservation in
    Mexico, Central America, and the Caribbean. Since the termination of
    the USAID funding to the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation for its
    Neotropical Migratory Bird Program, funding for the WWB program is more
    critical than ever. These programs, which typically leverage $4 for
    every appropriated $1, are a foundation for long-term conservation
    efforts, because they focus on developing in-country capacity. At this
    time, there are four WWB programs, each covering an extensive area:
    Latin America and the Caribbean; Mexico; Russia and East Asia; the Near
    East, South Asia, and Africa. The BCFC respectfully requests the
    subcommittee prioritize fiscal year 2010 funding at $21 million which
    is an increase of $7.8 million from the level appropriated in fiscal
    year 2009.

             INTERNATIONAL PROGRAMS WITHIN THE USDA FOREST SERVICE

        International Programs within the USDA Forest Service support an
    array of extremely effective bird conservation projects with a
    relatively small budget. Among these are restoration of Kirtland's
    Warbler with programs in Michigan and the Bahamas, and conservation of
    breeding habitat in Canada's Boreal Forest. The BCFC supports an
    increase in funds which would expand and accelerate work on these
    projects, as well as projects benefiting the rapidly declining Cerulean
    Warbler and the mangroves and wetlands of Mexico's Sonora Coast and San
    Pedro River watershed. The BCFC respectfully requests the subcommittee
    provide $14 million for fiscal year 2010, an increase of $5.5 million
    more than fiscal year 2009.

                    USGS AMERICAN BREEDING BIRD SURVEY (BBS)

        BBS has been providing data crucial for migratory bird conservation
    planning since 1966. Today, the BBS provides the foundation for
    nongame, land bird conservation in North America with more than 3,200
    skilled volunteer participants sampling 3,000 routes annually across
    the continental United States and Southern Canada. The BCFC
    respectfully requests the subcommittee provide this important program
    with the highest possible level of funding.
        Again, we thank you for your steadfast support of these critically
    important programs.
                Sincerely,
                                        George Fenwick,
                                                     President,
                                             American Bird Conservancy.
                                     Mary Beth Beetham,
                               Director of Legislative Affairs,
                                                 Defenders of Wildlife.
                                        Ellie M. Cohen,
                                             President and CEO,
                                             PRBO Conservation Science.
                                        Robert Bendick,
                           Director, U.S. Government Relations,
                                                The Nature Conservancy.
                                    Thomas M. Franklin,
                                                     President,
                                                  The Wildlife Society.
                                     ______

         Prepared Statement of the Biomass Energy Research Association

        This testimony pertains to the Biomass Energy Research
    Association's (BERA) recommendations for fiscal year 2010 (fiscal year
    2010) in support of appropriations for the U.S. Department of
    Agriculture (USDA) that are related to bioenergy. This includes the
    conduct of bioenergy-related research by the Agricultural Research
    Service (ARS) and the National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS)
    under Research, Education and Economics programs of the USDA. Also
    covered are programs under USDA rural development and the USDA Forest
    Service (FS) Forest Products Laboratory (FPL). In total, BERA
    recommends that $157,000,000 be appropriated for fiscal year 2010 for
    the specified efforts below. Specific line items are as follows:

                     USDA RESEARCH, EDUCATION AND ECONOMICS

        $25,000,000 to support ARS new products/product quality/value added
    to maximize production, harvesting, and storage of plants for bioenergy
    purposes. The current budget proposes $11 million for bioenergy plant
    R&D, with too little on high-yield energy crop development.
        $20,000,000 to support environmental stewardship and facilitate
    sustainable agricultural practices, particularly for the production of
    crops and plants for the use of biofuels. This is an increase of $11
    million more than the request of $9 million.
        $5,000,000 to support agricultural estimates/bioenergy statistics
    by the NASS, specifically related to bioenergy crop production and use.
    This is an increase of $3.15 million over the current budget, which
    includes only $1.85 million to establish data related to bioenergy
    production and utilization.
        $7,000,000 for the NASS agricultural chemical use program and its
    restoration to enable support for sustainable production of crops and
    plants for bioenergy.

                                  USDA FS FPL

        $20,000,000 to expand and continue microbial and biochemical
    research at the USDA FS FPL to enable the application of biotechnology
    in wood conversions, and to develop improved fermentation and other
    technologies to convert low-grade wood cellulose into fuels and
    chemicals.

                             USDA RURAL DEVELOPMENT

        $80,000,000 to further support the Rural Energy for America Program
    (REAP), specifically to include an additional $20 million for loan
    guarantees under the Biorefinery Assistance Program (BAP).

                                   BACKGROUND

        On behalf of BERA's members, we would like to thank you, Mr.
    Chairman, for the opportunity to present the recommendations of BERA's
    board of directors for the high-priority programs that we strongly urge
    be continued or started. BERA is a nonprofit association based in the
    Washington, DC area. It was founded in 1982 by researchers and private
    organizations conducting biomass research. Our objectives are to
    promote education and research, development, and demonstration (RD&D)
    of the economic production of energy and fuels from freshly harvested
    and waste biomass, and to serve as a source of information on biomass
    RD&D policies and programs. BERA does not solicit or accept Federal
    funding for its efforts.
        There is a growing urgency to diversify our energy supply, develop
    technologies to utilize indigenous and renewable resources, reduce
    United States reliance on imported oil, and mitigate the impacts of
    energy on climate and the environment. The benefits will be many--
    support for economic growth, new American jobs, enhanced environmental
    quality, and fewer energy-related contributions to climate change.
    Economic growth is fueled and sustained in large part by the
    availability of reliable, cost-effective energy supplies. The import of
    oil and other fuels into the United States is growing steadily, despite
    increased volatility in supply and prices, especially petroleum and
    natural gas. This creates an economic burden on industry and consumers
    alike, and adversely impacts our quality of life. A diversified,
    sustainable energy supply is critical to meeting our energy challenges
    and maintaining a healthy economy with a competitive edge in global
    markets. Biomass can diversify U.S. energy supply in several ways:
      --Biomass is the single renewable resource with the ability to
            directly replace liquid transportation fuels.
      --Biomass can be used as a feedstock to supplement the production of
            chemicals, plastics, and materials now produced from crude oil.
      --Gasification of biomass produces a syngas that can be utilized to
            supplement the natural gas supply, generate electricity, or
            produce fuels and chemicals.
        While biomass will not solve all our energy challenges, it can
    certainly contribute to the diversity of our supply, and do so in a
    sustainable way, while minimizing impacts to the environment or
    climate. The Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA) of 2007
    mandates increased use of alternative fuels, with a substantial portion
    to come from cellulosic biomass. To meet the ambitious EISA goals will
    require aggressive support for RD&D to move technology forward and
    reduce technical and economic risk. We also support the energy
    provisions of the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act of 2009
    (ARRA), particularly those that provide loan guarantees for new plants
    and research for renewable energy.
        Biomass energy plantations that provide feedstocks for forest
    biorefineries producing paper products as well as fuels and biopower
    could make an important contribution to our energy supply while
    providing a boost for rural economies wood also can be used instead of
    petroleum and natural gas to produce many high-value products such as
    plastics and chemicals. However, targeted research is needed to make
    this a reality. Other cellulosic feedstocks, such as agricultural
    residues and dedicated energy crops (short rotation poplar,
    switchgrass) are expected to be a primary resource for bioenergy in the
    future. However, research will be needed to overcome issues of
    recalcitrance, low yields, cost-effective harvesting and storage, and
    other challenges to ensure these resources are viable as future
    bioenergy feedstocks. Some of this research is ongoing at the U.S.
    Department of Energy; however, there is a strong role for R&D in this
    area at USDA as well, particularly in harvesting and storage, and basic
    plant science and breeding. Without additional targeted research with
    significant Federal investment, the ambitious goals set by the RFS will
    not likely be met, nor will the real promise of a bioindustry be
    realized.

              OVERALL BERA RECOMMENDATIONS FOR USDA BIOENERGY R&D

        BERA's recommendations support key areas that will contribute to
    sustainable forestry and agriculture, as well as the creation of viable
    renewable resources as part of a diversified energy supply. Specific
    recommendations are:
        Support and Expand Bioenergy Energy Research by the Agricultural
    Research Service (ARS) and FPL.--This important research is needed to
    maximize production, harvesting, and storage of plants for bioenergy
    purposes. While the focus is on R&D to effectively use energy crops and
    residues and maximize their conversion to biofuels and bioenergy, there
    is also the need to develop the production equipment and practices
    needed to ensure a viable supply infrastructure at the large volumes
    necessary for an expanded bioindustry. In addition to the existing
    program, we are recommending research be initiated, in collaboration
    with programs at the U.S. Department of Energy, on harvesting and other
    production equipment as well as storage and transportation. This
    research should include demonstration and validation of systems at the
    appropriate scale needed to support the large volumes of biomass
    feedstock needed meet the new RFS.
        R&D is needed to enhance the use of energy crops and crop residues
    as viable energy resources. We recommend that the major thrust be on
    increased energy crop yields per acre, for both woody and herbaceous
    crops. This effort should include research, development and some large-
    scale (500-acre units) plantings of species/genomes selected through
    R&D and assessment.
        Support Sustainability in Agriculture and Forestry for Bioenergy.--
    We recommend that research and development activities include a focus
    on the ecological and environmental sustainability of using energy
    crops and residues for bioenergy, including impacts to water, soil, and
    the carbon balance. Definitive and long-term research is needed, and
    should be initiated now, to understand the true impacts of removing
    agricultural residues from the soil, increased burdens on the water use
    and aquifers, and the potential environmental issues of increasing use
    of fertilizers, pesticides, and other agricultural chemicals that may
    result from residue removal. This research should go beyond models and
    simulations to real world testing and monitoring of soil and water
    conditions under residue removal scenarios. ARS is developing crops
    that can thrive in variable and extreme environments to expand the
    options for ensuring that food, feed, fiber, and biofuels production
    can meet market demands despite the risks of climate change, and this
    important focus should be maintained. Research should also focus on
    developing mitigation strategies due to climate-driven pest outbreaks
    as well as ensuring the adequate availability of water quantity and
    quality under changing climatic conditions.
        NASS Bioenergy Data Collection.--BERA requests that USDA increase
    its support for new data collection activities related to bioenergy
    crop production by NASS. Creating a baseline now will be critical to
    understanding our progress in using bioenergy, the impacts on soil and
    water, and the impacts on rural economies. It will also help us to more
    accurately predict the future potential of biomass as an energy
    resource, and the related impacts on crops for food and feed
    production. It will enable farmers to judge the feasibility of energy
    crops and have data available to select crops and operations based on
    experience. Specific areas to be researched should include: data on the
    production, stocks, and utilization of biomass materials and annual
    maps of county-level crop production with overlays of major
    transportation corridors, as well as current and proposed ethanol
    plants.
        Continue Rural Development Programs to Support Bioenergy.--The 2010
    budget requests $68 million in discretionary funding for the Rural
    Energy for America Program (REAP) that will support a program level of
    $246 million for loan guarantees and $34 million in grants, a
    substantial increase over 2009. This program is highly successful and
    historically over-subscribed, requiring additional investments. We
    advocate a substantial increase in funding to support the active
    interest in this program and renewable energy sources, including
    biofuels. This includes funding for biofuels under both REAP and the
    Biorefinery Assistance Program (BAP), more than the mandatory funding
    provided by the 2008 farm bill.

                                  CONCLUSIONS

        Expansion of the USDA programs as recommended by BERA enables a
    considerably higher probability of significantly increasing the
    contribution of biomass to primary U.S. energy demand through energy
    crops, encouraging sustainable energy crop production, improving the
    cost effectiveness and diversity of biomass resources for bioenergy,
    and providing opportunities for rural development.
        BERA recommends that all aspects of the feedstock infrastructure--
    from sustainable production of high-yield crops to cost-effective
    delivery of those crops to the bioenergy customer--be developed with
    support from USDA, as outlined previously. While grain crops are a
    viable solution for the near term for bioenergy, they do not provide a
    sustainable solution at the large volumes needed to really impact our
    energy use. Thus, BERA includes R&D recommendations to ensure the
    availability of a wide diversity of non-food cellulosic feedstocks for
    bioenergy, such as dedicated energy crops and agricultural residues,
    while considering the challenges of environmental and societal
    sustainability and maintaining the economic vitality of America's
    farmers.
                                     ______

     Prepared Statement of the Cooperative Alliance for Refuge Enhancement

        Chairwoman Feinstein, Ranking Member Alexander, and members of the
    subcommittee: Thank you for the opportunity to offer comments on the
    fiscal year 2010 Interior, environment, and related agencies
    appropriations bill. The National Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS) stands
    alone as the only land and water conservation system with a mission
    that prioritizes wildlife and habitat conservation and wildlife-
    dependant recreation. Since 1995, the Cooperative Alliance for Refuge
    Enhancement (CARE) has worked to showcase the value of the Refuge
    System and to secure a strong congressional commitment for conserving
    these special places. Located in every U.S. State and territory,
    refuges conserve a diversity of America's environmentally sensitive and
    economically vital ecosystems, including oceans, coasts, wetlands,
    deserts, tundra, prairie or forests. We respectfully request a funding
    level of $514 million for the operations and maintenance accounts of
    the NWRS for fiscal year 2010.
        This testimony is submitted on behalf of CARE's 22 member
    organizations, which represent more than 14 million Americans
    passionate about wildlife conservation and related recreational
    opportunities.
      --American Birding Association
      --American Fisheries Society
      --American Sportfishing Association
      --Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies
      --Congressional Sportsmen's Foundation
      --Defenders of Wildlife
      --Ducks Unlimited, Inc.
      --Izaak Walton League of America
      --Marine Conservation Biology Institute
      --National Audubon Society
      --National Rifle Association
      --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
      --Wildlife Management Institute
        CARE deeply appreciates the subcommittee's vision and leadership
    regarding the funding increases realized in fiscal year 2008 and fiscal
    year 2009 and the 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA).
    While it does not reduce the annual needs of the Refuge System, the
    ARRA will provide a jolt to local economies by providing refuges across
    the country with the means to hire local contractors and purchase local
    materials for important infrastructure and habitat restoration
    projects. Following a period of essentially flat annual budgets, the
    recent increases in annual appropriations allowed for the suspension of
    workforce downsizing plans that called for an eventual 20 percent
    reduction in overall staffing levels. But with more than 10 percent of
    staff already eliminated since 2004, additional funding increases that
    build upon the last 2 years are essential if this valued system of
    conservation lands is to rebound to its full potential. With the goal
    of fulfilling the progressive conservation vision that President
    Theodore Roosevelt first espoused more than a century ago, CARE
    respectfully requests a fiscal year 2010 funding level of $514 million
    for the operations and maintenance accounts of the NWRS.
        The $514 million for fiscal year 2010 is considered an essential
    next step on a long path toward adequate funding. CARE is currently re-
    assessing the budget and staffing needs of the NWRS and the analysis,
    to be explained in our upcoming 2009 CARE report, shows the need for at
    least $765 million and likely more by fiscal year 2013. This annual
    funding is needed to properly patrol and enforce laws on 150 million
    acres, provide nature programs to the public, complete habitat
    restoration projects, address scores of mothballed mission-critical
    projects, respond to the adverse impacts of climate change, and more.
        An appropriation of $514 million in fiscal year 2010 would
    stabilize the workforce by keeping the workforce downsizing plans
    securely on the shelf and thereby reducing pressure on the U.S. Fish
    and Wildlife Service (FWS) to cut refuge staff below already
    insufficient levels. This funding level would enable FWS staff to
    return to what they do best: protecting, restoring, and enhancing
    America's wildlife and habitat, providing a haven for a growing list of
    threatened and endangered species, and guaranteeing a positive
    experience for more than 41 million annual visitors, whether hunting,
    fishing, watching wildlife, or learning from educational programs.
        Prior to fiscal year 2008, several years of appropriations failed
    to even cover inflation for fixed costs. Simply to keep fuel in the
    trucks, pay for rising utilities and building rent, allow for salary
    adjustments and other fixed costs, the NWRS needs at least a $15
    million annual increase.
        While the appropriation for fiscal year 2008 and fiscal year 2009
    helped immensely, too many visitors still show up to find roads and
    visitor centers closed, viewing platforms and hiking trails in
    disrepair, and habitat restoration and nature education programs
    eliminated. Many prior years of inadequate budgets ballooned the
    operations and maintenance backlog to $3.5 billion, where it hovers
    still, and forced many refuges to cut staff.
        Today, more than 35 percent of America's wildlife refuges have no
    on-site staff; nobody to unlock the gates, teach the schoolchildren,
    administer the hunting programs, or control the invasive weeds, let
    alone recover endangered species or perform major habitat restoration
    projects. Nonnative, invasive plants have infested more than 2.3
    million acres (only 14.6 percent of this acreage was treated in 2008).
    Further, a crippling deficiency of law enforcement officers has led to
    a rise in illegal activities such as drug cultivation, plant and
    wildlife poaching, smuggling through the southern border refuges and
    many types of natural resource violations. Currently, only 205 full-
    time law enforcement officers are tasked with responsibilities and
    risks that the International Association of Chiefs of Police suggests
    be tackled by a force of 845 professional officers.
        When refuges are short-staffed, not only are activities inside
    refuge boundaries affected, but refuge employees are unable to devote
    sufficient attention to threats beyond refuge boundaries, such as water
    rights disputes, upstream contamination, or encroaching developments.
    Overworked staff cannot take advantage of land acquisition or easement
    opportunities and conservation opportunities often slip away. When
    staff levels are reduced to only one or a few people 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
    relatively well-staffed San Luis Refuge Complex in central California
    is often able to triple its annual budget through creative
    partnerships. With this extra income, large-scale tree plantings are
    restoring wildlife habitat and vacuuming up atmospheric carbon,
    invasive species are being eradicated, waterfowl hunting programs are
    thriving, and staff can more closely monitor outside threats to
    resources such as water quantity and quality. This situation
    demonstrates how much is possible when a critical mass of staff is able
    to capitalize on funding and partnering opportunities, and just how
    much is now being lost at most wildlife refuges today.
        In addition to their integral role in American wildlife
    conservation, refuges are critically important on local and regional
    scales. Visitors in 2006 generated more than $1.7 billion in sales to
    local economies, creating more than 27,000 U.S. jobs and $543 million
    in personal income. While these figures are undeniably significant, it
    is widely recognized that the NWRS's potential remains largely untapped
    and unquantified. In addition to being local economic engines, the
    sustainable use of natural resources on America's refuges provides
    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 vegetation on America's refuges captures atmospheric carbon
    while natural filtration and sound water management promotes healthy
    fisheries within and beyond refuge boundaries.
        Of increasing importance, national wildlife refuges provide a way
    for children to connect with the natural world. There is a refuge
    within an hour's drive of most metropolitan areas in the United States.
    As today's children spend more time inside on computers, watching
    television or playing video games, the need for a place to bring our
    younger generations to experience and explore the outdoors has never
    been more important. Many refuges work with local volunteer
    organizations such as ``Friends groups'' to provide environmental
    education programs to local schools; but when budgets are tight, they
    are often the first programs to be curtailed.
        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 President Theodore
    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 41 million annual visitors and all future generations
    deserve the opportunity to see and appreciate 150 million acres of the
    most visually stunning and biologically rich lands and waters in North
    America. Simply put, the way to ensure a future with clean water,
    thriving wildlife populations, and hunting and fishing opportunities is
    to increase the NWRS's fiscal year 2010 appropriation to $514 million
    and continue the restoration of America's commitment to healthy public
    lands.
        On behalf of our more than 14 million members and supporters, CARE
    thanks the subcommittee for the opportunity to offer comments on the
    fiscal year 2010 Interior, environment, and related agencies
    appropriations bill and extends our sincere appreciation for the
    subcommittee's strong commitment to the NWRS.
                                     ______

     Prepared Statement of the Central Arizona Water Conservation District

        The Central Arizona Water Conservation District (CAWCD) is pleased
    to present written testimony regarding the fiscal year 2010 proposed
    budget for the Bureau of Reclamation (BOR). Preparing testimony on the
    fiscal year 2010 budget is somewhat hampered by the fact that the
    President's complete budget request will not be delivered to Congress
    until late April or early May. Therefore, our testimony is based on
    past budget requests, the fiscal year 2009 omnibus appropriations bill,
    and the summary version of the fiscal year 2010 budget request. CAWCD
    may wish to add additional information or comments to this testimony
    after the final version of the complete budget has been released.
        CAWCD is a political subdivision of the State of Arizona, governed
    by an elected 15-member board of directors. CAWCD was created in 1971
    for the purpose of contracting with the United States to repay the
    reimbursable construction costs of the Central Arizona Project (CAP)
    authorized by the Colorado River Basin Project Act of 1968. CAWCD
    subsequently assumed the responsibility for operating and maintaining
    the CAP. CAWCD has and continues to meet its repayment responsibility.
    In addition to a $175 million upfront contribution from CAWCD, BOR has
    been paid about $820 million in principal and interest since repayment
    began in January 1994.

                                      BOR

        CAWCD generally supports BOR's budget request. However, we believe
    that there are opportunities in the Colorado River Basin to more
    effectively use the limited funds available. The Colorado River system
    is still feeling the effects of one of the most severe droughts in its
    recorded history. In December 2007 BOR adopted new guidelines for
    managing the Colorado River system reservoirs. The Guidelines include
    Lower Basin shortage declaration and shortage sharing criteria. As the
    largest junior water rights contractor in the Lower Basin, these
    shortage criteria are essential for CAWCD to plan its water future. But
    it is just as important that BOR act affirmatively to preserve, enhance
    and more efficiently manage the Colorado River water supply.
    Accordingly, it is imperative that BOR's Lower Colorado River
    Operations budget include sufficient funds for structures and programs
    to improve operational efficiency and augment supplies. We urge the
    subcommittee to reorder priorities in BOR's budget to emphasize these
    important strategies for the Lower Colorado River.

                    LOWER COLORADO RIVER WATER CONSERVATION

        Specifically, we are concerned about the lack of concrete focus on
    preserving storage capacity in Lake Mead by undertaking activities that
    would augment water availability and improve system operational
    efficiency.
        Congress is well aware of the huge impacts that a multi-year
    drought has imposed on this region, and of the significant drawdown of
    stored water in the river's reservoirs that has resulted from this
    drought. A significant amount of water has been released over these
    years from Hoover Dam that could have been retained if effective
    downstream strategies had been implemented.
        One example of an effective strategy to save water is the
    construction of an off stream regulatory storage reservoir near Drop 2
    of the All-American Canal. This reservoir was identified as capable of
    saving approximately 70,000 acre-feet of Colorado River water each
    year. Construction of this critical reservoir is well underway using
    contributed funds available from Southern Nevada Water Authority
    (SNWA), the CAWCD and the Metropolitan Water District of Southern
    California in exchange for a portion of the conserved water. The
    estimated cost is about $172 million.

                           YUMA DESALTING PLANT (YDP)

        Another effective strategy to conserve additional water is the
    operation of the YDP. Unfortunately, we believe that BOR will not
    request the funds necessary to operate the YDP. Every year that the YDP
    remains idle results in the loss of more than 100,000 acre-feet of
    Colorado River water, enough water to supply the annual water needs of
    half a million people. BOR's budget justification concerning the YDP
    continues to be disingenuous. BOR continues to say that the plant is in
    ``ready reserve'' status, but also states it would take 4 years and
    adequate funding to have the YDP fully operational. Despite this
    admission, none of the funding necessary to make YDP operational is
    identified or requested. Decisions need to be made and resources need
    to be applied to bring the YDP into actual operation. The
    appropriations bill for fiscal year 2009 directed BOR to make the YDP
    operational at one-third capacity by June 30, 2009 and to report
    formally to Congress concerning the status of the YDP by September 30,
    2009. At this late date in 2009, it is clear that BOR will not meet the
    directive of operation at one-third capacity in 2009. Lessons learned
    from the pilot operations in fiscal year 2007 identified what actions
    are needed to make the plant fully operational. We believe that the
    fiscal year 2010 budget request contains no requests for funds and no
    stated intention to operate the YDP in the future. The Lower Basin
    States, along with BOR, are developing alternate plans for one or all
    of the States to fund the rehabilitation and operation of the YDP at
    partial capacity. Nonetheless, it is the responsibility of the United
    States to operate the YDP at full capacity to satisfy the Mexican
    Treaty obligation without using additional system water. We urge the
    subcommittee to direct BOR to make the YDP operational at one-third
    capacity, to initiate regular operations as soon as possible, and to
    seriously explore other opportunities to enhance the Colorado River
    supply.

                          COLORADO RIVER AUGMENTATION

        CAWCD would like to call the subcommittee's attention to the
    provisions of sections 201, 202 and 203 of title 1 of the Colorado
    River Basin Project Act of 1968 (Public Law 90-537). These provisions
    call for studies and actions to augment the supply of water available
    for distribution within the Colorado River Basin. These provisions
    specifically make satisfaction of the obligations of the 1944 Treaty
    with Mexico a national obligation and anticipate that such obligation
    will be met through augmentation of the Colorado River supply. The
    Seven Basin States (States) have completed a process, led and funded
    primarily by the SNWA, to review previous augmentation studies and
    evaluate new concepts. BOR participated in this process. A final report
    was completed in fiscal year 2008. The States, using funding from a
    variety of State and local organizations, are actively involved in
    cloud seeding and control of nonnative, water-wasting plants, such as
    salt cedar. At the very least, BOR needs to commit sufficient funds to
    support implementation of some of these programs beginning in fiscal
    year 2010. CAWCD recommends that at least $500,000 be committed from
    BOR's overall appropriations for such activities as general planning,
    research and development, or the Water for America Institute. CAWCD
    urges the subcommittee to direct BOR to take action and provide funding
    to fulfill the commitment Congress made 40 years ago to augment the
    water supply in the Colorado River Basin.

                               TUCSON RELIABILITY

        We believe BOR has requested almost $3 million in fiscal year 2010
    for ``Tucson Reliability.'' We strongly support that request. The local
    Reclamation office is working with CAWCD and the Tucson-area CAP water
    users to identify the facilities necessary to provide those users the
    same degree of CAP reliability enjoyed by CAP users in the Phoenix
    area. We expect that the fiscal year 2010 funding will be sufficient
    for Reclamation to determine the cost and cost sharing requirements for
    a complete program. Once a complete program has been identified, CAWCD
    is willing to address the associated increase in our repayment
    obligation. It is time to determine what will be done concerning
    ``Tucson Reliability'' and allow the water providers to move ahead with
    their plans.

                    LOWER COLORADO RIVER OPERATIONS PROGRAM

        BOR's fiscal year 2010 budget request for the Lower Colorado River
    Operations Program is anticipated to be about $20 million for the Lower
    Colorado River Multi-Species Conservation Program (MSCP), which
    includes just over $7 million from the non-Federal partners. The MSCP
    is a cost-shared program among Federal and non-Federal interests to
    conserve endangered species and their habitat along the Lower Colorado
    River from Lake Mead to Mexico. CAWCD is one of the cost-sharing
    partners. This program will provide habitat for threatened and
    endangered species and, at the same time, allow current water and power
    operations to continue. CAWCD supports BOR's budget request for the
    Lower Colorado River Operations Program. This funding level is
    necessary to support the MSCP effort as well as environmental measures
    necessary to fully implement the interim surplus criteria for the Lower
    Colorado River. These are critical programs upon which Lower Colorado
    River water and power users depend.

            INCREASED SECURITY COSTS FOR BOR HYDRO POWER FACILITIES

        We continue to oppose the funding of post-9/11 increased security
    costs for BOR facilities through hydropower rates. The increased costs
    are being incurred for national security reasons, not project
    maintenance or operation. Details of these costs must be kept secret
    and cannot be disclosed like other data in Power Marketing
    Administration rate cases, raising serious due process issues. Other
    project beneficiaries are not and, in some cases, cannot be charged a
    fair share of these costs. Congress should make these increased
    national security costs nonreimbursable. We acknowledge and appreciate
    efforts by Congress to cap these costs.

                                   CONCLUSION

        We have worked for more than three decades with the Congress and
    all the succeeding administrations to make the CAP a reality, as
    envisioned by Congress in the 1968 Act, and to ensure its contribution
    to the economic welfare of the State of Arizona. Improving the ability
    of the Lower Colorado River system to conserve and store precious
    Colorado River water supplies is central to our mission and, we
    believe, a core directive of the 1968 Act. The lengthy drought on the
    Colorado River has proven the need for the CAP and the wisdom of
    Congress in passing the 1968 Act. It is time to move forward to
    aggressively accomplish the additional tasks that have been identified.
    We look forward to working with the Congress, the BOR, the other
    Federal agencies and the Basin States to get this additional work done.
                                     ______

       Prepared Statement of the Children's Environmental Health Network

        The Children's Environmental Health Network (CEHN) appreciates this
    opportunity to comment on the fiscal year 2010 appropriations to the
    Departments of Health and Human Services and Education for activities
    that protect children from environmental hazards.
        CEHN is seeking additional resources for the Office of Children's
    Health Protection (OCHP), the Children's Environmental Health Research
    Centers of Excellence, the Pediatric Environmental Health Specialty
    Units (PESHU), and full funding of the Environmental Protection
    Agency's (EPA) school environmental health programs as well as support
    for the National Children's Study (NSC) and for efforts to protect
    children in the child care setting.
        CEHN appreciates the wide range of priorities that you must
    consider for funding at the EPA. We urge you to give priority to those
    EPA programs that directly protect and promote children's health. In so
    doing, you will protect all populations as well as our environment.
        CEHN is a national organization whose mission is to promote a
    healthy environment and to protect the fetus and the child from
    environmental health hazards. CEHN's board and committee members
    include internationally recognized experts in children's environmental
    health science and policy who serve on key Federal advisory panels and
    scientific boards. We recognize that children, in our society, have
    unique moral standing. CEHN was created to promote the incorporation of
    basic pediatric facts such as these in policy and practice:
      --Children's bodies and behaviors differ from adults. In general,
            they are more vulnerable than adults to toxic chemicals.
      --Children are growing. Pound for pound, children eat more food,
            drink more water, and breathe more air than adults. Thus, they
            are likely to be more exposed to substances in their
            environment than are adults. Children have higher metabolic
            rates than adults and are different from adults in how their
            bodies absorb, detoxify, and excrete toxicants.
      --Children's systems, including their nervous, reproductive,
            digestive, respiratory and immune systems, are developing. This
            process of development creates periods of vulnerability when
            toxic exposures may result in irreversible damage when the same
            exposure to a mature system may result in little or no damage.
      --Children behave differently than adults, leading to a different
            pattern of exposures to the world around them. For example,
            they exhibit hand-to-mouth behavior, ingesting whatever
            substances may be on their hands, toys, household items, and
            floors. Children play and live in a different space than do
            adults. For example, very young children spend hours close to
            the ground where there may be more exposure to toxicants in
            dust, soil, and carpets as well as low-lying vapors such as
            radon, mercury vapor, or pesticides.
      --Children have a longer life expectancy than adults; thus they have
            more time to develop diseases with long latency periods that
            may be triggered by early environmental exposures, such as
            cancer or Parkinson's disease.
        Clear, sound science underlies these principles. A solid consensus
    in the scientific community supports these concepts. The world in which
    today's children live has changed tremendously from that of previous
    generations. There has been a phenomenal increase in the substances to
    which children are exposed. According to the EPA, more than 83,000
    industrial chemicals are currently produced or imported into the United
    States. Thousands of chemicals are ubiquitous in our environment
    worldwide. Traces of hundreds of chemicals are found in all humans and
    animals. Every day, children are exposed to a mix of chemicals, most of
    them untested for their effects on developing systems. Many of these
    chemicals are readily passed across the placenta to the fetus, to the
    infant via breast milk, or via food, toys and other children's
    products. Many of these chemicals are also ingested in food and water.
    Many also are absorbed by children through the lungs by respiration of
    contaminated air.
        We urge the subcommittee to provide the necessary resources for the
    Federal programs and activities that help to protect children from
    environmental hazards. The key programs that are in your subcommittee's
    jurisdiction are listed below. We also urge the subcommittee to direct
    the EPA to assure that all of its activities and programs--including
    regulations, guidelines, assessments, and research--specifically
    consider children. Our traditional approaches have been to use a one-
    size-fits-all template, and that template is usually the healthy adult
    male. The EPA's work must always assure that children and other
    vulnerable subpopulations are protected, especially poor children,
    minority children, farmworker children, and others at risk.

                                      OCHP

        Since 1997, EPA's efforts to protect children from environmental
    hazards have been led by the OCHP, which was highly effective and well-
    regarded. Funding for OCHP has been level, at approximately $6 million
    since its creation. Even worse, over time the office's resources were
    further diluted by the addition of new and unrelated missions, without
    any increase in resources.
        We strongly urge the subcommittee to provide additional resources
    dedicated to children's health protection for the office, and to
    restore a strong focus on children by the EPA.

         CHILDREN'S ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH RESEARCH CENTERS OF EXCELLENCE

        The Children's Environmental Health Research Centers, funded by the
    EPA and the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences
    (NIEHS), play a key role in providing the scientific basis for
    protecting children from environmental hazards. With budgets of $1
    million per year per center (unchanged over more than 10 years), this
    program generates valuable research. A unique aspect of these centers
    is the requirement that each center actively involves its local
    community in a collaborative partnership, leading both to community-
    based participatory research projects and to the translation of
    research findings into child-protective programs and policies.
    Researchers have chosen to participate in the center funding mechanism
    because of the ability to do interdisciplinary research, to break
    ground in a relatively new field and to be involved in the community--
    all things that are not easy to do using other grant mechanisms. The
    scientific output of these centers has been outstanding. For example,
    four of the Centers had findings that clearly showed that prenatal
    exposure to a widely used pesticide affected developmental outcomes at
    birth and early childhood. This was important information to EPA's
    policy makers in their consideration of this pesticide. Another recent
    example is the finding of a biomarker in newborns for childhood
    leukemia, firmly establishing the important role of prenatal
    environment factors in causation of this disease.
        Unfortunately, almost all of the existing 12 centers are currently
    operating on no-cost extensions. We strongly support the center concept
    and the value of a network of centers. We also support current efforts
    by the EPA and the NIEHS to competitively renew and to expand this
    valuable program by adding four formative centers. However, only five
    of the existing centers are to be renewed. If centers are shuttered, we
    will lose access to valuable populations such as children with asthma
    or growing up with pesticide exposure in farm communities. We will lose
    the ability to learn about issues like early puberty concerns,
    exposures in school settings, and pre-adolescent and adolescent
    outcomes.
        Thus, we urge the subcommittee to appropriate at least $15 million
    for EPA's share of funding to match the NIEHS contribution to assure
    that an adequate number of centers (old and new) will have funding in
    fiscal year 2010.

                                      NSC

        NSC is examining the effects of environmental influences on the
    health and development of more than 100,000 children across the United
    States, following them from before birth until age 21. This landmark
    longitudinal cohort study--involving a consortium of agencies including
    the EPA--will be one of the richest research efforts ever geared toward
    studying children's health and development and will form the basis of
    child health guidance, interventions, and policy for generations to
    come.
        This study may be the only means that we will have to find answers
    to some key questions regarding links between exposures and health
    effects on children. CEHN urges the subcommittee to fund EPA at a level
    that provides the EPA with the resources it needs to participate in the
    NCS as a lead partner. Past funding to EPA for the NCS was $1 million.

                                     PEHSUS

        A key, but dramatically underfunded, program is the PEHSU network.
    Funded by the EPA and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease
    Registry, the PEHSUs form a network with a center in each of the U.S.
    Federal regions, plus one center in Canada and one in Mexico. PEHSU
    professionals provide quality medical consultation for health
    professionals, parents, caregivers, and patients. PEHSUs are also
    dedicated to increasing environmental medicine knowledge among
    healthcare professionals as well as providing information and resources
    to school and community groups to help increase the public's
    understanding of children's environmental health.
        Last year, the entire program, covering the United States--10
    centers-- received less than $2 million. Each center received only
    $120,000, reduced from $132,000. These centers, all based in
    universities, have done tremendous work, covering large geographic
    areas, on these small budgets. As university budgets get tighter, the
    need for Federal support of this program has increased. We urge the
    subcommittee to restore EPA's funding for this vital program in fiscal
    year 2010 to at least $200,000 per center.

                   SCHOOL AND CHILD CARE ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH

        Each school day, about 54 million children and nearly 7 million
    adults--20 percent of the total U.S. population--spend a full week
    inside schools. Thirteen million preschoolers--60 percent of young
    children--are in child care. Unfortunately, many of the Nation's
    121,000 public and private K-12 school facilities are shoddy or even
    ``sick'' buildings whose environmental conditions harm children's
    health and undermine attendance, achievement, and productivity. In 1996
    the then General Accounting Office reported that more than 13 million
    children were compelled to be in schools that threatened their health
    and safety. No data exist on the conditions in child care centers.
        We urge the subcommittee to appropriate the $10 million authorized
    for EPA under the healthy schools provisions of the High Performance
    Green Buildings Act. This statute authorizes EPA to create Federal
    guidelines on school siting and (advised by the Centers for Disease
    Control and Prevention) school environmental health programs. This
    statute also authorizes an important study of the impacts of green
    schools on the health of children and communities.
        These programs are especially vital in light of the ``stimulus''
    funds for school modernization or renovation. The stimulus bill does
    not require consideration of environmental health or children's health
    and safety. Yet, without specific consideration of health, steps to
    ``green'' a school--such as increasing insulation at a school to
    improve energy efficiency--can have unintended harmful side effects,
    such as creating or exacerbating indoor air quality problems.
        Millions of preschoolers--our youngest and most vulnerable
    population--enter care as early as 6 weeks of age and can be in care
    for more than 40 hours per week. Yet little is known about the
    environmental health status of our child care centers nor how to assure
    that they are protecting this important group of children. CEHN is
    working to correct these gaps.
        We ask the subcommittee to direct the EPA to report on their
    activities to protect children from environmental hazards in child care
    settings as well as to assess the EPA's needs for assuring that
    children in these settings are protected from such hazards.
        In conclusion, investments in programs that protect and promote
    children's health will be repaid by healthier children with brighter
    futures, an outcome we can all support. That is why CEHN asks you to
    give priority to these programs.
        Thank you for the opportunity to testify on these critical issues.
                                     ______

            Prepared Statement of the Center for Plant Conservation

        We respectfully request increased appropriations to a total of $10
    million for the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Native Plant Materials
    Development Program (NPMD) and $5 million for the U.S. Forest Service
    (USFS) NPMD Program. In addition we request $5 million in increased
    funding for the endangered species program in the BLM 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 (FWS) 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 (CPC) 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 BLM, USFS, 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.

                                  NPMD PROGRAM

        CPC regards the NPMD Program as one of the most significant public
    works projects of our times, and has been an active partner for 5
    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 USFS, working through
    the Plant Conservation Alliance, to develop a long-term program to
    manage this effort. The program is funded through ``burned area
    rehabilitation program funds'' in both the Department of the Interior
    BLM appropriations and the Department of Agriculture USFS (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
    approximately $32 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 more than $5
    million of non-Federal match, making the program cost effective. CPC is
    one of the largest contributing partners in this important effort.
        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 NPMD Program appropriation. In the President's
    budget $0 has been recommended for the USFS 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 NPMD 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.
        Given the extensive land holdings of BLM, they have a large
    responsibility for plant biodiversity in the United States. Their Plant
    Conservation Program has provided integrated programmatic leadership
    and support for the rehabilitation and management of plant
    biodiversity. This program would benefit from a dedicated sub-activity
    within BLM appropriations for this valuable and innovative approach. A
    dedicated sub-activity would provide stability for the program and
    greater certainty for investing partners seeking long-term benefits.
    This would increase the effectiveness of the program for management of
    trust plant resources through increasing partnerships and resources.

                              FWS RECOVERY PROGRAM

        Our federally listed plants are historically underfunded and
    underserved 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, CPC 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 more than $300 million.
        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 Colorado River Board of California

        This testimony is in support of fiscal year 2010 funding for he
    Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for the subactivity that assists title
    II of the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Act (Public Law 92-
    500). This successful and cost-effective program is carried out
    pursuant to the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Act and the Clean
    Water Act (Public Law 92-500).
        The Colorado River Board of California (Colorado River Board) is
    the State agency charged with protecting California's interests and
    rights in the water and power resources of the Colorado River system.
    In this capacity, California and the other six Basin States through the
    Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum (Forum), the interstate
    organization responsible for coordinating the Basin States' salinity
    control efforts, established numeric criteria in June 1975, for
    salinity concentrations in the River. These criteria were established
    to lessen the future damages in the Lower Basin States, as well as,
    assist the United States in delivering water of adequate quality to
    Mexico in accordance with Minute 242 of the International Boundary and
    Water Commission. California's Colorado River water users are presently
    suffering economic damages in the hundreds of million of dollars per
    year due to the river's salinity.
        The BLM's budget justification document has 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 Federal Salinity Control
    Program in the Colorado River Basin. 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 the priorities is reducing saline runoff in the
    Colorado River Basin to meet the interstate, Federal, and international
    agreements to control salinity of the Colorado River.
        As you are aware, BLM is the largest landowner in the Colorado
    River Basin. Due to geological conditions, much of the lands that are
    controlled and managed by the BLM are heavily laden with salt. Past
    management practices have led to human-induced and -accelerated erosion
    processes from which soil and rocks, heavily laden with salt have been
    deposited in various stream beds or flood plains. As a result, salts
    are dissolved into the Colorado River system causing water quality
    problems downstream.
        Congress has charged Federal agencies, including the BLM, to
    proceed with programs to control the salinity of the Colorado River.
    BLM's rangeland improvement programs can lead to some of the most cost-
    effective salinity control measures available. These measures
    significantly complement programs and activities being considered for
    implementation by the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) through its
    Basin-wide Program and by the U.S. Department of Agriculture through
    its on-farm Environmental Quality Incentives Program.
        In keeping with the congressional mandate to maximize the cost-
    effectiveness of the salinity control program, the Forum at its meeting
    in October 2008 in San Diego, California, recommended that Congress
    appropriate $5,900,000 to BLM in fiscal year 2010 for activities that
    help control salt contributions from BLM-managed lands in the Colorado
    River Basin. In the past, BLM has used $800,000 of this funding for
    proposals submitted by BLM staff to the BLM's salinity control
    coordinator for projects that focus on salinity control. The Colorado
    River Basin Salinity Control Advisory Council report states that the
    BLM has now identified projects that in fiscal year 2010 could use $1.5
    million. The Colorado River Board requests that Congress appropriate
    $5,900,000 to BLM in fiscal year 2010. The Colorado River Board urges
    the subcommittee to specifically designate $1,500,000 for the Colorado
    River Basin Salinity Control Program as has been the direction to BLM
    from the subcommittee in past years.
        Since the congressional mandates of more than two decades ago, much
    has been learned about the impact of salts in the Colorado River
    system. Reclamation estimates that the quantified economic impacts and
    damages to water users in the United States alone is about $376 million
    per year. However significant unquantified damages also occur. For
    example, damages can be incurred related to the following activities:
      --A reduction in the yield of salt-sensitive crops and increased
            water use for leaching in the agricultural sector;
      --A reduction in the useful life of galvanized water pipe systems,
            water heaters, faucets, garbage disposals, clothes washers, and
            dishwashers, and increased use of bottled water and water
            softeners in the household sector;
      --An increase in the use of water for cooling, and the cost of water
            softening, and a decrease in equipment service life in the
            commercial sector;
      --An increase in the use of water and the cost of water treatment,
            and an increase in sewer fees in the industrial sector;
      --A decrease in the life of treatment facilities and pipelines in the
            utility sector;
      --Difficulty in meeting wastewater discharge requirements to comply
            with National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit
            terms and conditions, an increase in desalination and brine
            disposal costs due to accumulation of salts in groundwater
            basins, and fewer opportunities for recycling and reuse of the
            water due to groundwater quality deterioration;
      --Increased use of imported water for leaching and the cost of
            desalination and brine disposal for recycled water.
        For every 30 milligram per liter increase in salinity
    concentrations, there are an additional $75 million damages within the
    United States. In addition, the Federal Government has made significant
    commitments to the Republic of Mexico and to the seven Colorado River
    Basin States with regard to the delivery of quality water to Mexico. In
    order for those commitments to be honored, it is essential that in
    fiscal year 2010, and in future fiscal years, that the Congress
    provides adequate funds to BLM for its activities related to salinity
    control in the Colorado River Basin.
        The Colorado River is, and will continue to be, a major and vital
    water resource to the 18 million residents of southern California,
    including municipal, industrial, and agricultural water users in
    Imperial, Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, San Diego,
    and Ventura Counties. Preservation and improvement of Colorado River
    water quality through an effective salinity control program will avoid
    the additional economic damages to users in California and the other
    States that rely on Colorado River water resources.
                                     ______

     Prepared Statement of the Colorado River 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 2010 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 1 of the 5 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
    2010 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 (EPA). 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 $353 million per year and
    there are very significant additional damages yet to be quantified.
    Damages occur from:
      --a reduction in the yield of salt sensitive crops and increased
            water use for leaching in the agricultural sector;
      --a reduction in the useful life of galvanized water pipe systems,
            water heaters, faucets, garbage disposals, clothes washers, and
            dishwashers, and increased use of bottled water, and water
            softeners in the household sector;
      --an increase in the use of water for cooling, and the cost of water
            softening, and a decrease in equipment service life in the
            commercial sector;
      --an increase in the use of water and the cost of water treatment,
            and an increase in sewer fees in the industrial sector;
      --a decrease in the life of treatment facilities and pipelines in the
            utility sector;
      --difficulty in meeting wastewater discharge requirements to comply
            with National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit
            terms and conditions, an increase in desalination and brine
            disposal costs due to accumulation of salts in groundwater
            basins, and fewer opportunities for recycling due to
            groundwater quality deterioration;
      --increased use of imported water for leaching and the cost of
            desalination and brine disposal for recycled water.
        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 EPA 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 2008 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 Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission

        Dear Madam Chair and members of the subcommittee, the Columbia
    River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission (CRITFC) is pleased to share its
    view on the Department of Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs' (BIA)
    fiscal year 2010 budget and has specifically identified two funding
    needs:
      --$7,712,000 (an increase of $4,500,000 more than fiscal year 2009)
            for Columbia River Fisheries Management under the Other
            Recurring Programs, Wildlife and Parks, Rights Protection
            Implementation areas to restore base program funding to the
            Commission and the fisheries programs of its member tribes to
            meet management obligations, including efforts for species
            listed under the Endangered Species Act, and;
      --$,4,800,000 (an increase of $2,530,000 more than the fiscal year
            2009) for United States/Canada Pacific Salmon Treaty under the
            Other Recurring Programs, Wildlife and Parks, Rights Protection
            Implementation areas to restore base program funding and to
            implement new obligations under the recent agreement adopted by
            the United States and Canada under the Treaty.
        CRITFC was founded in 1977 by the four Columbia River treaty
    tribes: Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation,
    Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon,
    Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation, and Nez Perce
    Tribe. CRITFC provides coordination and technical assistance to the
    tribes in regional, national, and international efforts to protect and
    restore our shared salmon resource and the habitat upon which it
    depends. The collective ancestral homeland of the four tribes covers
    nearly one-third of the entire Columbia River Basin in the United
    States.
        In 1855, the United States entered into treaties with the four
    tribes \1\ whereupon we ceded millions of acres of our homelands to the
    United States. In return, the United States pledged to honor our
    ancestral rights, including the right to fish. Unfortunately, a
    perilous history brought the salmon resource to the edge of extinction
    with 12 salmon and steelhead populations in the Columbia Basin listed
    under the Endangered Species Act (ESA).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ Treaty with the Yakama Tribe, June 9, 1855, 12 Stat. 951;
    Treaty with the Tribes of Middle Oregon, June 25, 1855, 12 Stat. 963;
    Treaty with the Umatilla Tribe, June 9, 1855, 12 Stat. 945; Treaty with
    the Nez Perce Tribe, June 11, 1855, 12 Stat. 957.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Today, the CRITFC tribes' are leaders in fish restoration efforts
    and work with State, Federal, and private entities. CRITFC's member
    tribes are principles in the region's efforts to halt the decline of
    salmon, lamprey, and sturgeon populations and rebuild them to levels
    that support ceremonial, subsistence, and commercial harvests. To
    achieve these objectives, the tribes' actions emphasize supplementation
    of natural stocks, healthy watersheds, and collaborative efforts.
        The programs in this testimony are carried out pursuant to the
    Indian Self-Determination and Assistance Act. We have successfully
    secured other funds to support our efforts, including funds from the
    Bonneville Power Administration, the Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery
    Fund, and the Southern Fund of the Pacific Salmon Treaty, to name a
    few. Our programs are integrated as much as possible with State and
    Federal salmon management and restoration efforts. Following several
    years of court-supervised collaboration our member tribes have
    successfully forged three key 10-year agreements including a
    coordinated plan for salmon restoration to meet the objectives for the
    Biological Opinion on the Federal Columbia River Power System, while
    ensuring protection of our treaty reserved rights.
        Columbia River Fisheries Management Program Needs Under the Other
    Recurring Programs, Wildlife and Parks, Rights Protection
    Implementation.--Tribal natural resource funding is not keeping pace
    with inflation. Funding shortfalls are undermining efforts to fulfill
    tribal self-determination goals for fisheries management, ESA recovery
    efforts, protecting nonlisted species, conservation enforcement, and
    treaty fishing access site maintenance. Since fiscal year 2003, our
    funding has decreased under the weight of inflation and rising
    operation costs. We are seeking an increase of $4,500,000 more than
    fiscal year 2009 for a new program base of $7,712,000 for Columbia
    River Fisheries Management as explained below:
        Restore Base Program and Meet Unfunded Program Needs.--The BIA's
    Columbia River Fisheries Management line item is the base funding that
    supports the fishery program efforts of CRITFC and the four member
    tribes. Unlike State fish and game agencies, the tribes do not have
    access to Dingell-Johnson/Pittman-Robertson or Wallop-Breaux funding.
    Three million, six hundred thousand dollars of the increase will be
    directed to support the core functions of the fisheries management
    programs of the Commission's member tribes.
        In 2008, CRITFC and its member tribes successfully concluded
    lengthy negotiations resulting in three landmark agreements: (1) a
    Columbia Basin Fish Accords with Federal action agencies overseeing the
    Federal hydro system in the Columbia Basin; (2) a Ten-Year Fisheries
    Management Plan with Federal, tribal, and State parties under United
    States v. Oregon; and (3) a new Chinook Chapter of the Pacific Salmon
    Treaty. These agreements establish regional and international
    commitments on harvest and fish production efforts, commitments to
    critical investments in habitat restoration, and resolving contentious
    issues by seeking balance of the many demands within the Columbia River
    basin. While the Accords commit substantial Federal resources to on-
    the-ground actions, the responsibilities of the tribal programs to
    fully implement the trio of agreements has grown significantly, but
    without commensurate increases in base funding capacity.
        The funding provided through the BIA to support tribal fishery
    programs is crucial to the tribes' and CRITFC's ability to successfully
    carry out these agreements by providing sound technical, scientific,
    and policy products to diverse public and private forums. Lost buying
    power through rising costs, inflation, and lack of pay-cost adjustments
    to tribal funding has further challenged us to deliver these essential
    services.
        Compounding the challenges in successfully implementing these
    agreements are the impacts that climate change will have on the
    interior Columbia Basin and the tribe's treaty resources. The
    University of Washington Climate Impact Group predicts new challenges
    to salmon management due primarily to thermal effects and runoff timing
    changes. The CRITFC is being asked to develop mitigation and adaptation
    strategies on behalf of our member tribes. CRITFC and its member tribes
    currently have insufficient funds to do the technical work and allow
    policy-level participation in the co-management arena.
        Public safety continues to be a high priority for CRITFC and the
    four tribes. Unfortunately, in 2008 three tribal fishermen were lost
    while exercising their treaty fishing rights. CRITFC conservation
    officers were the cornerstone of the search and rescue, and
    subsequently recovery, efforts. In the popular and heavily used
    Columbia Gorge they provide the most continuous on-river presence for
    both the tribal and nontribal community who depend on the river for
    commercial, cultural, and recreational opportunities.
        The Columbia River in lieu and treaty fishing access sites were
    authorized by Congress to fulfill the promises beginning in 1939 when
    the U.S. Government built the first of four Federal dams that flooded
    traditional fishing sites and villages on the lower Columbia River.
    After nearly 70 years, 29 sites are in place with one and perhaps two
    more sites remaining to fulfill the Government's pledge. Eighteen of
    the sites are along the Washington shores of the Columbia River between
    Bonneville and McNary Dams. Tribal fishers from the four tribes use the
    sites to support their harvest for ceremonial, subsistence and
    commercial purposes. The sites vary with improvements including boat
    launches, fish drying sheds, fish cleaning stations, and camping
    facilities. The funding will assure that there will be sufficient
    support for operation and maintenance of the sites through 2045.
        United States/Canada Pacific Salmon Treaty Under the Other
    Recurring Programs, Wildlife and Parks, Rights Protection
    Implementation.--For tribal participants in the Pacific Salmon Treaty,
    the U.S. section has identified a program need of $4,800,000 through
    the BIA.
        The United States and Canada entered into the Pacific Salmon Treaty
    in 1985 to conserve and rebuild salmon stocks, provide for optimum
    production, and control salmon interceptions. The treaty established
    the Pacific Salmon Commission (PSC) as a forum to collaborate on
    intermingled salmon stocks. The U.S. section of the PSC annually
    develops a coordinated budget for tribal, State, and Federal programs
    to ensure cost and program efficiencies. Congress increased funding in
    2000 in order to implement the 1999 agreement, but funding has
    significantly eroded since then, As of December 2008, the United States
    and Canada have adopted a new long-term Treaty agreement after nearly 3
    years of negotiations. Both parties agreed to significant new
    management research and monitoring activities to ensure the
    conservation and rebuilding of the shared salmon resource
        The $4,800,000 provides for direct tribal participation with the
    Commission, panels, and technical committees. The funding enables the
    tribes to assist in Treaty implementation and facilitates management
    coordination to protect trust resources. This funding maintains tribal
    resource assessment and research programs structured to fulfill
    required Treaty implementation activities. Reductions of $1,772,000 in
    the fiscal year 2009 BIA base funding for Pacific Salmon Treaty
    implementation is causing the tribes to limit participation in the
    Pacific Salmon Treaty processes. We are currently seeking to restore
    this capacity through reprogramming existing BIA funds in a manner
    consistent with policy and law. The fiscal year 2010 recommended level
    for this program is an increase of $686,000 more than the fiscal year
    2008 enacted level and includes pay cost adjustments and brings the
    program back in line with previous levels of participation.
        Pacific Salmon Treaty obligations add significantly to the tribes'
    administrative management, and research responsibilities. To
    effectively implement the treaty, tribal representatives must meet
    frequently to review technical information and develop informed policy
    input for use by the tribes' Pacific Salmon Commission representatives.
    These treaty-mandated responsibilities result in additional expenses
    for the tribes. Because each of the 25 tribes covered by this funding
    source is a separate government and manages its own fisheries, these
    obligations require direct tribal involvement.
        The tribal management programs provide needed and beneficial and
    technical support to the U.S. section. The Pacific Salmon Commission
    relies heavily on the various technical committees established by the
    Treaty. The work of these committees is integral to the task of
    implementing fishing regimes consistent with the Treaty and the goals
    of the Parties. Numerous tribal staff appointed to these committees and
    all of the tribal programs generate data and research to support their
    efforts. For example, indicator stock tagging and escapement monitoring
    provides key information for estimating the parties' annual harvest
    rates on individual stocks, evaluating impacts of management regimes
    established under the Treaty, and monitoring progress toward the
    Chinook rebuilding program started in 1984. Select Chinook stocks from
    major regions have been selected as ``indicator'' stocks to represent
    all stocks that are the focus of the rebuilding program. Tribal
    hatchery facilities are the source of several of these indicator stocks
    and this funding provides support for this work.
        In summary, through combined efforts of the four tribes supported
    by a staff of experts, we are proven natural resource managers. Our
    activities benefit the region while also essential to the U.S.
    obligation under treaties, Federal trust responsibility, Federal
    statutes, and court orders. We ask for your continued support of our
    efforts. We are prepared to provide additional information you may
    require on the Department of the Interior's BIA budget.
                                     ______

        Prepared Statement of the Chugach Regional Resources Commission

        The Chugach Regional Resources Commission (CRRC) requests that the
    subcommittee restore $350,000 in recurring base funding in the Bureau
    of Indian Affairs (BIA) Trust-Natural Resources budget. CRRC also seeks
    an additional $150,000 to support the Alutiiq Pride Shellfish Hatchery.
        CRRC is an Alaska Native nonprofit organization 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 within our communities that
    support the sustainable development of Alaska's 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.
        The CRRC has received contractually obligated funding for its base
    operations through a self-determination contract with the Department of
    the Interior (DOI) since 1993. However, beginning in fiscal year 2003,
    the BIA has repeatedly withheld or cut funding to CRRC, despite its
    contractual obligations. The program was restored each year with the
    help of Congress. However, the BIA attempted to discontinue CRRC's
    contract in fiscal year 2008, forcing CRRC to begin litigation against
    the BIA. While the BIA signed a legally binding agreement with CRRC to
    comply with its contractual obligations, we fear we will be forced to
    sue the BIA every year to obtain our legally obligated funding.
        Funding History.--CRRC receives its base funding through a self-
    determination contract with Interior. The Indian Self-Determination and
    Education Assistance Act (Act), Public Law 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 3-year
    contract in 1993, and that contract has been renewed by the Secretary
    every 3 years since.
        The act requires DOI to provide at least the amount the
    ``appropriate Secretary would have otherwise provided for the operation
    of the programs'' supported by the contract (the so-called
    ``Secretarial Amount'') plus additional contract support costs. 25
    U.S.C. Sec. 450j-1(a)(1)-(2). The act further specifies that DOI
    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 repeatedly tried to
    avoid its obligation by failing to request funding for CRRC in its
    budget. The BIA has done so even after it signed a legally binding
    agreement with the CRRC to restore it's funding under the contract. If
    the BIA does not request this funding, it must take the funds from its
    other programs to fulfill its legally obligated duty to the CRRC, which
    would take money from other BIA programs. We ask Congress to restore
    this funding to assist the BIA in meeting its legal obligation without
    negatively impacting other BIA programs.
        CRRC received funding as part of the BIA's base budget from fiscal
    year 1994 through fiscal year 2002. Beginning in fiscal year 2003, CRRC
    was not included in the BIA budget (despite its contractual
    obligations), but the program was restored each year with the help of
    Congress.
        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.
        In fiscal year 2008, the BIA not only sought to withhold all
    funding, but in fact tried to terminate CRRC's contract. This is
    illegal under the Self-Determination Act. CRRC filed suit to obtain an
    agreement with the BIA that it will supply CRRC's legally-obligated
    funding for fiscal year 2007 and fiscal year 2008. The BIA resolved
    this lawsuit and agreed it would continue to provide funding to CRRC.
    We ask Congress to add an additional $500,000 to the Natural Resource
    Programs to ensure that other programs do not suffer because of the
    BIA's obligation to CRRC.
        Community Projects.--Over the past 16 years, CRRC funding has
    supported the development and operation of many programs that have not
    only assisted our communities in providing meaningful employment
    opportunities, but also providing valuable services and products to the
    State of Alaska, including:
      --Alutiiq Pride Shellfish Hatchery.--CRRC operates the only shellfish
            hatchery in the State of Alaska, the Alutiiq Pride Shellfish
            Hatchery. The 20,000 sq. ft. shellfish hatchery, located in
            Seward, Alaska, houses shellfish seed, brood stock, and algae
            production facilities and employs three individuals. Alutiiq
            Pride is undertaking hatchery, nursery, and grow-out operations
            research to adapt mariculture techniques for the Alaskan
            shellfish industry. The hatchery has also been successful in
            culturing geoduck and razor clam species, and is working to
            develop techniques to raise sea cucumbers.
      --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, and
            Alutiiq has led the way in culturing blue and red king crab as
            part of the Alaska King Crab Rehabilitation Biology Project.
            Because Alutiiq Pride is the only shellfish 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.
    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. In 2007, Alutiiq
    Pride produced 4 million oyster seed. Production increased to 8 million
    oyster seed the following year. Revenue from such sales, however, is
    quite modest ($35,000). By comparison, the geoduck shellfish farming
    industry is expected to grow rapidly and will produce more revenue. 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. Until the hatchery is self-sufficient, expected in 2-
    4 years, it requires operations, 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 these community projects. The total operating budget for
    CRRC, Alutiiq Pride, and all of our 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 FWS. However, base operating funding
    is essential to continue work on these projects. CRRC has been
    immensely successful building several community programs and
    partnerships by building on this base budget.
        Our base budget is as follows:

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Projected cost
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Chugach Region Shellfish Mariculture Development........         $75,000
        Oyster grow-out operations in Tatitlek
        Oyster marketing
    Nanwalek Sockeye Salmon Development Project.............          20,000
        Seek funds for disease-free water engineering study
        Operate smolt out-migration weir
    Port Graham Pink Salmon Hatchery........................          75,000
        Broodstock development
        Sockeye and pink salmon fry production
        Training and education for hatchery crew
    Program Development/Regional Office Operations..........         180,000
        One 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.............................................         596,950
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

        We humbly request $500,000.
                                     ______

        Prepared Statement of the Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians
        My name is Delores Pigsley. I am the Tribal Council Chairman for
    the Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians. The Siletz Tribe is an
    active participant in the National Congress of American Indians (NCAI)
    and we fully support the NCAI's fiscal year 2010 budget request. My
    remarks highlight specific budget areas critical to our tribe's goal to
    move from surviving and toward thriving as a tribal nation. To help you
    understand this, I need to impart some history.
        There was a time when our tribal ancestors knew only a life of
    interconnectedness. They understood the cycle of life, they moved with
    the seasons. Tribal values were embodied in ceremonies, songs, and
    culture. Our people lived healthy, balanced lives. With the coming of
    explorers and settlers this changed. Most of you are familiar with the
    failed Federal policies of broken treaties, removal, assimilation, and
    termination.
        Tribes suffered great losses during these times--of people, land,
    language, culture, religion, family structure, and self-governance--our
    entire way of life. Tribal life was disrupted by so many traumas.
    People often responded with unhealthy coping mechanisms: self-
    medicating with alcohol and drugs, denial, depression, helplessness, or
    violence. Over time these responses created intergenerational trauma in
    tribal families. That trauma shows up today in rates for unemployment,
    alcoholism, domestic violence, mental illness, infant mortality,
    diabetes, heart disease, foster care, poverty, and other socioeconomic
    risk factors that are higher than those found in other minority
    populations and the general American population. For the Siletz Tribe,
    the termination of our status as a federally recognized tribe in 1955
    further amplified these impacts. For 22 years, we had no land base, no
    government. We were not even officially allowed to call ourselves
    ``Indian.'' Against the odds, we retained our ties to one another and
    to our original reservation and ancestral lands, and we fought hard to
    reverse termination.
        We won restoration of our status as a federally recognized tribe in
    1977 and we have been working diligently ever since then to build an
    effective tribal government and administration with programs that
    respond to our people's many needs. I relate this history to you to
    show you the enormity of the challenges facing tribes. We have 250
    years of historic and recent trauma to overcome. The path to a
    ``thriving'' tribe will be guided by those cultural values that
    protected us and allowed the tribe to survive through every challenge.
        Supporting Tribal Governments.--Today, as a self-governance tribe,
    under the authority of the Indian Self-Determination and Education
    Assistance Act (ISDEAA), the Siletz Tribe compacts with the Federal
    Government to administer trust programs to benefit our members.
    However, Interior has never fully funded the contract support cost
    (CSC) needed for personnel administration, financial management, and
    procurement related to implementing programs. Instead, we cope with CSC
    shortfalls by reducing direct service spending, using limited tribal
    dollars, or sometimes we must forego compacting a program. It is
    essential that the Bureau of indian Affairs (BIA) and Indian Health
    Services (IHS) fully fund these costs for tribes to administer quality
    services to tribal members.
        Indian Child Welfare.--Historically, child welfare and human
    services programs have been under-funded and tribal children have been
    over-represented in the child dependency systems. The Siletz Tribe's
    Indian Child Welfare (ICW) program is piecemeal funded, using seven
    Federal and State funding streams, which means increased administrative
    costs with different reporting requirements for each funding agency.
    The ICW director and one case manager share 45 cases, while the State
    of Oregon's standard is 16 cases per worker. Our ICW staff is in travel
    status nearly every week to conduct home visits, appear in court, and
    attend family decision meetings throughout Oregon, with additional
    cases in California, Washington, and Idaho. We need at least one more
    caseworker now, just to keep pace with the current caseload. The tribe
    supports increasing ICW funding by $45 million so tribes can provide
    adequate services to ensure safe and positive outcomes for our
    children.
        DHHS Behavioral Health Services.--Native youth and adult rates for
    alcohol and substance abuse and mental illness are higher than the
    national average. Yet DHHS's Behavioral Health Services has not funded
    the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA)
    grant programs that cover alcohol and substance abuse prevention and
    treatment and for mental health and treatment of mental illness. Tribal
    clients compete with non-Indians for scarce State and county treatment
    funding. Our alcohol and drug program clients are often on treatment
    waiting lists for 4 to 6 months; on average, we have eight clients on
    the waiting list at any given time. Like many States, Oregon is cutting
    treatment services. Our tribe has one mental health worker to provide
    services to adults and youth and he doubles as the tribe's youth
    correctional liaison. The Siletz Tribe asks Congress to appropriate $15
    million for SAMHSA Behavioral Health Services grants.
        Juvenile Justice.--The tribe receives no on-going funds for youth
    crime prevention or diversion services. Tribal youth must compete with
    nontribal youth for access to State and county prevention programs. Due
    to a $3.3 billion shortfall for the 2009-2011 budget, Oregon is cutting
    back on open and closed custody detention beds. While the tribe's
    preference is for prevention and treatment, we know that sometimes
    detention is the only option. That being the case, we see the need for
    culturally relevant regional tribal facilities. The Siletz Tribe
    supports increasing the DOJ's Tribal Youth Program to $36,000,000 with
    a 10 percent tribal set-aside and separate construction funds for
    regional tribal juvenile facilities.
        Public Safety.--Tribal law enforcement is terribly under-funded,
    even though reservations experience high rates of violent crime.
    Underfunding is worsened by the disparities in law enforcement funding
    between non-Public Law 280 tribes and Public Law 280 tribes like
    Siletz. The UCLA School of Law's National Native Law and Policy Center
    has found that while Public Law 280 tribes constitute 8.2 percent of
    the reservation-based Indian population, they received only 1.6 percent
    of BIA law enforcement funds. This translated as $101.13 per capita for
    non-Public Law 280 tribes and $19.40 for tribes whose lands were wholly
    within a Public Law 280 State. State police services do not make up the
    difference. The report concluded that Public Law 280 jurisdictions do
    not receive sufficient support to operate their own police systems,
    even though reservation residents report they are more satisfied with
    services from tribal agencies.
        This report validates the Siletz Tribe's experience. For a number
    of years the tribe operated our own police department, using COPs
    grant, Indian Housing Development Block Grant, and BIA Self-governance
    funding. However, time-limited COPs funds ended and remaining funds
    were insufficient to cover operations. In 2006 the tribe began
    contracting with a nearby city police department to provide 120 hours
    of coverage a week. While community members have expressed gratitude
    for even this limited contract law enforcement presence, we would
    prefer to have our own full-time tribal police department. The tribe
    supports a 10 percent increase in BIA tribal law enforcement funding,
    with continued increases until tribal programs are fully supported and
    can offer decent public safety for all tribal people.
        Endangered Species.--Siletz tribal lands currently support habitat
    for three species listed as threatened under the Endangered Species
    Act: marbled murrelet, northern spotted owl, and Oregon Coast coho
    salmon. Before any ground disturbing activities can occur on Tribal
    trust land, the tribe must conduct and evaluate surveys for each of
    these species. We must then consult with either U.S. Fish and Wildlife
    Service for the murrelet and owl or National Marine Fisheries Service
    for the coho--and both agencies require extensive information prior to
    consultation and ongoing monitoring. The tribe does not receive any
    money from the Federal wildlife agencies or the BIA to carry out these
    tasks. Yet we are not allowed to harvest timber, build houses or
    conduct any other major ground disturbing activities on tribal trust
    lands without performing those functions. This unfunded mandate
    directly impacts our ability to govern our own affairs. The total
    annual cost to employ a tribal biologist to carry out the needed
    endangered species functions and to conduct other required surveys is
    $115,000. In 2002, the budget contained $3,000,000 for all of the
    required national endangered species work; funding began a steady
    decline to just $1,228,000 in 2008. The Siletz Tribe recommends a
    return to 2002 level of $3,000,000.
        Natural Resources.--The tribe currently receives approximately
    $23,000 a year in BIA forest development funds. This money must be used
    for timber stand improvement activities like reforestation and pre-
    commercial thinning, but it only covers about 80 acres of treatment
    annually. Unfortunately, our current backlog of pre-commercial thinning
    needs exceeds 1,000 acres. Failure to complete these projects puts
    forest health and future timber revenues in jeopardy due to
    overcrowding, insect attack vulnerability, and fire hazard. This has a
    direct impact on Tribal self-sufficiency, because the Siletz Tribe,
    like other Northwest tribes, relies heavily on our timber revenue.
    Despite attempts to include funding for these types of projects in the
    economic stimulus packages, no additional money has been allocated to
    the BIA or to tribes to address the backlog. The Siletz Tribe needs at
    least $250,000 to erase our current pre-commercial thinning backlog.
    Nationally, tribal management/development should be funded at
    $50,000,000 to support tribes in managing our resource
    responsibilities.
        Education.--The Siletz Tribe does everything we can to support
    lifelong learning. Beginning with our smallest members, the Siletz
    Tribe operates four Head Start Classrooms located in cities with major
    tribal populations--one near the reservation and the others located 100
    to 150 miles from the reservation where significant numbers of tribal
    families live. Head Start funding has declined every year for 14 years
    and the tribe has subsidized increasing administration costs each of
    those years, budgeting $90,000 in tribal funds for 2009. Our program
    has a waiting list every year. We recommend that you appropriate
    $10,000,000 for Head Start. As for our older children, we note that a
    2007 National Indian Education study found that fourth and eighth grade
    Native students scored significantly lower than their peers for reading
    and math. Yet Johnson-O'Malley (JOM) funding has been frozen at 1995
    levels, which translates to $83,000 a year for the Siletz Tribe. This
    does not cover staff time and services for our tribal children who are
    located throughout an 11-county service area; the funds are used to
    offer limited tutoring services. The tribe recommends that JOM be
    funded at $24.3 million to address student needs. The tribe received
    $175,000 in BIA funding for Higher Education for 2009 and supplemented
    this with $600,000 of tribal revenues, yet these resources do not meet
    the estimated need of $925,000. We strongly recommend $32,000,000 for
    title III funding under the Higher Education Act.
        Housing.--The tribe receives funding through an Indian Housing
    Block Grant from HUD. Over the past 20 years, those funds have provided
    for construction of 52 low rent and 83 home ownership units on
    reservation land. Because many of our members reside off the
    reservation, we also provide a housing voucher program for 80 tribal
    families. Despite these accomplishments, we have 100 families on our
    low rent waiting list, 82 on the voucher list, and 31 on the home
    ownership list. The IHBG program addresses an essential need for tribal
    families. We urge continued funding of $854,000,000 for this critically
    needed program.
        Health Services.--The Siletz Tribe manages our health programs
    under a Public Law 93-638 Compact with DHHS. Our Contract Health
    Services program struggles every week to determine the appropriate
    level of care given the lack of resources to cover medically necessary
    requests. Implementation of Medicare-Like Rates in 2007 gave us more
    ability to cover priority-level care, but expansion of MLR to
    outpatient services would benefit our CHS program even more. The Siletz
    Tribe has committed more than $4 million of its own resources to a new
    health facility. Adequate staffing and equipment dollars in the amount
    of $3 million would enable the expansion of health services and
    alleviate the reductions that were necessary due to inadequate
    inflationary adjustments to our recurring budgets. IHS sustained $711
    million in lost purchasing power during the past administration. The
    Siletz Tribe recommends that Congress provide at least $469,781 to fund
    mandatory costs associated with maintaining current services, and that
    it restore the appropriation by providing adequate increases over the
    next 2 fiscal years. We also recommend that you exempt the IHS budget
    from ``across the board'' cuts. Finally, it is imperative to preserve
    the basic health program funded in fiscal year 2010 by providing an
    increase of at least $470 million to the IHS budget. This
    recommendation is based on true inflationary rates developed using the
    CPI's medical components. Anything less than $470 million will leave
    IHS and tribal programs with no alternative but to cut health services
    to Indian people. There simply is no other way for tribes to absorb
    these mandatory costs.
        In closing, I urge the subcommittee to give thoughtful review to
    the NCAI Indian country fiscal year 2010 budget request, which would
    provide tribes the resources needed to rebuild our tribal communities.
    Thank you for your time; I would be happy to answer any questions.
                                     ______

       Prepared Statement of the Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs
                             Reservation of Oregon

                                    SUMMARY

        Madam Chairman, I am Ron Suppah, Chairman of the Confederated
    Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon. I hereby present the
    following requests for the fiscal year 2010 Bureau of Indian Affairs
    (BIA) and Indian Health Services (IHS) appropriations:
      --In BIA forestry, significantly increase the BIA basic Tribal
            Priority Allocations (TPA) forestry budget.
      --In BIA forestry projects, restore the $1 million cut to the Timber
            Harvest Initiative (THI) and add $5 million for forest
            development.
      --In BIA, provide $5 million for endangered species funding,
            including $2.3 million for Northern Spotted Owl and marbled
            murrelet surveys.
      --In BIA law enforcement, provide $750,000 for Warm Springs more than
            fiscal year 2008 amounts.
      --In BIA, fund Johnson O'Malley (JOM) at $25 million, Housing
            Improvement Program (HIP) at $20 million, and welfare
            assistance at $80 million.
      --In IHS, increase contract healthcare funding by $110 million.
      --In IHS, require that contract support cost (CSC) appropriations for
            new contracts be used for those purposes, and increase CSCs by
            $143.3 million.
      --In BIA forestry, significantly increase the BIA basic TPA forestry
            budget.
        Madam Chairman, members of the subcommittee, BIA's basic TPA
    forestry budget has steadily and seriously eroded. The administration's
    BIA forestry requests over the past many years have failed to even keep
    pace with inflation, so that today, this key trust program, which has a
    long history of insufficient funding, is only falling further and
    further behind.
        In 2003, a blue ribbon independent review of Indian forests and
    forestry, the 2003 Report of the Indian Forest Management Assessment
    Team (IFMAT report), found that Indian forestry per-acre funding is
    only one-third of that provided for the U.S. Forest Service's (USFS)
    National Forest System (NFS). That represents no improvement over the
    first IFMAT report, mandated by statute, issued in 1993, and presented
    to Congress, which found the same level of disparity.
        Over the past 5 years, inflation has increased 14.1 percent. Over
    the same period, funding for BIA TPA forestry, which is supposed to
    fund basic on-going timber harvest and forest administration, has only
    increased 3.8 percent. BIA personnel continue to receive cost of living
    increases, but those mandatory costs are not fully funded and eat up
    more and more of the forestry program.
        At Warm Springs, where the BIA directly administers our forest,
    that has real and increasingly serious consequences. Eleven of the
    BIA's 27 full-time forestry positions for Warm Springs are now,
    essentially, permanently unfunded and, if the BIA forestry budget
    continues on its now well-established trend of significantly lagging
    mandatory cost increases, that will only grow worse. Fewer people are
    being required to do more and more, and as they get spread thin, the
    BIA's ability to sufficiently manage our forest has been declining. The
    BIA's hands are full just trying to administer our forest on a day-to-
    day basis, and there is no time or personnel to engage in the longer-
    term planning that forests, particularly commercial forests, require.
        The 2003 IFMAT 2 report identified an annual $120 million increase
    as necessary to bring Indian forestry to parity with comparable USFS
    activity. That is a large number. But I urge the subcommittee to review
    the report and evaluate the differences between BIA forestry funding
    and that for the NFS, and, working with the tribes and the BIA, fashion
    a plan to correct the glaring and insupportable deficiency in BIA
    forestry funding.
      --In BIA forestry projects, restore $1 million cut to the THI and add
            $5 million for forest development.
        In fiscal year 2008 and fiscal year 2009, the administration cut $1
    million from the BIA's $1.8 million THI Program, and the funds have not
    been restored. The THI, carried in BIA forestry projects, in intended
    as flexible funding to supplement timber harvest budgets and manpower
    at tribal locations with harvest backlogs to provide a needed short-
    term boost to eliminate the backlog and bring the reservation's forest
    back into compliance with its management plan. But with the BIA regular
    forestry budget lagging ever further behind, it is likely more forested
    reservations will be unable to process their harvest and will try to
    turn to the THI to try to make up some of the difference. Even if basic
    BIA TPA forestry funding receives the substantial increase it requires,
    the THI will still be needed at its previous full funding of $1.8
    million to address backlogs and expedite sales, particularly when the
    timber market recovers.
        Also in forestry projects, we agree with the Intertribal Timber
    Council that the forest development budget be increased by $5 million
    to initiate a program to eliminate the million acre national forest
    development backlog. The increase, along with the $1 million requested
    for the THI, will begin the needed restoration of the forestry projects
    line item, which has fallen from $17.8 million in fiscal year 2004 to
    $17.6 million in fiscal year 2009, while inflation has increased by
    14.1 percent.
        The Forest Development Program is a national program to thin and
    replant the 1 million acre backlog of Indian trust commercial timber
    land in need of these activities. At Warm Springs, BIA has not been
    able to reduce our forest development backlog of 60,000 acres due to
    flat funding over the past 8 years. These functions are essential if
    our timber stands are to be productive and healthy in the future.
    Moreover, thinning is particularly needed if we are to avoid
    catastrophic wildfire. Much of the Warm Springs' 440,000 acre forest,
    including our 250,000-acre commercial forest, is overcrowded, loaded
    with fuels and dead and dying trees. Current forest development
    funding, in combination with BIA fuels reduction funds, falls woefully
    short of being able to significantly reduce the wildland fire threat
    that could devastate our principal economic resource. Finally, the
    woody biomass produced by thinning operations will help provide fuel to
    the 20 megawatt biomass electric generation facility we are developing
    at our sawmill. So, for the current health of our forest and to foster
    its future productivity, to help avoid a devastating wildfire and
    contribute toward fulfilling the Federal trust responsibility, and even
    to contribute to our local generation of renewable electricity, we urge
    the addition of $5 million to the forest development budget starting in
    fiscal year 2009.
      --In BIA, provide $5 million for endangered species funding,
            including $2.3 million for Northern Spotted Owl and marbled
            murrelet surveys.
        The Endangered Species budget item is the only BIA funding for
    tribal Endangered Species Act (ESA) compliance for the Northern Spotted
    Owl and marbled murrelet in tribal forests. Funding for this mandate
    was initiated in fiscal year 1993 by this subcommittee. Fourteen years
    ago in fiscal year 1995, Congress provided $1.83 million for tribes
    affected by the Northern Spotted Owl and the marbled murrelet. In
    fiscal year 2002, Congress provided a total of $3 million for the BIA's
    national Endangered Species program. Since then, the administration has
    succeeded in driving the appropriation down to the point that, in
    fiscal year 2007, there was zero funding directed to reservation-level
    ESA work anywhere in the United States.
        For fiscal year 2008 and fiscal year 2009, Warm Springs deeply
    appreciates the work of this subcommittee to restore $1 million for the
    BIA's ESA program. We understand the BIA distributes that funding to
    more than 31 locations nationwide, of which Warm Springs received
    $45,000. Regretfully, that amount can only address a fraction of our
    ESA needs, and is less than one-half of what we were receiving for the
    Northern Spotted Owl back more than 12 years ago, without factoring in
    inflationary adjustments.
        For fiscal year 2010, we do not know what the administration may be
    requesting for BIA endangered species mandates on Indian land, but Warm
    Springs requests that the subcommittee provide at least $5 million for
    the BIA Endangered Species budget nationwide, and that at least $2.3
    million of that be designated for Northern Spotted Owl and marbled
    murrelet surveys on affected reservations. These species are still
    listed and ESA compliance is required for our forest management and our
    timber harvest. I must also note that our reservation is affected by
    listed spring Chinook and summer steelhead. Currently on our
    reservation, these are pure unfunded mandates, and compliance either
    goes lacking or other desperately needed services for our community
    must be reduced. To correct this on a nationwide basis, we roughly
    estimate that Indian country easily needs a total of $5 million in
    fiscal year 2010 for ESA activities, with $2.3 million denoted for the
    Northern Spotted Owl and the marbled murrelet.
      --In BIA law enforcement, provide $750,000 for Warm Springs more than
            fiscal year 2008 amounts.
        Madam Chairman, the Warm Springs Tribe welcomes the $24 million and
    $25.5 million increases this subcommittee has made to BIA law
    enforcement for fiscal years 2008 and 2009, and we look forward to the
    details on the law enforcement portion of the administration's
    announced $100 million fiscal year 2010 increase for BIA law
    enforcement and education. A wide array of criminal activity is
    unfortunately rampant throughout Indian Country, and that includes Warm
    Springs, where gangs, meth labs, and marijuana farms are a large and
    persistent problem on our lightly patrolled reservation.
        Beginning in the early 1960s, BIA shifted most of its law
    enforcement support away from Warm Springs as our tribe began to assert
    more jurisdiction and authority over reservation law enforcement. But
    in more recently years, our diminishing tribal budget is sharply
    reducing our ability to meet our reservation law enforcement
    requirements. Warm Springs law enforcement needs are severe. Our tribal
    police force is overextended. We desperately need assistance from BIA.
    Unfortunately, we received little relief in fiscal year 2008's $24
    million increase, and while we would like to remain optimistic about
    more substantial participation in fiscal year 2009's omnibus increase
    and the fiscal year 2010 increase, to assure we receive the increase
    necessary to improve our basic law enforcement patrol and
    infrastructure, we ask the subcommittee to direct that, for fiscal year
    2010, Warm Springs BIA law enforcement be at least $750,000 more than
    that provided our tribe for fiscal year 2008. This will adjust for
    whatever further assistance we might receive for fiscal year 2009, and
    make certain that, in fiscal year 2010, the BIA will be moving toward
    adequate law enforcement service on our reservation.
      --In BIA, fund JOM at $25 million, the HIP at $20 million, and
            welfare assistance at $80 million.
        Madam Chairman, we do not expect this administration to request the
    elimination of funding for BIA's JOM education program, HIP, and
    Welfare Assistance Program. We very much appreciate this subcommittee's
    willingness to rebuff those past year proposals and restore those
    funds. For fiscal year 2010, we urge that you fund JOM with at least
    $25 million. These are the only BIA elementary and secondary education
    funds available to the great majority of tribes, including those in the
    Northwest, and they also are the only education funds subject to tribal
    direction for tribal students in local public schools. The $25 million
    will make up for the past administration's reluctance to fund JOM and
    address the growth in the number of Indian school age children.
        Warm Springs also urges that the BIA HIP be funded at least at $20
    million and that Welfare Assistance be provided $80 million.
      --In IHS, increase Contract Health Services (CHS) funding by $110
            million.
        The Warm Springs Tribe applauds the subcommittee for adding $46
    million to IHS CHS for fiscal year 2009. Unfortunately, the program is
    in such dire need that we ask in fiscal year 2010 for a further
    addition of at least $110 million, as recommended by the National
    Indian Health Board. With no IHS hospital in the Northwest, tribes in
    our region are particularly dependant on CHS funding for at least
    minimum healthcare. While we understand the new administration is to
    request a substantial increase for IHS fiscal year 2010 funding, we do
    not know any details, and so urge the subcommittee to add $110 million
    to CHS for fiscal year 2010 in any event, to assure the reduction of
    CHS healthcare rationing.
      --In IHS, require that CSC for new contracts be used for those
            purposes, and increase CSC by $143.3 million.
        For years, IHS has declined a new 638 proposal from our tribe
    because, they say, they have no contract support funds for new
    contracts. Congress has appropriated funds for new contracts, but IHS
    cites ambiguous language to thwart our request. So, we ask two things:
    First, that IHS appropriations language be changed from ``may'' to
    ``shall'' to mandate that appropriations for new or expanded CSCs
    ``shall''--not ``may''--be used for new or expanded contracts. Second,
    we ask that fiscal year 2010 IHS CSC be increased by $143.3 million, as
    recommended by the National Indian Health Board, to allow ourselves and
    other tribes to fully participate in the benefits of the Public Law 93-
    638.
        Thank you.
                                     ______

                 Prepared Statement of the Close Up Foundation

        Mr. Chairman, my name is Timothy S. Davis, President and CEO of the
    Close Up Foundation and I submit this testimony in support our $1.4
    million appropriations request for the Close Up Insular Areas Program
    that is funded through a grant from the Department of the Interior,
    Office of Insular Affairs Technical Assistance account.
        Close Up Foundation is a nonprofit, nonpartisan educational
    organization dedicated to the idea that, within a democracy, informed,
    active citizens are essential to a responsive Government. Close Up
    works to include students from underserved communities to motivate them
    to become active citizens through experiential learning activities.
        The Close Up Insular Areas Program allows students and educators
    from American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands,
    Guam, the Federated States of Micronesia, the Republic of the Marshall
    Islands, the Republic of Palau, and the United States Virgin Islands to
    participate on Close Up's Washington civic education programs.
    Additionally, the program provides for Close Up staff to work with
    these communities in funding local civic education programs, providing
    educational materials, conducting workshops and attending educational
    conferences on the Islands.
        For more than two decades, the Close Up Foundation has worked with
    the Department of the Interior, Office of Insular Affairs to address
    the civic education needs of insular area communities. Close Up is
    proud of the work that has been accomplished in the Pacific and the
    U.S. Virgin Islands where the name ``Close Up'' is synonymous with
    civic education and government studies.
        The goals of the Close Up's Insular Areas Program for students and
    teachers are to:
      --demonstrate how the United States' model of democracy functions and
            to foster the interest, knowledge, and skills needed to
            effectively participate in a democracy;
      --address the academic needs of the insular areas and to provide
            training and materials to improve teacher civic education
            skills; and
      --increase mutual understanding between the United States' diverse
            citizenry with a special emphasis on public policy concerns and
            culture.
        The principal components of the Close Up Insular Areas Program are:
      --participation of students from the islands under the jurisdiction
            of the Department of the Interior, Office of Insular Affairs in
            Close Up Washington High School Programs;
      --participation of teachers from these jurisdictions in a parallel
            Close Up Washington Program for Educators;
      --participation of students and teachers in local-based civic
            education programs; and,
      --participation of students in a Close Up Student Civic Education
            Forum at the annual Pacific Resources for Education and
            Learning's Pacific Education Conference to be held this year in
            July in Guam.
        The program has had a significant effect on the education and world
    experience of its thousands of participants and has had a significant
    multiplier effect on the islands' education systems and populaces.
    These areas suffer from geographic isolation and a depressed economy.
    Close Up's civic education programs, in Washington and in the Island
    communities, have helped thousands gain knowledge of governmental
    processes and become active in improving the lives of their families
    and their communities.
        Recent Close Up surveys indicate that among Close Up Insular Areas
    Washington Program student participants there was a 19 percent increase
    in those who stated that they understood their islands' relationship to
    the United States Government and a 23 percent increase in those with an
    ability to explain their islands' political status.
        Many Close Up Insular Affairs Washington Program students
    participants continue their civic involvement back home. For instance,
    the Guam Southern H.S. Close Up Club has organized numerous park clean-
    ups and tree plantings and has worked with local branches of the
    Salvation Army and Habitat for Humanity.
        Each year since fiscal year 1988 Congress has appropriated funds
    for the Close Up Insular Areas Program. During those two decades Close
    Up Foundation has worked with the Department of the Interior, Office of
    Insular Affairs to bring almost 4,000 students and teachers to
    Washington as well as reaching countless thousands through our local
    efforts.
        Close Up Foundation respectfully requests an appropriation of $1.4
    million for the fiscal year 2010 Close Up Insular Areas Program. Close
    Up appreciated language inserted into the fiscal year 2009 omnibus
    report requesting an increase of $200,000 for Insular student
    educational travel. Due to this support from Congress, the Interior
    Department increased the Close Up grant from $800,000 in fiscal year
    2008 to $900,000 in fiscal year 2009. The increased funding is allowing
    Close Up to provide the opportunity to participate in this program to a
    greater number of students.
        Unfortunately, the costs of conducting this valuable program have
    skyrocketed as rising airfare, local transportation, food, and hotel
    costs raise the costs of conducting the program. In recent years, Close
    Up was able to conduct a fall Washington program that provided an
    addition and an alternative to our traditional spring Insular Areas
    programs. However, rising costs have made it impossible for Close Up to
    conduct a fall program this year within the budget of the fiscal year
    2008 grant and may render it impossible again with the fiscal year 2009
    funding. Simply put, a level funded grant results in a decrease in the
    number of students that can participate on the program.
        The requested increase will be used to offset the skyrocketing
    costs of conducting the program--especially in the areas of airfare,
    food, accommodations and local transportation--and to expand the
    program to meet the tremendous demand in the insular areas for greater
    participation levels.
        In order to combat rising travel costs Close Up is working to
    increase its reach with local programming. While local programming
    cannot replace the educational value or experience of the Washington
    program it does provide a prudent way of using limited grant funds to
    reach a greater number of students. Close Up is working with its island
    partners to increase participation in its summer Student Forum and the
    number of local ``mini-Close Up'' programs conducted by the various
    Departments of Education.
        Close Up asks that the Appropriations Committee be explicit in the
    amount of funding to be provided to the Foundation from the Office of
    Insular Affairs technical assistance account. This would add certainty
    to the process and greatly lengthen the planning and fundraising
    process for these civic education programs.
        Close Up asks the Appropriations Committee to consider placing this
    program on a forward-funded basis by doubling the grant amount for 1
    year. The lengthened Federal budget process of recent years and the
    accompanying later grant award dates has made it increasingly difficult
    for the Foundation to secure airline seats and hotel accommodations on
    a time- and cost-effective basis. Additionally, as Close Up delays in
    announcing program dates to the islands communities it makes it
    impossible for those communities to organize and raise funds--
    leveraging the Federal grant--that would otherwise increase the level
    of participation of students and their teachers.
        For instance, prior to the passage of the fiscal year 2009 omnibus
    appropriations bill Close Up was operating under a partial grant of
    $333,333 from the Department of the Interior representing the prorated
    share under the Continuing Resolution of the expected full grant
    amount. To maintain its schedule, Close Up conducted Insular Areas
    programs in February and March, prior to receiving the full grant
    amount, in essence lending the funds in anticipation of a later award.
    Close Up is now conducting an additional program in June as a result of
    the $100,000 in increased funding provided in the final grant amount.
    The timing of appropriations legislation and the Department's grant
    process forces the Foundation to either move forward without the
    guarantee of a Federal grant or delay programming.
        Close Up is very proud of our long-standing involvement with the
    Insular Areas and the impact that our two decades of work has made on
    the civic life of these communities. Close Up is grateful to Congress
    for its continued support of these programs and look forward to
    continuing this program into the future.
                                     ______

             Prepared Statement of the Civil War Preservation Trust

                                  INTRODUCTION

        Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the
    opportunity to provide written testimony. My name is James Lighthizer,
    and I am the president of the Civil War Preservation Trust (CWPT). I am
    writing to respectfully request that the Senate Appropriations
    Subcommittee for Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies fully fund
    the Civil War Battlefield Preservation Program (CWBPP), financed
    through the Land and Water Conservation Fund in the Department of the
    Interior, at its authorized amount of $10 million.
        I would like to start by providing a little information about our
    organization. CWPT is a 55,000-member nonprofit organization--the only
    national one of its kind--dedicated to preserving America's remaining
    Civil War battlefields. To date, CWPT has permanently protected more
    than 25,000 acres of hallowed ground in 19 States, most of it outside
    National Park Service (NPS) boundaries.
        I am writing to you about the small, but highly effective Federal
    land conservation program that has made much of our success possible:
    CWBPP. This matching grants program encourages cooperative partnerships
    between State and local governments and the private sector to preserve
    targeted, high-priority Civil War battlegrounds. Since it was first
    funded in fiscal year 1999, the program has been used to protect more
    than 15,300 acres of hallowed ground nationwide.
        Time is running out for our remaining Civil War battlefields. We
    estimate that even in this depressed economy, 30 acres of battlefield
    land are lost every day. If we are to save these sites so that future
    generations may visit them and learn from them, the time to act is now.
    We estimate that in the next 5 to 10 years the fate of many of these
    battlefields will be determined.

                             ORIGINS OF THE PROGRAM

        In 1990, Congress created the Civil War Sites Advisory Commission
    (CWSAC), a blue-ribbon panel composed of lawmakers, historians and
    preservationists. Its goal: determine how to protect America's
    remaining Civil War battlefields. In 1993, CWSAC released a study
    entitled ``Report on the Nation's Civil War Battlefields.'' The report
    identified the 384 most historically important Civil War battlegrounds
    and further prioritized them according to preservation status and
    historic significance. Sixteen years later, this landmark report
    remains our guide for determining which battlefields should be
    preserved.
        In addition to creating a prioritized list of battlefield
    preservation targets, CWSAC also recommended that Congress establish an
    ``emergency'' $10 million-a-year Federal matching grant program for
    acquisition of battlefield land outside NPS boundaries. The intent of
    the matching grants formula was to encourage private sector and State
    and local government involvement in battlefield acquisition. CWSAC's
    proposal for an emergency Federal matching grant program was the
    genesis of the CWBPP.

                   CONGRESSIONAL FUNDING AND FIRST SUCCESSES

        Five years after the ``Report on the Nation's Civil War
    Battlefields'' was released, Congress acted upon CWSAC's recommendation
    by setting aside $8 million from the Land and Water Conservation Fund
    for Civil War preservation matching grants. This first appropriation
    for the program was made available over 3 years, and required a 2 to 1
    non-Federal/Federal match. Grants were competitively awarded through
    the American Battlefield Protection Program (ABPP), an arm of NPS.
    Funding was solely for acquisition of properties outside NPS boundaries
    at battlefields identified in the 1993 report. Land could be purchased
    from willing sellers only; there was--and there remains--no eminent
    domain authority.
        Thanks to the new program, there began an unprecedented and almost-
    immediate surge in Civil War battlefield preservation. The $8 million
    appropriation generated $24 million for land acquisition by encouraging
    State and private investment in battlefield land protection. The
    program inspired the Virginia and Mississippi legislatures to
    appropriate $3.4 million and $2.8 million, respectively, to meet the
    Federal match. CWPT alone contributed $4 million in private sector
    funds to meet the match.
        As a result of the non-Federal funds generated by the program,
    battlefields like Virginia's Brandy Station and Manassas received a new
    lease on life. In addition, other sites such as Prairie Grove in
    Arkansas, Champion Hill in Mississippi, and Bentonville in North
    Carolina--just to name a few--were substantially enhanced. Largely
    because of the success of those first 3 years, Congress appropriated an
    additional $11 million for the program in fiscal year 2002, this time
    with a more attractive 1 to 1 non-Federal/Federal match requirement.

                           AUTHORIZATION OF THE CWBPP

        After approval of the fiscal year 2002 appropriation, authorization
    of the CWBPP seemed the next logical step. Supporters on Capitol Hill
    felt that authorization of the program would convey to the Department
    of the Interior congressional intent regarding the program's goals and
    objectives. Further, authorization would provide funding predictability
    for the program's non-Federal partners, encouraging them to continue
    their involvement in battlefield preservation.
        The authorization bill, entitled the Civil War Battlefield
    Preservation Act of 2002, was introduced in the House and Senate in the
    summer of 2002. The bipartisan bill formally tied the program to the
    1993 CWSAC report, creating a Federal conservation program with a
    highly focused, prioritized list of acquisition targets. It also
    provided for an annual appropriation of up to $10 million per year--the
    level originally recommended by CWSAC in 1993. The Civil War
    Battlefield Preservation Act was passed with the unanimous consent of
    both the House and Senate in the fall of 2002, and was signed into law
    by President Bush on December 17, 2002 (Public Law 107-359).

              ADDITIONAL SUCCESSES AND REAUTHORIZATION LEGISLATION

        Since the program was first funded in fiscal year 1999, CWBPP
    grants have been used to protect 15,300 acres of hallowed ground in 14
    States. Among the many battlefields that have benefited from this
    program are: Antietam, Maryland; Averasboro, North Carolina;
    Chancellorsville, Virginia; Chattanooga, Tennessee; Corinth,
    Mississippi; Harpers Ferry, West Virginia; and Perryville, Kentucky.
        One of the program's most notable successes occurred in 2006, when
    the Department of the Interior awarded a $2 million grant to help save
    the Slaughter Pen Farm on the Fredericksburg Battlefield in Virginia.
    This property, soaked with the blood of 5,000 men in blue and gray, was
    nearly lost to industrial development. Five Medals of Honor were earned
    by Union soldiers for heroism on that field.
        Anticipating the expiration of the CWBPP's original authorization
    on September 30, 2008, legislation reauthorizing the program was
    introduced in June 2007. This legislation was nearly identical to the
    original authorization bill, calling again for $10 million per year for
    5 years. The bipartisan, noncontroversial reauthorization bill was
    received very favorably on Capitol Hill--the legislation was ultimately
    cosponsored by 108 Members of Congress and 33 Senators, including 8
    members of the Senate Appropriations Committee.

                         CURRENT STATUS OF THE PROGRAM

        Unfortunately, after nearly a decade of successes as a historic
    preservation tool, the CWBPP hit an unanticipated snag in the past
    year. Although the House passed the reauthorizing legislation (H.R.
    2933) before the end of the fiscal year, the Senate was unable to do so
    for reasons unrelated to the popularity of the program. As a result,
    the CWBPP temporarily expired on September 30, 2008.
        Due to the lapse in the program's authorization, and a sunset
    provision that had been included in the original authorization
    legislation, all monies unobligated when the program temporarily
    expired, a total of $5.1 million, reverted back to the Treasury
    Department. However, it is important to note that these monies were
    only technically unobligated--in fact, grant applications for that
    amount were in the pipeline when the program expired. In some cases,
    these applications were within weeks of being obligated by the Interior
    Department, and were held up because of technicalities.
        There is currently $12.5 million worth of grant applications either
    before ABPP or waiting to be submitted for consideration. Of these, 14
    applications for $3.98 million in grants will consume entirely the
    recently approved fiscal year 2009 appropriation for the program. The
    remaining $8.5 million in land deals will have to be funded in fiscal
    year 2010 or beyond.
        It is important to note that these grant applications represent
    actual land acquisition deals that are nearly all closed or under
    contract by nonprofit organizations like CWPT. These are real deals
    that would result in the preservation of more than 3,279 acres of
    hallowed ground in Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Minnesota, Mississippi,
    North Carolina, Tennessee, and Virginia.
        The good news is that, earlier this year, Congress acted to
    officially reauthorize the CWBPP. The program's reauthorization was
    included in the Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009 (H.R. 146)
    which passed the Senate on March 19 by a vote of 77-20 and the House on
    March 25 by a vote of 285-140. It was signed into law by President
    Obama on March 30, 2009 (Public Law 111-11).

          FISCAL YEAR 2010 AND FISCAL YEAR 2011 APPROPRIATIONS REQUEST

        We respectfully ask the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on
    Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies to fully fund the CWBPP at
    its authorized amount of $10 million. Please note that a letter signed
    by 16 Senators was delivered to both the subcommittee and full
    Committee. The Member letter requested that the program be fully funded
    at its authorized amount of $10 million in fiscal year 2010.
        However, we recognize that in these difficult economic times the
    subcommittee may not be able to fully fund the program at its
    authorized amount. Under these circumstances, we would ask the
    subcommittee to consider alternate scenarios designed to help the
    program recoup the technically unobligated but very-much-committed
    monies lost when the program temporarily expired in the fall of 2008.
    An ideal solution would be to appropriate at least $9 million for the
    CWBPP in fiscal year 2010, which represents an additional $5 million on
    top of the program's baseline $4 million average annual funding.
    However, if such an appropriation in a single fiscal year is not
    possible, we would ask the subcommittee to consider replacing the money
    over a 2-year period, in fiscal year 2010 and fiscal year 2011. Such a
    solution would result in annual appropriation of $6.5 million in each
    of the next 2 fiscal years ($2.5 million a year more than the $4
    million the program usually receives on average).
        We feel this is a sensible approach since the $5.1 million that
    reverted back to the Treasury was lost due to circumstances beyond the
    control of the nonprofit sector. Further, reauthorization of the
    program last month underscores that it was never the intent of Congress
    to allow the program to lapse and lose the $5.1 million noted
    previously. Please note that President Obama also requested funding for
    the program in his fiscal year 2010 budget for the Department of the
    Interior.

                                   CONCLUSION

        There is no question that the Civil War was a defining moment in
    our country's history. For 4 long years, North and South clashed in
    hundreds of battles that reunited our Nation and sounded the death
    knell for slavery. More than 625,000 soldiers and 50,000 civilians
    perished as a result of the war.
        Preserved battlefields not only honor the memory of our Civil War
    ancestors, but all of our Nation's brave men and women in uniform.
    Further, preserved battlefields serve as outdoor classrooms to teach
    new generations of Americans about the significance of the Civil War--
    and remind them that the freedoms we enjoy today often came at a
    terrific price.
        I sincerely hope this subcommittee will consider our request to at
    least fund the CWBPP at its annual average level of $4 million plus
    replace the $5 million lost last year as the result of a technicality.
    This is especially important as the Nation begins to prepare for the
    upcoming sesquicentennial commemoration of the Civil War, beginning in
    2011. The commemoration is expected to stimulate renewed interest in
    the conflict and generate unprecedented visitation to preserved Civil
    War battlegrounds. We look forward to working with this subcommittee on
    battlefield protection and other historic preservation issues. Thank
    you for the opportunity to provide testimony.
                                     ______

                  Prepared Statement of Defenders of Wildlife

        Madam Chairman, Ranking Member, and members of the subcommittee,
    thank you for the opportunity to submit testimony for the record.
    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.
        We continue to be deeply grateful for the subcommittee's leadership
    on climate change, and we ask that you maintain your excellent
    leadership on this critically important issue. We thank the
    subcommittee for the significant increase provided to the U.S.
    Geological Survey (USGS) National Climate Change and Wildlife Science
    Center in the final fiscal year 2009 bill and ask that funding be
    increased by $10 million to $20 million for fiscal year 2010, and
    gradually raised to $50 million annually by fiscal year 2013. The new
    Center is developing well and 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. Defenders also very much appreciates the
    direction given to the Secretary of the Interior in the fiscal year
    2009 bill ``to initiate development of a national strategy to assist
    fish, wildlife, plants and associated ecological processes in becoming
    more resilient, adapting to, and surviving the impacts of climate
    change'' in consultation with other Federal agencies, States, tribes,
    and other stakeholders and with the assistance of a science advisory
    board. We urge the subcommittee to exert its oversight authority to
    monitor this effort, to continue the direction in the fiscal year 2010
    bill, and to provide $5 million to ensure that the Secretary has the
    resources to effectively work with other agencies and stakeholders to
    achieve this critically important mission. Finally, while we still
    await the details of the President's budget, we were very pleased that
    funding for adaptation of fish, wildlife, and habitats to climate
    change was among the priorities for the Department of the Interior, and
    we support the requested $130 million increase.
        Defenders thanks the subcommittee for its efforts to restore the
    operational capacities of the natural resource management and science
    agencies that were decimated for a number of years and to fully fund
    fixed costs which typically increase by 3-5 percent yearly, and we urge
    you to continue this progress. Robust operational accounts for the
    agencies will become increasingly important as our Nation fights to
    protect wildlife from the ravages of climate change. Our primary
    concerns are with the programs of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
    (FWS), our Nation's premier agency for the conservation of wildlife and
    habitat, and wildlife-related programs in the other natural resource
    management and science agencies as detailed below. 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.
        We urge the subcommittee to continue to rebuild the FWS which has
    suffered substantial losses in both staffing, an 8 percent reduction
    from 2004-2007, and capability to carry out important projects. We are
    particularly concerned about the loss of biological capacity and
    research grade scientists in the FWS. We urge the subcommittee to
    provide the following increases:
      --To address the needs of our Nation's most vulnerable plants and
            animals, a total of $217 million for the endangered species
            operating accounts, an increase of $59 million more than fiscal
            year 2009, allocated as follows: $15 million for candidate
            conservation, an increase of $4.3 million; $32 million for
            listing, an increase of $12.7 million; $95 million for
            recovery, an increase of $20.4 million; and $75 million for
            consultation, an increase of $21.5 million. These amounts will
            help FWS to make progress on listing the 252 candidates
            awaiting protection under the Endangered Species Act (ESA),
            overseeing recovery of listed species, adequately addressing
            the workload of consultations, and effectively monitoring
            hundreds of Habitat Conservation Plans covering millions of
            acres and Federal projects subject to section 7 consultation.
            We further ask the subcommittee to work with the new
            administration to develop a schedule for determinations on the
            current candidate list.
      --To continue efforts to restore the integrity of the National
            Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS), a total of $514 million, an
            increase of $51.1 million more than fiscal year 2009. The
            recommended level for fiscal year 2010 will allow incremental
            progress toward a yearly level of at least $765 million needed
            to allow the NWRS to achieve the mission set forth in the
            landmark 1997 National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act,
            as recommended by the diverse coalition of 23 national
            conservation, sporting, and scientific organizations in the
            Cooperative Alliance for Refuge Enhancement.
      --To restore the ``Thin Green Line'' held by the Office of Law
            Enforcement (OLE) between federally and internationally
            protected animals and plants and the ruthless poachers and
            smugglers who traffic in them, a total of $72.8 million, an
            increase of $10.1 million, to support hiring, training and
            equipping 24 special agents, 10 additional port inspectors, 12
            critically needed scientists for the forensics laboratory and
            to support recent amendments to the Lacey Act to ban
            international imports of illegally sourced timber and plant
            products. The special agent force plunged to a 30-year low in
            2008. Continued attention must be paid to this issue since, on
            average, 14 agents are lost yearly through attrition--even with
            the addition of a new class of 24 every 2 years, the force
            still would suffer a net loss of 4 agents over that same time
            period.
      --To build the international affairs program, a total of $21 million,
            an increase of $7.8 million, that will support boosts to the
            regional Wildlife Without Borders programs, implementation of
            treaties for which the program currently receives little
            funding, listing, and permitting actions to address a backlog
            of foreign species awaiting ESA protection, and replacement of
            key personnel. We are pleased with the subcommittee action in
            the fiscal year 2009 bill to move international affairs out of
            general operations and establish it as a separate subactivity
            under the same activity as migratory bird management and the
            OLE.
      --To support the Migratory Bird Management program in halting the
            decline of migratory birds, a total of $61.2 million, an
            increase of $15.3 million, that will allow for implementation
            of completed plans for focal species and continued development
            of plans for the rest of the 139 focal species, enhanced
            inventory and monitoring including increased costs for
            operations of survey planes, ``Urban Conservation Treaties''
            that aid participating cities in reducing migration hazards and
            conserving birds, increased permitting demands under the Bald
            and Golden Eagle Protection Act, and the Joint Venture program.
      --To provide for critical FWS grant programs, a total of $85 million
            for the State and Tribal Wildlife Grant program (STWGP), an
            increase of $10 million; $110 million for the Cooperative
            Endangered Species Fund, an increase of $34.5 million; $6.5
            million for the Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Fund,
            an increase of $1.7 million; and $15 million for the
            Multinational Species Conservation Fund, an increase of $5
            million. The STWGP was established to serve the Federal
            interest by conserving species before they decline to the point
            where they need ESA protection. As always, we appreciate the
            subcommittee's strong oversight of the implementation of the
            action plans created through STWGP and ask that it be
            continued.
        The multiple-use lands of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and
    the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) are becoming increasingly crucial to the
    conservation of wildlife and habitat in the United States. Yet these
    agencies lack the resources and adequate tools to fulfill this
    important aspect of their multiple use missions. Staff of the BLM and
    USFS declined 9 percent and 35 percent, respectively, under the prior
    administration. In particular, given the recent order by the Secretary
    of the Interior to promote development of renewable energy on public
    lands, the availability of resources to ensure ability to maintain
    sustainable wildlife populations as this effort proceeds is absolutely
    crucial. To begin to fill this gap, we urge the subcommittee to provide
    the following amounts:
      --For BLM Wildlife and Fisheries Management, a total of $66.1
            million, an increase of $17.6 million more than fiscal year
            2009 and for BLM Threatened and Endangered Species Management,
            a total of $33.2 million, an increase of $11.5 million. These
            increases would support needed recovery efforts for threatened
            and endangered species on BLM lands; additional staff;
            monitoring and habitat restoration for species at risk;
            restoration of fish passage; inventory and improvements for
            wetlands, lakes, and streams; and other critical needs.
            Defenders understands that the practice of diverting 30 to 50
            percent of program resources to pay for compliance activities
            of BLM's energy, grazing, and other nonwildlife-related
            programs continues despite efforts by the subcommittee to
            correct it. We appreciate the subcommittee's work on this issue
            and ask that efforts to address this harmful practice be
            redoubled, including consideration of a review by the
            Government Accounting Office.
      --For the BLM Challenge Cost Share (CCS) program, a total of $29.3
            million, an increase of 19.8 million, with the entire increase
            directed to wildlife. Given the diversion of resources in the
            other programs, CCS is the primary means through which
            proactive wildlife conservation work is accomplished.
      --For BLM plant conservation, a total of $26 million, an increase of
            $21.4 million. Defenders appreciates the decision by the
            subcommittee to transfer the funding for the native plant
            materials development program out of wildland fire management
            and into the wildlife account in the fiscal year 2009 bill. We
            ask that this move be a first step in establishing a separate
            plant conservation activity or subactivity that would encompass
            both a program to conserve sensitive plants on BLM lands and
            the Native Plant Materials Development program. The amounts
            recommended above would provide $5 million for the Plant
            Conservation program, $15 million for the Native Plant
            Development program, and one time construction funding of $6
            million for seed storage facilities.
      --For BLM resource management planning, a total of $52.5 million, an
            increase of $4.4 million more than fiscal year 2009; for USFS
            land management planning, a total of $58.8 million, an increase
            of $10 million; and for USFS inventory and monitoring a total
            of $175 million, an increase of $7.4 million. Science-based
            planning, including targeted monitoring and state-of-the-art
            analysis, is fundamental to effectively conserve fish and
            wildlife on BLM and USFS lands. We ask the subcommittee to
            consider directing or encouraging the two agencies to
            cooperatively link species and ecosystem data collection,
            analysis, planning, and decisionmaking processes in meaningful
            and cost-efficient manners.
      --For BLM Landscape Scale Habitat Conservation/``Healthy Lands,'' a
            total of $30 million, an increase of $25 million to support the
            BLM in addressing large-scale regional planning and
            conservation efforts at the landscape level. Related to the
            item previously mentioned, this funding potentially could be
            targeted for interagency efforts to incentivize needed cross-
            cutting work across levels of government and land ownerships.
      --For USFS forest and rangeland research R&D programs, $260.8
            million, an increase of $25.2 million that includes $30.3
            million for Global Change Research and $35.5 million for Fish
            and Wildlife R&D. These amounts are needed to provide on-the-
            ground forest managers with decision support tools that enable
            effective and efficient fish and wildlife management, and
            assist them in understanding the impacts of climate change on
            forests, and identifying adaptive management strategies that
            help forests and wildlife survive increasing stresses.
      --For USFS wildlife and fisheries habitat management, a total of
            $197.4 million, an increase of $58 million. With the exception
            of the increase provided in the fiscal year 2009 bill, this
            program was flat funded for 7 years, falling far behind.
        The core of scientific expertise regarding fish, wildlife and
    plants within the Department of the Interior is found within the
    Biological Research Discipline (BRD) of USGS. BRD scientists are
    responsible for research, development of analytical tools, and sharing
    of information needed to manage and conserve these biological
    resources. However, support to carry out these activities and to ensure
    adequate scientific staff and expertise has steadily eroded over the
    last 8 years. Restoring funding to these programs is essential so that
    BRD can provide the natural resource management agencies with the
    scientific expertise, analysis and information necessary for
    conservation of fisheries and wildlife populations and habitat. To meet
    these needs, we urge the following increases:
      --For the BRD Research and Monitoring Program, a total of $155
            million, an increase of $8.6 million more than the fiscal year
            2009 level. Over the last decade, this program has declined 12
            percent when adjusted for inflation and increases are needed to
            (1) identify factors that contribute to or limit conservation
            and recovery efforts for terrestrial plant and wildlife
            species-at-risk; (2) institute an adaptive science approach to
            support the management of terrestrial plants and wildlife and;
            (3) provide technical assistance to natural resource managers.
      --For the BRD Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Units (CFWRUs),
            a total of $20 million, an increase of $3.1 million.
            Approximately one-fifth of all CFWRU scientist positions are
            vacant, and these amounts are needed to restore this true
            Federal/State/university/private partnership that leverages
            more than $3 for every appropriated $1.
        We urge the subcommittee to continue restoration of the Land and
    Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) and urge a total of $450 million for
    fiscal year 2010, $325 million for Federal LWCF and $125 million for
    stateside. We were extremely pleased to see the increases proposed for
    LWCF in the President's budget and strongly support their proposal to
    fully fund the LWCF by 2014.
        Finally, we deeply appreciate the subcommittee's continued
    attention to the impacts of illegal immigration and related enforcement
    on sensitive land and wildlife resources along the Southwest border,
    and we urge continued oversight and funding increases. Funding is
    needed through the natural resource management agency budgets to
    address ongoing damage, including tons of trash, hundreds of miles of
    illegal trails and roads, hundreds of abandoned vehicles, fouled water
    sources, vandalized and stolen facilities and equipment, and degraded
    habitat across the landscape. In addition, we urge the subcommittee to
    work with the DHS appropriations subcommittee to ensure that any
    construction or installation of border security infrastructure is
    carried out with the proper environmental safeguards and that DHS
    provides funding to mitigate for any impacts, including following up
    with its commitment to provide up to $50 million to the Department of
    the Interior to mitigate for adverse impacts on federally listed
    threatened and endangered species from wall and road construction.
                                     ______

          Prepared Statement of the ``Ding'' Darling Wildlife Society

        I represent the ``Ding'' Darling Wildlife Society, an all-volunteer
    group with more than 2,000 members whose mission is to support the JN
    ``Ding'' Darling National Wildlife Refuge complex. 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 JN ``Ding Darling National
    Wildlife Refuge complex and other refuges in the NWRS. Our request is
    that O&M funding be increased to $514 million in fiscal year 2010.
        We do thank the subcommittee for your support over the past 2
    fiscal years in recommending increases in funding for the NWRS. Those
    increases have helped stabilize a critical funding deficit which
    resulted in major losses of personnel and significant loss of
    capability to manage refuges. While the increases have provided some
    relief, major funding problems still exist and sizeable annual
    increases in O&M funding must be forthcoming if the NWRS is ever to
    even approach its full potential.
        Past inadequate funding has severely hampered the ability of the
    U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) to effectively manage refuges. The
    current backlog of approximately $3.5 billion in operations and
    maintenance needs is a direct result of many decades of neglect in the
    budgetary arena. This backlog must be addressed in an aggressive
    manner.
        On our local level, inadequate funding has resulted in staff
    reductions. Recent funding increases have allowed stabilizing the
    employees but at an inadequate level. We simply don't have the manpower
    needed to do an acceptable job of refuge management. Of major concern
    is the lack adequate law enforcement to address violations of refuge
    regulations and a second biologist.
        The role refuges can play in helping to alleviate current economic
    problems should not be overlooked. There are major economic factors
    associated with the management of refuges. NWRS attracts 41 million
    visitors annually who generate more than $1.7 billion for local
    economies, including 27,000 jobs and $185 million in tax revenues.
    Further, according to the 2007 report, Banking on Nature, on the
    average refuges return $4 of economic activity for each $1 appropriated
    for their operation. Continued underfunding of refuges will result in
    negative impacts on local economies--something to consider during the
    tough economic times facing our country.
        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 invasive
    species
        We urge the subcommittee to support an allocation of $100 million
    in the FWS budget for land acquisition through the Land and Water
    Conservation Fund (LWCF). The acquisition of important habitat for
    endangered species and other fish and wildlife has been severely
    reduced in recent years due to very low allocations and this situation
    must be addressed.
        The inequitable distribution of resource management dollars among
    the four Federal land managing agencies remains to be a serious
    concern. On a per-acre basis, funding to manage units of the NWRS is
    significantly lower than that allocated to manage national forests,
    national parks, and Bureau of Land Management lands. For example, when
    including the recently added 54 million acres of national monuments,
    the NWRS receives slightly more than $3 per acre, by far the lowest of
    the four agencies. I am not suggesting that the funding level should be
    the same far all, as the missions vary; however, the current disparity
    defies reason. I request that the subcommittee and the Congress should
    provide some reasonable level of equity as it contemplates future
    allocations.
        In summary, the NWRS is facing a severe funding deficit which must
    be addressed. I ask that the subcommittee support increased O&M funding
    for the NWRS to $514 million in fiscal year 2010. Further, I ask that
    that the subcommittee supports the goal of reaching an O&M funding
    level of $765 million by fiscal year 2010. And finally, we urge the
    subcommittee to support an allocation of $100 million from the LWCF for
    refuge land acquisition in fiscal year 2010.
                                     ______

     Prepared Statement of the Dzilth-Na-O-Dith-Hle Community Grant School
                              of the Navajo Nation

        Greetings from Dzilth-Na-O-Dith-Hle Community Grant School (DCGS)
    on the Navajo Reservation in Bloomfield, New Mexico. Our testimony will
    focus on three areas of the Bureau of Indian Education (BIE) funding
    which negatively impact our efforts in helping our students achieve
    Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP), and practice sound management
    principles in school operations. These areas are--
      --an ever-increasing shortfall in Administrative Cost Grants (ACG),
            requiring at least $58.6 million to achieve full funding;
      --the low student transportation dollars per mile rate, which should
            be funded at a minimum of $3.15/mile; and
      --inadequate funding for facilities operation, maintenance, and
            repairs, which requires a good deal more than the fiscal year
            2009 $84.9 million in order to address the significant BIE-wide
            backlog and meet the rising costs of utilities.
        Our school offers both academic programs serving grades K-8 and
    residential programs for students in grades 1-12. The residential
    students in grades 9-12, however, attend the local public school.
    Currently, 205 students are enrolled in our academic program, and 56
    students are housed in the campus dormitories. Our all-Navajo Board
    operates the DCGS through a Grant issued by the BIE under the Tribally
    Controlled Schools Act. Our mission at DCGS is to make a difference in
    the educational progress of our students and we believe that all our
    students are capable of achieving academic success.
        To say the new administration's fiscal year 2010 BIE budget request
    is a disappointment is an understatement. We had hoped it would provide
    desperately needed funding increases for critical programs to overcome
    the barriers that have for years impeded our ability to fully meet our
    school mission and our ability to successfully operate our program
    under the Indian Self-Determination policy. Most unfortunately, our
    hopes were not fulfilled. Thus, we must look to Congress to recognize
    that this chronic underfunding places our school system in jeopardy,
    and to ask you to take steps to fulfill the United States' obligation
    to the tribes who operate schools and the Indian children who attend
    them.

    ACGs
        The ACGs provided for tribally operated schools is supposed to
    provide funding for the administrative costs incurred in the operation
    of school programs. Unfortunately, for the last several fiscal years,
    past administrations have not requested any increases for the ACG
    funding; despite the fact BIE knew there was already a funding
    shortfall. It is very disappointing that, even with the new
    administration, the fiscal year 2010 budget request for ACG will once
    again be flat funded at the fiscal year 2003 level of $43.3 million.
        It is even more disheartening that tribally operated schools are
    being forced to absorb millions in shortfalls when the administration
    is proposing an fiscal year 2010 increase of $5.5 million in order to
    pay BIA contract support costs (CSC) at 77.4 percent, and requests an
    additional $2 million for the Indian Self-Determination Fund to pay CSC
    of new contractors. For IHS contract support costs, the administration
    seeks a staggering $107 million increase.
        In comparison, for school year 2007-2008, the BIE provided only
    65.75 percent of ACG need, and in school year 2008-2009 the rate was a
    paltry 62.36 percent. The level of need for each school is determined
    by the statutorily mandated formula for calculation of ACGs. Yet, with
    each passing year, the tribally operated schools have had to re-direct
    more and more funds from our classroom budgets to cover essential
    services such as insurance, fiscal management, audits, and other
    overhead services. The failure to seek additional ACG funds will
    further reduce funding provided to existing tribally operated schools.
        At our school some of the increased costs we've had to absorb are
    $15,000 for audit costs; $38,000 for liability, property, vehicle and
    employee bonding insurances; and $5,200 for background checks on
    potential hires that would have direct contact with the students. We
    have had to scale back on publishing vacancy notices (thereby limiting
    the applicant pool) and increased the duties of the limited school
    administration and management staff. Lack of funding has meant having
    less people to complete the myriad compliance requirements such as
    shepherding the background checks, equipment inventory, financial
    accountability, and Federal program requirements. Our ability to
    maintain prudent internal controls and checks-and-balances is
    compromised. Cutting corners on school administration and having to let
    go or over-extend valued employees is not how DCGS wants to operate,
    but it is a necessity in order to minimize the amount of school program
    funds that have to be redirected to cover our ACG shortfall.
        If Congress accepts the proposed fiscal year 2010 ACG amount, it
    would most likely drop the percentage paid below 60 percent. We urge
    that this Congress take a new direction and finally meet the terms of
    the ACG statute by providing the full amount of AC Grants need
    (estimated at $58.6 million).

    Student Transportation
        We appreciate the $2.7 million increase in student transportation
    funds provided for school year 2009-2010 in the fiscal year 2009
    Omnibus Appropriations Act. The increases produced a $2.91/mile rate
    for school year 2008-2009. This is at best a slightly more than the per
    gallon rate for fuel in our area. We are disappointed the fiscal year
    2010 budget request does not seek a programmatic increase in order to
    continue the efforts to provide a reasonable per mile rate in order
    that our students are afforded a safe transportation system.
        As you know, our student transportation funds are used to cover not
    just the fuel costs, but also the GSA rental/lease fees for school
    vehicles, vehicle maintenance and repair, and bus driver salaries. Here
    again our costs are ever increasing, to the point that we have had no
    choice, but to use our school program funds to make up the shortfall.
    Last year we paid $107,000 to GSA alone, and we had to increase our pay
    scale for CDL-qualified bus drivers in order to attract qualified bus
    drivers to work in the remote area where our school is located. As you
    can imagine, our unpaved roads, which are turned into ``wash boards''
    by mud and snow, take a tremendous toll on our buses, resulting in
    greater maintenance and repair costs.
        Despite the small increases Congress has provided in fiscal year
    2008 and fiscal year 2009, we anticipate a continued shortfall in
    transportation funding so we will institute yet another cost savings
    measure by reducing our bus routes from five to three. While this may
    not outwardly appear to be significant, it will mean even longer bus
    rides for our students. This will undoubtedly adversely impact student
    learning since they will be weary from the longer ride to get to
    school-even in the best of weather, much less in winter or during
    storms. Sadly, this cost-cutting measure must be instituted at a time
    when our students have met AYP in all areas except Math.
        We ask for Congress's help in getting our Indian students to school
    so that they too are able to receive the type of education that
    prepares them for success in higher education and participation in the
    global economy as envisioned by the new administration. To assure that
    BIE schools do not have to ``dip'' into the education budget to provide
    basic transportation services, please fund Student Transportation at a
    level that will result in at least $3.15/mile.

    Facilities Operation and Maintenance
        The DCGS has been in operation more than 40 years, which means our
    facilities are also more than 40 years old and showing their age. The
    meager facilities operations and maintenance funding has not been
    enough to even ``keep up appearances,'' much less address the serious
    deficiencies that come with aging electrical, heating, cooling and
    plumbing systems. Last year we talked about our inadequate electrical
    system that can't support the educational technology necessary for
    today's students. This year we regret that due to insufficient funds,
    we could not alleviate the classroom climate problems resulting from
    outdated, unreliable heating and cooling systems. Nor could we address
    the even more worrisome problem of leaking sewer lines.
        The heating and cooling system problems have resulted in some parts
    of the school being very hot while other classrooms are very cold. As
    you can imagine, not only are students and staff uncomfortable, there
    are many more getting sick due to the frequent temperature changes. The
    more serious issue is the leaks in the cast iron sewer lines--which run
    under the school and the residential building. The smells alone are
    making students and staff ill, and the growing mold compounds the
    problem. Due to the funding shortage, we are not able to remediate
    these issues and, since we have had to institute a facilities personnel
    cut-back, temporary repairs take even longer to institute.
        Nearly all of our facilities operations funds must be used to pay
    basic utility costs. For the past 20 years, this budget category has
    not been fully funded. In fact, in school year 2007-2008, we were
    provided only 51.9 percent of our need amount. Since utility costs
    continue to rise, we can expect our ``need'' amount will be even
    greater. For example, in the last school year we spent nearly $200,000
    for electricity and natural gas combined, and the utility companies are
    vying to increase their rates.
        Congress appropriated $450 million in Bureau of indian Affiars
    construction funds under the American Economic Recovery and
    Reinvestment Act (Public Law 111-05), with $143.1 million allocated for
    school improvement and repairs. With so many of the BIE-funded schools
    having backlogs of necessary facility repairs, we are sure the need
    will be greater than the amount apportioned to the BIE school system.
    Therefore, we urge that Congress provide more than the $2 million
    increase requested in the fiscal year 2010 budget proposed for
    facilities operations and maintenance--to a level that will enable us
    to not only bring these facilities to a safe and healthy level, but to
    begin preventive maintenance initiatives.

    Conclusion
        It is our hope that under the leadership of the Obama
    administration and this Congress, there will be a change for the better
    for BIE-funded schools. Change that enables our school system to
    provide the type of education and services that will help our Indian
    students reach their potential. Our children's needs have been
    overlooked for far too long. We look forward to working with you on the
    fiscal year 2010 budget for the BIE.
                                     ______

     Prepared Statement of the Evansville Audubon Society, Friends of the
     Patoka River National Wildlife Refuge, Hoosier Environmental Council,
    Indiana Division Izaak Walton League, Indiana Wildlife Federation, Knox
        County Quail Unlimited, and Pike Gibson Citizens for a Quality
                                  Environment

        The undersigned organizations urge you to appropriate $1.5 million
    for land acquisition for the Patoka River National Wildlife Refuge
    (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) in southwestern Indiana.
    Appropriations for the Patoka refuge have been supported in past
    requests by Senator Richard Lugar, Senator Evan Bayh, and Congressman
    Brad Ellsworth.
        This funding would be used to acquire a 1,150-acre Peabody Coal Co.
    parcel adjacent to Snakey Point Marsh, a large and diverse wetland area
    that is part of the Patoka River National Wildlife Refuge. This land
    would be a very valuable addition to the Patoka refuge.
        The biological importance of the Patoka River National Wildlife
    Refuge is well documented. Established in 1994 with the purpose to
    restore bottomland hardwood forest habitats, the refuge's purchase
    boundary covers 22,472 acres, including 30 miles of the Patoka River,
    and at least 7,000 acres of bottomland forested wetlands, the most
    imperiled wetland type in Indiana and the American Midwest. To date,
    6,149 acres have been purchased for the refuge. Willing sellers are
    plentiful, but there has been no congressional appropriation for land
    acquisition for the Patoka since fiscal year 2005. The Peabody land has
    been available for several years, but the company has recently
    announced plans to find another buyer in fall 2009 if the U.S. Fish and
    Wildlife Service is unable to commit to its purchase by then.
        The Patoka River National Wildlife Refuge is truly one of Indiana's
    natural treasures, as well as an essential component of our national
    system of conservation lands. We believe that funding for its
    completion should be a high priority for the U.S. Congress. Please
    include an appropriation of $1.5 million in the fiscal year 2009 and/or
    fiscal year 2010 Interior, Environent, and Related Agencies
    appropriations bill.
                                     ______

         Prepared Statement of the Environmental Council of the States

        The Environmental Council of the States (States) are integral
    partners and co-regulators with the Environmental Protection Agency
    (EPA) in the implementation of the Nation's environmental laws. States
    in fact conduct on EPA's behalf most of the permitting, enforcement,
    inspections, monitoring, and data collection required by those laws. In
    this document, the States respectfully submit their budget proposal for
    the categorical grants portion of the EPA's budget that supports State,
    tribal, and local governments, known as the State and Tribal Assistance
    Grants (STAG).
        For 2010, the States request $1.992 billion for 25 categorical
    program grants for State and tribal governments.
        We present a summary of our budget justifications for the amounts
    requested. These are based on the workload that EPA has indicated it
    will expect of the States in fiscal 2010. This budget is a joint
    product of the Environmental Council of the States, the Association of
    State and Interstate Water Pollution Control Administrations, the
    Association of State Drinking Water Administrators, the Association of
    State and Territorial Solid Waste Management Officials, The Association
    of American Pesticide Control Officials, and the National Association
    of Clean Air Agencies.

    Clean Air Programs
        EPA has delegated authority for primary implementation of the
    programs authorized in the Clean Air Act to all 50 States. Recent
    annual appropriations have been approximately $200 million to $220
    million, rather than the $600 million that is needed to support these
    important programs. While significant funding increases are warranted,
    we recognize not only the many competing priorities for Federal
    assistance, but also the state of the current economic climate means
    that full funding is not viable at this time. Therefore, for fiscal
    year 2010, the States ask for a more modest increase in Federal grants
    to State and local clean air agencies under sections 103 and 105, to
    $270 million ($53 million more than fiscal year 2008 levels).
    Additionally, the States recommend that particulate matter and lead
    monitoring programs be funded under section 103 authority.
        In addition to the ongoing activities for which funding is
    inadequate, including monitoring emissions, developing emissions
    inventories, conducting sophisticated modeling of emissions impacts,
    inspecting sources of pollution, conducting oversight and enforcement,
    providing technical assistance to regulated sources and responding to
    citizens' complaints, State and local agencies will face additional
    responsibilities related to the development of State Implementation
    Plans (SIPs) for the 2006 PM2.5 revise SIPs to include a new
    interstate transport rule if the EPA replaces CAIR, designate lead
    nonattainment areas, prepare for future GHG regulation, address
    emissions of hazardous air pollutants from small, or ``area'' sources,
    necessitating significant effort and resources to address emissions and
    issue permits, as needed, for literally thousands of sources, and
    prepare for and adjust to the new MACT standard that the EPA will use
    to replace the vacated Industrial Boiler standard in the summer of 2010
    Clean Water Programs
        Section 106.--Section 106 of the Clean Water Act authorizes funding
    to the States and Interstate Commissions to assist them in preventing,
    reducing, and eliminating pollution of the Nation's waters, including
    enforcement. In a very direct way, inadequate funding adversely impacts
    the quality of the Nation's waters. EPA has not requested the increased
    funding needed for section 106 in the Federal budget process. In fact,
    the only limited requests that EPA made to increase funding over the
    past several years have been for specific new EPA initiatives. In
    addition, the critical funding shortage is more exacerbated when EPA is
    inflexible about how certain funding can be used.
        Section 319.--Nationally, Clean Water Act (CWA) Sec. 319 funds are
    used for protection and restoration efforts for water bodies primarily
    impaired by nonpoint sources. In the last 5 years, the annual
    appropriation for CWA Sec. 319 has not been sufficient to run a
    comprehensive nonpoint source program. For example, States in the
    Northeast have reported that they could utilize 100 percent to 500
    percent more Sec. 319 funding than is currently allocated to them. The
    projections are likely much larger for Midwestern States.
    Drinking Water Programs
        The categorical grant for Public Water System Supervision (PWSS) is
    the principal source of Federal funding for State drinking water
    programs to administer all of the 90+ Federal rules and requirements.
    All but one State (Wyoming) has taken on ``primacy'' obligations to
    implement the Federal rules.
        A survey of all 50 States conducted in 2004 estimated a nationwide
    gap of $360 million between the funds needed to administer their clean
    water programs and available funds.
        In addition to the ongoing need to adequately fund existing
    responsibilities and obligations, several new ``risk-based'' Federal
    rules have been promulgated in the past few years. In other words, the
    actual on-the-ground implementation of the rule needs to be tailored to
    the health risk posed at individual drinking water utilities. State
    drinking water programs are the entities that must undertake this work.
    The new lead and copper rule and the Disinfection By-Products/Microbial
    Contaminants Phase 2 Rules are the most prominent of the new
    requirements mandated by Federal Government.
        In order to implement these new requirements the States will need
    $40.7 million in addition to the fiscal year 2009 State request of
    $124.3 million. Furthermore, the States will also require $25 million
    for PWSS program activities not specifically covered by new rule
    estimates and not already addressed--these include: Small System
    Support Mechanisms, Data Management Support, and Integrating Security
    into Water Programs. With these additional costs, the total PWSS annual
    financial need of the States is $200 million.
    Waste and Related RCRA Programs
        In 2006, the States conducted a pilot program to determine the cost
    to States for implementing a complete and adequate RCRA Subtitle C
    Program (hereafter referred to as ``RCRA C'' or ``RCRA''). The report
    entitled State RCRA Subtitle C Core Hazardous Waste Management Program
    Implementation Costs--Final Report (January 2007) revealed that the
    cost to States of implementing a complete and adequate RCRA Program in
    2006 was approximately $255 million.
        A data collection project by the States shows that, for fiscal year
    2006, States contributed approximately $25 million more than the
    required cost share toward the RCRA Subtitle C Program in their efforts
    to ensure program effectiveness. Clearly, additional resources are
    needed to fully fund the RCRA C program. However, the RCRA C STAG
    appropriations have continued to fall far short of the needed level.
    Furthermore, the currently available Federal and State resources
    provide only about 74 percent of what is needed to run an effective and
    adequate RCRA C Core Program. This doesn't consider important new
    initiatives such as Sustainability and the Resource Conservation
    Challenge, and implementation of the new ``definition of solid waste
    rules.'' At a minimum, $367 million in State and Federal funding is
    needed to run State RCRA C programs (100 percent funding rather than
    the current 74 percent that was being spent by States in 2006 which was
    $255 million or $273 million in 2008 dollars). The State share should
    be at least $92 million, which is half of what the States spent in
    fiscal year 2006. In order to enable States to implement effective RCRA
    C programs, States request that $275 million be appropriated for State
    Hazardous Waste Financial Assistance grants.
        The Energy Policy Act of 2005 Public Law 109-58 (EPAct) imposed
    several significant new underground storage tank regulatory
    requirements on the States. It requires States to inspect all regulated
    underground storage tanks (USTs) every 3 years. In addition to the new
    3-year inspection cycle, EPAct also requires that States: (1) require
    operator training; (2) implement a delivery prohibition for
    noncomplying facilities; and (3) require secondary containment or
    financial responsibility for tank manufacturers and installers. All of
    these requirements impose significant fiscal burdens on the States. The
    amount appropriated for EPAct requirements is about half of what is
    needed for the 3-year inspection cycle alone. For that reason, the
    States request that a total of $63.1 million be appropriated for State
    UST programs. An increase of $29.4 million is for the Federal share of
    the 3-year inspection cycle (State share is $9.8 million) and the
    remaining $33.7 million will fund other State UST and EPAct
    requirements. Most of these funds are currently appropriated from the
    Leaking Underground Storage Tank Trust Fund, not STAG.

    Flexibility To Implement LEAN Programs
        State environmental agencies are very excited about the utility of
    LEAN exercises in reducing costs and improving service delivery. A LEAN
    process entails the review of processes for specific permitting or
    other programs that States and the EPA implement. Some States have been
    able to implement this review process to reduce the cost of
    implementing environmental programs, improve service to the public,
    improvement State-Federal relations, and even improve staff morale.
    ECOS and EPA strongly support the use of LEAN to help us meet our
    missions in a cost-effective manner. States are highly interested in
    this process, but have difficulties in finding funds to conduct these
    intensive sessions.
        In this budget request, we ask Congress' approval to allow States
    to use up to 1 percent of their categorical grant award for 2010 to
    conduct these efforts.

          A STAG CATEGORICAL GRANTS BUDGET TO MEET INCREASING REQUIREMENTS--STATE AND TRIBAL ASSISTANCE GRANTS
                                                 [Dollars in thousands]
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                       Percentage
                                                                      Fiscal year       States'       change (2009
                               Programs                              2009 enacted    proposal 2010   enacted to 2010
                                                                                                        proposal)
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Categorical Grants:
        State and Local Air Quality Management....................        $224,080        $270,300             +20.6
        Public Water System Supervision [PWSS]....................          99,100         200,000            +101.8
        Brownfields CG............................................          49,495          50,000              +1
        Hazardous Waste Financial Assistance......................         101,346         275,000            +171.3
        Underground Storage Tanks (Note 1)........................           2,500           2,550              +2
        Nonpoint Source (Sec. 319)................................         200,857         408,000            +103.1
        Pollution Control (Sec. 106)..............................         218,495         540,000            +147.1
        Pesticides Enforcement....................................          18,711          22,103             +18.1
        Pesticides Program Implementation.........................          12,970          15,321             +18.1
        Environmental Information.................................          10,000          10,000  ................
        Beaches Protection........................................           9,900           9,900  ................
        Homeland Security.........................................           4,950           4,950  ................
        Lead......................................................          13,564          29,370            +116.5
        Toxics Substances Compliance..............................           5,099           5,099  ................
        Pollution Prevention......................................           4,940           4,940  ................
        Radon.....................................................           8,074           8,074  ................
        Tribal Air Quality Management.............................          13,300          13,300  ................
        Tribal General Assistance Program.........................          57,925          57,925  ................
        Underground Injection Control [UIC].......................          10,891          10,891  ................
        Water Quality Cooperative Agreements......................  ..............           9,844  ................
        Wetlands Program Development..............................          16,830          32,000             +90.1
        Wastewater Operator Training..............................  ..............           2,000  ................
        Sector Program............................................           1,828  ..............            -100
        Targeted Watersheds.......................................  ..............  ..............  ................
        Local Government Climate Change...........................          10,000          10.000  ................
                                                                   --------------------------------
          Subtotal, Categorical Grants............................       1,094,855       1,991,567             +81.9
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Note: 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 $63.1 million in the UST fund for UST Grants. These are actual-
      year dollars, not adjusted.

                                     ______

       Prepared Statement of the Emissions Control Technology Association

        Thank you for the opportunity to submit written testimony to the
    subcommittee. My name is Tim Regan and I am 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.
        I appreciate the opportunity to discuss funding for the Diesel
    Emission Reduction Act (DERA) and to personally thank you for the
    commitment this subcommittee has repeatedly shown to funding diesel
    emission reduction programs. We are incredibly grateful for the $300
    million in funding that you included in the American Recovery and
    Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) as well as the $75 million that you
    included in the fiscal year 2009 budget for diesel emission reductions.
        The $300 million that you included in the ARRA bill will not only
    assist in cleaning the air and protecting public health, but it is also
    presents a unique opportunity to stimulate the economy in a timely and
    targeted manner.
        The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is already well on its
    way to ensuring that this funding is distributed both quickly and
    efficiently to maximize the economic benefits. Since mid-January, EPA
    has engaged in extensive outreach and communication activities
    including holding more than 50 meetings, webinars, workshops, and
    conference calls in locations across the country, which included
    briefing more than 2,000 potential grantees and providing guidance on
    how to apply for ARRA DERA funding. On March 19, EPA released its
    Request for Application (RFA) for the National Grant program, the
    Emerging Technology program and the Smartway Financing program.
    Applications for the National Grant program and the Smartway Financing
    Program were due on Tuesday, April 28, while the Emerging Technology
    program applications were due a week later on May 5.
        Just over $88 million of these ARRA funds were set aside directly
    for the States. All 50 States and the District of Columbia requested
    these funds and each was told in early March that it would be receiving
    just more than $1.7 million for reducing diesel emissions. EPA has
    already begun awarding these grants.
        As you can see, excellent progress has been made by EPA to ensure
    that these funds are prudently managed, while also being awarded
    expeditiously. As an industry, we are grateful for the sense of urgency
    expressed both by Congress in appropriating the funds and by EPA in
    administering the DERA grants.
    The Challenge
        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 Highway 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.\1\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ 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 $1 spent on the technology, $16 of economic benefit will
    be generated.\2\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ Ibid.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The challenge that we continue to face 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 more than 11 million heavy duty
    diesel engines in use today; the so-called ``legacy fleet.'' Because
    diesel engines are so durable, the existing equipment in the fleet will
    not be fully replaced until the year 2030.\3\ The best way to clean up
    the legacy fleet is to retrofit it 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.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \3\ 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. As
    you know, this subcommittee started addressing this problem as far back
    as fiscal year 2003. At that time, $5 million was appropriated to
    provide the original funding for the Clean School Bus USA program.
        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 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. These are difficult financial times. All
    Federal accounts are under stress, especially those under the
    jurisdiction of this subcommittee. But under Chairman Feinstein's
    leadership, this subcommittee has continued to approve funding for this
    extremely important and cost-effective program. We appreciate the
    subcommittee's efforts.
    The Problem
        Unfortunately, the resources available to fund diesel retrofits far
    exceeds the demand, even with the $300 million of funding included in
    the fiscal stimulus package. Despite increased funding in recent years,
    the DERA program continues to be oversubscribed. For the fiscal year
    2008 National Program grants, EPA received more than 230 proposals,
    requesting a total of more than $140 million. With $27.6 million
    available for this component of DERA, that's $5 requested for every
    available $1.
        This is not new. The DERA program has always been oversubscribed.
    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.
    Our Request and Rationale
        In light of this strong demand for funding, we respectfully request
    that the subcommittee fully fund DERA at the authorized level of $200
    million for fiscal year 2010. We believe that this proposed increased
    level of funding is reasonable and appropriate for several reasons.
        First, 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 lowest cost-per-ton of emissions reduced compared to
    a long list to other strategies for reducing emissions from the
    transportation sector.\4\ 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.\5\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \4\ See ECTA comments (February 20, 2007) in Federal Highway
    Administration Docket No. FHWA-2006-26383, http://dmses.dot.gov/
    docimages/p89/454896.pdf, http://dmses.dot.gov/ docimages/p89/
    454899.pdf
        \5\Ibid, Table 4, p. 10, http://dmses.dot.gov/docimages/p89/
    454896.pdf
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Second, DERA represents a unique opportunity to stimulate the U.S.
    economy. DERA funding targets industries undergoing significant
    dislocation and layoffs. In particular, as a study by Keybridge
    Research notes, ``the economic impact is likely to be the greatest in
    auto parts manufacturing and heavy-duty truck (e.g., school bus)
    manufacturing sectors, which have sustained job losses at nearly 9-
    times and 7-times the national rate.'' Employing a methodology based on
    the use of standard economic multipliers provided by the Bureau of
    Economic Analysis's RIMS II model, Keybridge Research concluded that
    DERA is likely to generate approximately $6 of increased economic
    output for every $1 of Federal expenditures.
        Third, 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. In other words,
    for every $1 of Government money spent, $13 of economic and health
    benefit would be generated.\6\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \6\ See Supra, Note 4. The 13 to 1 is for the Diesel Emission
    Reduction Act (DERA) while the 16 to 1 cited earlier was for new 2007
    engine technology. It is likely that the differences in these numbers
    relates to the remaining useful life of the equipment, which will
    logically be shorter for a retrofitted vehicle.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Fourth, 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, DERA has a very broad base of support. From the beginning,
    DERA enjoyed strong support from both sides of the aisle in Congress
    and from the entire range of private interests and nonprofit public
    interest groups. As evidence of this, more than 300 businesses, trade
    associations, and environmental groups cosigned a letter asking for
    $1.5 billion for DERA in the stimulus package.\7\ Few environmental
    programs enjoy such widespread support.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \7\ See DERA Coalition Letter to Senate dated January 16, 2009
    available at http://www.ectausa.com/documents/
    CoalitionLettertoSenateonERecwithadd.pdf
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   STATE AND LOCAL AIR QUALITY GRANTS (STAG)

        ECTA 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) in their
    written testimony submitted to the subcommittee. State and local
    governments hold primary responsibility for preventing and controlling
    air pollution and they rely on grants to carry out their core
    obligations under the Clean Air Act. For fiscal year 2010, 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 $270 million, which is $46 million more than the fiscal year
    2009 appropriation. We support NACAA in this request.

                                   CONCLUSION

        Thank you again for the opportunity to submit written testimony to
    the subcommittee. In closing, we urge you to fully fund DERA at $200
    million for fiscal year 2010 because it will result in the most cost-
    effective use of Federal funds to achieve emission reductions from the
    transportation sector.
                                     ______

              Prepared Statement of the Eastern Forest Partnership

        Mr. Chairman, and distinguished members of this subcommittee, we
    are grateful for the opportunity to submit testimony today on behalf of
    the member organizations of the Eastern Forest Partnership (EFP).
        The EFP is a coalition of 20 national, regional, and local
    organizations working to advance permanent protection of forests in the
    Eastern United States. The partnership seeks to raise awareness about
    the value and importance of these forests and to promote sound public
    policy in order to conserve these lands.
        We are encouraged by the proposed increases for the Land and Water
    Conservation Fund (LWCF) and the Forest Legacy Program (FLP) in the
    fiscal year 2010 budget, as well as the Obama administration's
    commitment to reach full funding for the LWCF in the next 5 years.
        However, we are concerned about the President's proposed fiscal
    year 2010 budget and its deep cuts in the U.S. Forest Service (USFS)
    LWCF program. This severe reduction will greatly hamper the program and
    reduce its capacity at a time when the opportunities and challenges are
    at their greatest.
        Protection of our natural resources has reached a critical point.
    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 USFS
    released a report, Forests on the Edge, which predicts that 44 million
    acres of private forest nationwide will be converted to nonforest uses
    by 2030. Today less than twenty per cent of eastern forests are
    permanently protected for future generations. Without a robust
    investment of both private and public funding, these forests will very
    likely be developed and lost forever.
        In every state in the nation, LWCF and FLP funds have ensured that
    all Americans have access to lands where they can hunt, fish, play
    ball, hike, bird watch, paddle, ride a bike, and picnic or take photos.
    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.

                                      LWCF

        Established in 1965, the LWCF has served the national interest as
    the primary source of Federal land conservation efforts. Through this
    fund, States throughout the country have preserved critically important
    lands including national forests, wilderness areas, historic and
    cultural sites, significant battlefields, trails, and recreation areas.
    In addition, the stateside portion of this program accounts for the
    creation of thousands of local park and recreation projects such as
    ball fields and community parks.
        The LWCF also provides funds to the Highlands Conservation Act
    (HCA). The HCA became law in 2004 and authorizes $10 million in land
    acquisition and $1 million technical assistance to the States of
    Pennsylvania, New Jersey, New York, and Connecticut. Traversing more
    than 3 million acres the Highlands provide clean drinking water, local
    food, and close-to-home recreation to the more than 25 million
    residents living within an hour's drive of this nationally significant
    landscape.
        In addition, our protected Federal lands and waterways provide an
    opportunity to address the unprecedented challenges that climate change
    poses to our forests, fish and wildlife, and riparian resources. These
    natural areas also store carbon, buffer flooding, conserve water, and
    support healthy fisheries and wildlife populations.

                                      FLP

        Established in the 1990 farm bill, the FLP is a partnership program
    that ``protects `working forests' . . . those that protect water
    quality, provide habitat, forest products, opportunities for recreation
    and other public benefits.'' To date, this program has protected more
    than 1.7 million acres in 36 States and Puerto Rico. Every Federal
    dollar invested in this program is matched 1:1 by private or non-
    Federal Government funding, making it a sound use of public resources.
        Land conservation programs such as the LWCF and FLP are needed now
    more than ever. Without these programs the widespread loss of forests
    and open spaces to development, especially in the East, will continue.
    As forests and other natural areas are cleared for development,
    significant amounts of carbon are released into the atmosphere and
    future carbon sequestration potential is lost, contributing to global
    warming. Additional investment in public land is also essential to
    protect habitat and migration corridors necessary for wildlife to adapt
    to climate change.
        We are pleased that the President's budget includes funding for the
    new Community Forest and Open Space land protection program; authorized
    as part of the 2008 Farm Bill, this new grant program will give
    communities matching funds to purchase critical forestland tracts and
    provide technical assistance through State forestry agencies for
    outstanding forest management. However, we are concerned that the
    proposed new funding appears to be coming from the FLP. While both
    programs are aimed at conserving forestland, they are distinct in their
    approach and eligibility requirements, and are intended as
    complimentary, not overlapping. We urge you to ensure that funding for
    the Community Forest and Open Space Program is not made available at
    the expense of funding for the FLP.
        As the subcommittee works to consider and establish funding levels
    for fiscal year 2010, please keep the myriad benefits of these two
    programs in mind. The LWCF and FLP have historically been the most
    significant Federal sources of funding to support land conservation,
    and park and recreation projects. These programs protect America's
    natural heritage and increase the health and quality of life for all
    Americans. We urge you to consider funding these programs at levels
    sufficient to meet the demand and therefore recommend increasing the
    funding of the Federal LWCF to $325 million, stateside LWCF to $125
    million, $125 million for the FLP, and $11 million to the HCA.
        Below is a list of specific projects recommended by our member
    organizations that we believe merit funding through these programs.
    LWCF Projects
      --CT--Stewart B. McKinney NWR ($11 million)
      --FL--Timucuan Ecological & Historic Preserve Seaton Creek I ($3
            million)
      --GA--Chattahoochee and Oconee NF ($4 million)
      --GA--Chattahoochee River NRA ($3.1 million)
      --MD--Blackwater National Wildlife Refuge ($2 million)
      --ME--Rachel Carson NWR ($3.5 million)
      --ME--Maine Coastal Islands NWR ($1.65 million)
      --NC--Uwarrie National Forest ($1 million)
      --NC--Catawba Falls Access ($750,000)
      --NH--Mahoosuc Gateway I ($1.375 million)
      --NH-ME--Umbagog NWR ($4.5 million)
      --NH-VT-CT-MA--Silvio O.Conte NWR ($2.965 million)
      --NH--Lake Umbagog National Wildlife Refuge ($5 million)
      --NJ--Great Swamp NWR ($2.4 million)
      --NJ--Wallkill River NWR ($2.8 million)
      --SC--Congaree National Park ($2.7 million)
      --TN--Rocky Fork ($13.5 million)
      --VT--Green Mountain NF ($2.25 million)
      --VT--Chateauguay--No Town ($1.25 million)
      --WV--Monongahela NF ($985,000)
    HCA Projects
      --CT--Ethel Walker, Naugatuck, and Scoville ($2.5 million)
      --NY--Greater Sterling Forest ($2.5 million)
      --NJ--Northern Highlands ($2.5 million)
      --PA--Texter Mountain ($2.5 million)
      --All States--Technical Assistance ($1 million)
    FLP Projects
      --AL--Cumberland Mountains Preserve ($637,500)
      --AR--Maumelle Water Excellence ($3.58 million)
      --CT--Tulmeadow Farm ($1.4 million)
      --CT--Wolf Hill ($600,000)
      --FL--St. Vincent Sound-to-Lake Wimico Ecosystem ($5 million)
      --FL--Northeast Florida Timberlands ($2.65 million)
      --FL--Osceola NF buffer ($1.87 million)
      --GA--Murff tract-Rayonier Forest ($4.5 million)
      --GA--Ft. Stewart ACUB 1 ($805,300)
      --MA--Monson Forest Lands ($2.3 million)
      --MA--Southern Monadnock Plateau Phase II ($3.3 million)
      --MA--Metacoment-Monadnock Forest ($1.6 million)
      --ME--Katahdin Forest Expansion ($3.7 million)
      --ME--Rangeley High Peaks ($3.5 million)
      --NH--Cardigan Highlands ($3.8 million)
      --NH--Mahoosuc Gateway II ($5 million)
      --NJ--Musconetcong and Rockaway Rivers Watersheds ($7 million)
      --NY--Follensby Pond ($7 million)
      --PA--Little Bushkill Headwaters Forest Reserve ($3.5 million)
      --PA--Greystone Forest ($355,000)
      --SC--Belfast ($2 million)
      --TN--North Cumberland Conservation Area ($9 million)
      --VT--Eden Forest ($2.2 million)
      --VT--Adams Pond ($1.6 million)
      --VA--Chowan River Headwaters ($2.24 million)
      --VA--New River Corridor ($520,000)
      --WV--Sleepy Creek ($755,000)
        Thank you for the opportunity to submit this testimony for your
    consideration.
             member organizations of the eastern forest partnership
        American Forests; Appalachian Mountain Club; Appalachian Trail
    Conservancy; Carolina Mountain Land Conservancy; Environmental Defense;
    Highlands Coalition Land Trust Alliance; Land Trust of Central North
    Carolina.
        Natural Lands Trust; National Wildlife Federation; Northern Forests
    Alliance; North Carolina Coastal Land Trust; Pinchot Institute; South
    Carolina Coastal Conservation League.
        Southern Appalachian Forest Coalition; Southern Environmental Law
    Center; The Wilderness Society; Tennessee Parks and Greenways
    Foundation; Trust for Public Land; Western Pennsylvania Conservancy.
                                     ______

             Prepared Statement of the Endangered Species Coalition

        The Endangered Species Coalition--the national network of more than
    400 conservation, scientific, religious, sporting, outdoor recreation,
    business, and community organizations--urges you to fully fund programs
    of the Endangered Species Act in fiscal year 2010. We are calling for a
    total appropriation of $391.2 million for the Fish and Wildlife Service
    (FWS) and Bureau of Land Management (BLM), as detailed in the text and
    table below.
        The Endangered Species Act (ESA) 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 ESA has been underfunded, making
    it increasingly difficult for Federal experts to carry out their
    responsibilities under the ESA. We appreciate your efforts in the
    fiscal year 2009 omnibus bill to begin to reverse this trend and we are
    calling for the funding crisis to be completed addressed over the next
    4 years. The funding levels detailed below are designed to be the next
    step in addressing this problem. Each succeeding year should have a
    steadily increasing budget to reach the fiscal year 2013 funding levels
    detailed in the chart that will allow the endangered species programs
    to be appropriately implemented and managed.

                      CORE ENDANGERED SPECIES PROTECTIONS

        Four FWS endangered species operating accounts are key to effective
    implementation of the ESA. All four program areas have reportedly
    experienced a 30 percent staffing shortage in recent years due to
    budget constraints, an unacceptable vacancy rate. To adequately
    implement the endangered species program, a total of at least $305.9
    million is needed for the four main accounts by 2013, an increase of
    $148 million more than fiscal year 2009.
        Listing.--This account funds protections by identifying new plants
    and animals in need of protection under the ESA, as well as identifying
    habitat critical for recovery. Currently, more than 250 species sit on
    the candidate list waiting 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--7 times the number that have disappeared under the full
    protection of the ESA. To eliminate this backlog over the next 4 years,
    we request a $12.7 million increase this year for a fiscal year 2010
    appropriation of $32 million.
        Recovery.--While the ESA 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 per
    year. Our coalition 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 $95 million for fiscal year
    2010, an increase of $20.4 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 FWS's work with non-
    Federal entities for permitting and development of Habitat Conservation
    Plans. Lack of funding prevents FWS 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 $75 million for fiscal year 2010 ,
    an increase of $21.5 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 annually. Our
    coalition again requests this increase be accomplished over the next 4
    years and, therefore, we request the program be funded at $15 million
    for fiscal year 2010, an increase of $4.3 million over fiscal year 2009
    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 $34.5 million this
    year for a total appropriation of $110 million in fiscal year 2010.
        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 restarted in fiscal
    year 2010. The demonstrated need for these programs has far outstripped
    available funding in the past--the amount requested for worthy projects
    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 FWS's core endangered species programs.
        BLM-threatened and Endangered Species 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
    nonwildlife-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 $12.6 million to begin meeting
    this program's needs, for a total appropriation of $33.2 million in
    fiscal year 2010.
        The ESA 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 members of the
    Appropriations Committee, to fully fund ESA programs this year. Thank
    you.

                                           ENDANGERED SPECIES-RELATED FUNDING
                                                [In thousands of dollars]
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        Fiscal year                                    Green budget
                                        Fiscal year        2010         Fiscal year   Budget request    compared to
                                       2009 omnibus     President's    2013 funding     fiscal year     fiscal year
                                           level          budget           need          2010 \1\          2009
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Fish and Wildlife Service
     candidate conservation:
        Candidate conservation......          10,670          10,592          25,400          15,000           4,330
        Listing.....................          19,266          20,103          36,500          32,000          12,734
        Consultation................          53,462          56,863          22,400          75,000          21,538
        Recovery....................          74,575          76,599         121,600          95,000          20,425
        Eco services total..........         157,973         164,157         305,900         217,000          59,027
        Cooperative endangered                75,501         100,000         160,000         110,000          34,499
         species fund...............
        Landowner incentive grants..  ..............  ..............          50,000          23,700         ( \2\ )
        Private stewardship grants..  ..............  ..............          27,000           7,300         ( \2\ )
    BLM: Threatened and endangered            20,582          26,000  ..............          33,200          12,618
     species management
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ These requests match those in the Green Budget, which is endorsed by 27 conservation and environmental
      organizations.
    \2\ Equal to fiscal year 2007 levels.

                                     ______

       Prepared Statement of the Environmental Service Research Institute

    Summary
        We respectfully request the subcommittee's support for a multi-
    year, Government-wide effort to build a national Geospatial Information
    System (GIS), led by the Secretary of the Interior through his role as
    chairman of the Federal Geographic Data Committee (FGDC) under OMB
    circular A-16, and the United States Geological Survey (USGS). The
    total cost of the program, as detailed below, is expected to be
    approximately $1.2 billion spread over 3 years. For fiscal 2010, we
    urge the subcommittee to provide $210.5 million for the portions of
    this project within your jurisdiction.

    Proposal
        The stimulus plan recently approved by Congress and the incoming
    Obama administration is an enormous undertaking to revive the American
    economy. Potentially, it will involve thousands of infrastructure and
    other projects intended to create jobs and restart economic growth
    while producing things of lasting value to American taxpayers. The
    challenge to properly manage and execute this effort will be daunting,
    requiring unprecedented access to data and information at all levels of
    government and the private sector.
        This is the moment for America to build a national GIS, that is, a
    unified, up-to-date, publiclyaccessible national digital map, enriched
    with data from all available sources, and supported by GIS technology.
    This system can be built quickly, immediately creating high-tech jobs,
    and will serve as a public resource for project planners to support
    transportation infrastructure, alternative energy research, and project
    siting. It will also provide a foundation for monitoring the U.S.
    economic recovery across our communities, allowing activities to get
    underway as soon as possible and leaving a legacy for the future.
        The benefits of a national GIS are universal. The Western
    Governor's Association declared GIS a key component of our national
    critical infrastructure. The National Geospatial Advisory Committee
    (NGAC) adopted a set of transition recommendations that represent a
    broad consensus among the key public and private stakeholders in the
    geospatial technology field and form a principal basis for this
    proposal.

    Why a National GIS Should Be Completed
        Agencies have been laying the foundation for national GIS for
    years. It falls within umbrella names like Imagery for the Nation, The
    National Map, the National Spatial Data Infrastructure, and the
    pioneering work of by the USGS, the Department of Commerce (DOC) Census
    Bureau and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the
    Departments of Homeland Security, Agriculture, and the Interior, among
    others. It is supported by technical studies from the NGAC, the
    National Research Council, the FGDC, and the National States Geographic
    Information Council (NSGIC). Now is the time to pull them together.
        GIS technology is uniquely capable of providing unity both to the
    complex new stimulus plan as well as other ongoing initiatives. GIS can
    integrate data from agencies across all levels of government, providing
    decisionmakers a powerful tool to marshal knowledge on items as diverse
    as personnel, finance, economics, infrastructure, and resources, all
    organized within maps or images showing geographic basics such as
    topography, roads, parcels, buildings, utility networks, landmarks,
    soil types, and political and physical land divisions. It brings
    together all key national datasets to support action--which is why it
    is considered a must for emergency response organizations across the
    country. A national GIS will place at our fingertips a comprehensive
    description of our Nation's assets, resources and operations, all
    linked geographically. Once completed, it will be a priceless national
    resource and an indispensable tool for planners and business alike.
        A national GIS can be built immediately, engaging hundreds of
    private firms. It will speed the start of job-rich infrastructure
    projects. Its biggest impact will be on projects critical to energy
    development, homeland security, defense, climate change, healthcare
    delivery, telecommunications, transportation, and the environment.
    Without national GIS as a management tool, efforts will be haphazard
    and project planners will be hamstrung. A national GIS must be a
    cornerstone program funded by the stimulus plan, a fulcrum to wring the
    greatest result for each $1 spent.

    Technical Fundamentals of a National GIS
        A GIS system integrates information from many sources and authors
    using standardized protocols so that information can be harmonized and
    incorporated into a consistent framework to support multiple missions
    at all levels of government and private business. It can be built and
    maintained largely using on-going business processes such as The
    National Map initiative of Interior Department's USGS, and it can rely
    heavily on existing software, hardware, and networks, integrated by a
    lead organization setting standards and protocols. Existing modern GIS
    server technology, together with open standards and Services Oriented
    Architecture (SOA), can provide enabling components for a national GIS
    immediately. This architecture maximizes collaboration among government
    and private entities. Guarantees of privacy, confidentiality,
    protection of proprietary financial data, and similar concerns can be
    built in at the foundation and at every level. This national system
    will result in the following:
      --A series of standard geographic datasets (framework layers
            described below);
      --A series of workflows that transactionally maintain (update) these
            datasets;
      --A system for data management responsibility (FGDC governance);
      --A suite of tailored applications;
      --A designated Federal entity to oversee the effort; and
      --The necessary technology to support a national GIS system.

    Leadership and Cost for a National GIS
        Both the NGAC and the Department of the Interior have developed
    detailed recommendations on how to build a national GIS. A key first
    step is to implement fully the Imagery for the Nation initiative, an
    intergovernmental plan to create a full Federal-level GIS based on
    nationwide aerial imaging and mapping, participation by agencies across
    the Federal landscape, and technological consistency.
        Next, a comprehensive national updating of mapping and
    topographical information is essential to create a complete current
    portrait of America--what is referred to as The National Map. This
    step, along with outreach to incorporate key additional databases
    maintained by State and local governments and the private sector, and
    elements such as parcels, transportation, hydro, elevation, critical
    habitat and boundaries, will be needed to make the system most
    effective for project decisionmakers and infrastructure planners. We
    anticipate the total cost to be approximately $1.2 billion, spread over
    3 years. We can provide detailed cost breakdowns upon request.
        Interagency plans, contracts, and management systems are already in
    place today to implement this initiative. Overall management could be
    provided by the Secretary of the Interior, who chairs the FGDC, with
    significant involvement from USDA, DOC, and DHS/FEMA. In addition,
    program funding can be leveraged through cooperative efforts with
    partners in State and local government and the private sector. The NGAC
    can provide ongoing strategic and recommendations program design and
    implementation.
            a national gis: key framework data and system technology
        We propose focusing on the development of five key digital layers
    or initiatives as initial steps toward a national GIS: imagery, parcel
    data, elevation, and wildlife habitat, and Recovery.gov.

    Imagery
        Imagery for the Nation (IFTN) is an intergovernmental initiative to
    address the Nation's basic business needs for aerial images. Imagery is
    used for countless applications in all levels of government and the
    private sector, embraced by the public through online tools such as
    Google Earth and Microsoft Virtual Earth. Partnerships between levels
    of government to acquire imagery data have lowered costs, reduced
    duplication, and allowed greater data standardization. IFTN will
    maximize the impact of taxpayer investments through a coordinated
    national acquisition program. The IFTN initiative was originated by the
    National States Geographic Information Council, been endorsed by the
    FGDC and the NGAC, and involves a heavy investment from the U.S.
    Department of Agriculture. The approximate 3-year total cost for this
    activity is $140 million, equally split between the Departments of the
    Interior and Agriculture. For fiscal year 2010, we urge the
    subcommittee to provide $23.4 million for Interior's component.

    Parcel Data
        Based on the National Academies of Science, National Research
    Council (NRC) recent report ``National Land Parcel Data: A Vision for
    the Future,'' the land parcel data layer (also known as cadastral data)
    is used by governments to make decisions on land development, business
    activities, regulatory compliance, emergency response, and law
    enforcement. The NRC report concludes that nationallyintegrated land
    parcel data is necessary, feasible, and affordable. Development of a
    national land parcel system would also provide an invaluable analytical
    tool to help manage the mortgage crisis. The NGAC endorsed the
    recommendations in the NRC report in October. The approximate 3-year
    total cost for this activity is $200 million for the Department of the
    Interior. For fiscal year 2010, we urge the subcommittee to provide $67
    million for Interior's component.

    Elevation
        Today, high-density digital elevation models are produced by a
    technology called LiDAR and IfSAR, an aerial mapping technology that
    provides highly accurate mapping of ground elevations. FEMA currently
    uses LiDAR data for flood mapping whenever such data are available.
    LiDAR data are also being utilized extensively in natural resource
    management, and new uses are being demonstrated for emergency response
    and homeland security purposes. An investment in a national elevation
    initiative would produce consistent elevation dataset encompassing the
    entire country. The approximate 3-year total cost for this activity is
    $300 million, equally split between the Department of the Interior and
    the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. For fiscal year
    2010, we urge the subcommittee to provide $50 million for Interior's
    component.

    Wildlife Corridor/Crucial Habitat
        The pressure for rapid economic development and increased energy
    production threatens our natural resources. The Western Governors'
    Association has recommended a Wildlife Corridor and Crucial Habitat
    Decision Support System. This system will support informed decisions on
    community growth, alternative energy expansion, biodiversity
    preservation, and resolving water resource issues. This effort will
    produce a consistent nationwide wildlife map and GIS management system.
    The approximate 3-year total cost for this activity is $110 million for
    the Department of the Interior. For fiscal year 2010, we urge the
    subcommittee to provide $36.7 million for Interior's component.

    System Technology/National Base Map
        In order to create a national GIS it is necessary to update and
    integrate the many currently existing individual agency map layers into
    a consistent, integrated whole. USGS would lead this effort and combine
    information into a consistent geospatial foundation. This component
    will, over the next 3 years, require an additional $450 million spread
    over a variety of Federal Departments and agencies, including the
    Departments of the Interior ($100 million), Agriculture ($50 million),
    Commerce ($50 million), Homeland Security ($50 million), and others
    ($200 million). For fiscal year 2010, we urge the subcommittee to
    provide $33.4 million for Interior's component.

    A GIS-based recovery.gov
        Finally, President Obama has insisted that stimulus spending be
    subject to maximum transparency and accountability, enabling citizens
    to understand how their funds are being spent and how their communities
    will be affected. Recovery.gov, the Web-based tool being launched by
    the Office of Management and Budget for this purpose, must provide
    complete, understandable, authoritative and actionable information and
    analysis to elected and appointed officials, and to ordinary citizens.
    We propose that Recovery.gov be equipped with interactive maps and
    geospatial analytic tools that will substantially improve understanding
    and effectiveness of Recovery Act execution. An interactive map
    provides an intuitive foundation to understand, integrate, and
    interrogate this disparate and overwhelming amount of information, and
    to support better and timelier analysis and decisions. The application
    of GIS technology would allow public users to access and view Recovery
    Act spending patterns against established goals and underlying local
    and national conditions. In this way, it will allow the public to
    evaluate whether the Government is making the right choices on where
    money is spent, and whether spending is yielding the right results. The
    approximate 3-year total cost for this activity is $10 million.

                                   CONCLUSION

        The key step is to get it done now. America's financial crisis
    today, the worst since the end of World War II, will force difficult
    actions and decisions. Large expenditures of taxpayer money must be
    designed to yield products of long-term benefit to the country. America
    has an information economy, and a robust geospatial infrastructure
    (system of digital maps and tools) is just as vital to its continued
    development as was the physical infrastructure to the industrial
    economy. A national GIS, properly designed and effectively implemented,
    providing public access and using best technologies, will speed
    economic recovery by producing jobs and putting shovels in the ground
    more quickly. It will also leave the country with a public utility, a
    modern geospatial information system, that itself can become a
    foundation for new generations of industries and technologies in the
    future.
                                     ______

          Prepared Statement of the Enewetak/Ujelang Local Government

        Madam Chairman and distinguished members of this subcommittee:
    Thank you for providing us this opportunity to the people of Enewetak
    to describe issues that relate to our ability to live on our homeland
    of Enewetak Atoll, which was used as a nuclear test site by the United
    States from 1947 to 1958.
        As the only people ever resettled on a nuclear test site, we face
    many challenges. Life on Enewetak Atoll is made possible through
    support provided by the congressionally funded Enewetak Food and
    Agriculture Program. That program provides funding for imported food,
    an agriculture rehabilitation program, and the operation of a vessel.
    We request that funding for that program for fiscal year 2010 be
    increased by the amount of $500,000, the same amount of increase as
    provided by Congress in fiscal year 2009. Also, we hope that this
    subcommittee will support continued funding of the health program for
    the four nuclear affected atolls of which we are one, and funding for
    the environmental monitoring by the Department of Energy of the Runit
    Island nuclear waste site which is on our atoll.
        Before we discuss the particulars of this request, we would first
    like to thank you, Madam Chairman, and members of this subcommittee, on
    behalf of the Enewetak people, for your support in funding the food and
    agriculture program for my people in the Compact of Free Association.
    We also thank you for your past support in assuring that the Enewetak
    Food and Agriculture Program is adequately funded, particularly your
    support for the $500,000 increase for fiscal year 2009 and your
    approval of our request to purchase a replacement vessel during fiscal
    year 2008 from previously appropriated program funds.
        As you know, Enewetak Atoll was the site of 43 of the 67 nuclear
    tests the United States conducted in the Marshall Islands. We were
    removed from our land by the U.S. Government to make that testing
    possible. We were exiled from our land for a period of more than 33
    years--a period in which we suffered near starvation, poor health, and
    lack of education.
        In 1980, after a significant cleanup, soil rehabilitation, and
    resettlement effort undertaken by the United States, we were able to
    return and live on only a part of our land. A large part of our land
    and environment remain contaminated making it impossible for us to rely
    on our natural food resources and preventing us from developing a
    fishing or tourist economy.
        We now live on a former nuclear test site. In fact, we are the only
    people ever resettled on a nuclear test site. The Enewetak Food and
    Agriculture Program makes life on Enewetak possible. And that is why we
    are so thankful to you for assuring funding in the minimum amount of
    $1.3 million for the program in the Compact.
        However, the program was funded at a level of approximately $1.8
    million in fiscal year 2009 and close to that amount for the past
    several years. That funding level needs to continue to maintain the
    minimum components of the program which include a soil and agriculture
    rehabilitation program, the importation of food, and the operation of a
    vessel. Therefore, we request your support for the additional $500,000
    for the program for fiscal year 2010 so that the components of the
    program will be funded in the total amount of $1.8 million, as has been
    the case these past several years.
        In 2008, we faced a challenge with regard to the transportation of
    food, material, equipment, supplies, and transport of people to and
    from our atoll. Our atoll is the most distant atoll from Majuro Atoll,
    the capital of the Marshall Islands. In fact, the distance between
    Majuro and Enewetak is 600 miles one way. All of our food, material,
    supplies, and equipment are sent to Majuro for further trans-shipment
    to Enewetak. Consequently, a reliable vessel is a lifeline for us. The
    vessel available to us up to fiscal year 2009 was so old that parts
    were difficult if not impossible to find. Therefore, we were in the
    market for a replacement vessel that would be even more suitable for
    voyages between Enewetak and Majuro than the vessel we had. We found a
    suitable vessel and greatly appreciate the approval provided by this
    subcommittee to purchase the replacement vessel from previously
    appropriated program funds. That vessel was in service as of 2008 and
    provides the necessary sea transport to support each of the components
    of the program.
        A final comment on the Enewetak Food and Agriculture Program: This
    program is a true success story. It allows us to live on our homeland
    while providing the resources which allow us to attempt to accomplish
    some of the rehabilitation required to transform part of the atoll from
    a severely damaged nuclear test site to a place that more resembles
    home. The additional $500,000 to maintain current funding levels will
    ensure the continued success of this program.
        Now we would like to briefly address the four atoll healthcare
    program. Funding for fiscal year 2010 is necessary to continue the
    program. We appreciate the funding for such program provided by the
    Congress in the amount of $1 million for fiscal year 2009. However,
    continued funding is required to maintain the key elements of the
    program which provide for an on-site physician for each of the four
    atolls, necessary medicines and supplies, funding for a health aide for
    each atoll, and funding for care of the people of the four atolls at
    the hospitals in the Marshall Islands when required.
        Lastly, we need to mention the nuclear waste site on Runit Island.
    That site was built by the United States and contains more than 110,000
    cubic yards of material including plutonium and other radioactive
    debris. This site needs to be monitored to assure the integrity of the
    structure and to assure that no health risks from the radioactive waste
    site are suffered by us. To effect the foregoing, a long-term
    stewardship program of Runit Island needs to be implemented by the
    United States.
        Again, Madam Chairman, we thank you and members of this
    subcommittee for your support which makes life possible for us on our
    home atoll of Enewetak.
                                     ______

      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 2010 appropriations. The Fond du Lac Band provides health,
    education, social, and other governmental services to 6,500 Indian
    people living on or near our reservation in northeastern Minnesota.
    These programs are essential to our ability to educate our children,
    care for our elderly and infirm, prevent crime, and protect and manage
    natural resources, but have long been under-funded.
        Bureau of Indian Education (BIE): Education.--The Fond du Lac Band
    relies on Bureau of Indian Education funding for the operation of the
    Band's pre-K through grade 12 Ojibwe School. We fully support the
    President's proposal to increase funding for Indian education as these
    increases are badly needed. The Ojibwe School serves approximately 320
    students most of whom are tribal members or descendants of tribal
    members. Most come from very low-income households; 92 percent of our
    students qualify for free or reduced-rate lunch. Although American
    Indian students are the most at-risk group of students in our Nation,
    funding shortfalls have forced us to layoff 7 FTE and reduce working
    hours for 20 education personnel. If our students are to succeed, our
    schools need a commitment of high-priority support so that we can pay
    competitive salaries to attract and retain skilled teachers; invest in
    research-based reading and math curricula; keep pace with costs of
    student transportation; and provide early childhood development
    programs.
        Increases in the BIE Indian School Equalization Program formula
    funds are critical part of this. We also support increased funding for
    school construction and repair as past funding has failed to keep pace
    with the growing backlog of Indian schools and facilities needing
    replacement or repair. Increases are also needed for both scholarships
    and student transportation. Unpredictable rising fuel costs and the
    lack of a formula that accounts for the need to replace vehicles
    creates a risk that we will not be able to provide safe and reliable
    transportation services to our students. In addition, we support the
    President's proposal to continue to fund the Johnson O'Malley program.
    This program addresses the unique educational and cultural needs of
    American Indian children attending both public and tribal schools
    through the use of Indian parent committees. Decades of research
    confirm positive results from parental involvement in student
    education.
        Finally, we ask that education programs be determined locally by
    the schools and not dictated by the central office as the schools are
    often in the best position to know what works. In this regard, we were
    very pleased to hear that the President proposes to eliminate the prior
    administration's Reading First program. We fully support that decision
    as that program had been shown to be ineffective but was still imposed
    on our schools. We urge Congress to replace failed programs with funds
    that can be targeted to effective ones as determined by the schools
    themselves.
        Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA): Public Safety and Justice.--We
    fully support the President's proposal to increase BIA funding for law
    enforcement. We also ask that Congress increase the Band's base funding
    by $2 million for court operations and law enforcement, and provide a
    one-time appropriation of $8 million to allow us to expand the facility
    that houses our law enforcement department but which is completely
    inadequate for that purpose.
        We continue to face 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 program and the BIA), 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. Prescription drug abuse is an
    epidemic. Increasing numbers of our elders and others are the victims
    of more frequent assaults and robberies that are prescription drug-
    related. Our officers are responding to a growing number of drug
    related overdoses and deaths, as well as 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 12 patrolmen, 1 investigator, 1 school resource officer
    (assigned to the Ojibwe school to try and stem the tide of juvenile
    crime), a Chief of Police, and 3 administrative staff. Our goal is to
    schedule 3 officers per shift, but we do not have sufficient funds to
    do this around the clock. Fewer officers on duty means serious safety
    issues for both officers and the people we need to protect. Our limited
    staff also means that we cannot implement pro-active measures, such as
    youth education and outreach programs, and assistance to the clinics in
    developing means for identifying and preventing prescription drug
    abuse. To effectively address law enforcement, we need approximately 20
    officers but do not have the funding for this.
        Federal funding is also vital for law enforcement equipment. To
    effectively address crime, we must periodically upgrade or replace
    patrol cars, radar equipment and car radios. We need new computer
    software to integrate the Band's dispatching system with that used by
    the counties as well as a T-1 communications line to establish a more
    secure connection to that system.
        Finally, we need a new facility for our law enforcement department.
    The department is now housed in a 6-room building which we share with
    the Band's housing program, and which has no room for investigative
    interviews, nor office space for specialty positions such as
    investigators. The evidence room and reception area are all completely
    inadequate for law enforcement purposes. A new building is essential.
        BIA: Natural Resources.--We support the President's proposal to
    increase funds for BIA Natural Resource programs. At Fond du Lac, we
    need long-term funding to pay for staff and equipment to adequately
    manage natural resources. Natural resources, both within and outside
    the reservation are essential to tribal members' subsistence, culture,
    and employment and the Band's right to access these resources was
    reserved by our Treaties with the United States in 1837 and 1854. In
    connection with these rights, the Band is responsible for managing
    natural resources and for enforcing conservation laws that protect
    natural resources and regulate tribal members who hunt, fish, and
    gather those resources within and outside the reservation. Funding is
    essential for that work. We request that $2 million be added to our
    base budget for Resource Management programs, as funds for this program
    have not been increased since 1991.
        BIA: Tribal Forestry.--Fond du Lac's forest management program has
    been funded through a self-governance compact since 1994 but funding
    for the base forestry program has remained flat and can no longer
    support the original positions of a Forest Manager and a Technician. An
    additional $69,000 is needed to fully fund the original two forestry
    positions.
        BIA: Mapping Native Plant Communities.--The Band requests $150,000
    to map native plant communities on the reservation. Mapping native
    plant communities (or Habitat Typing) is an important tool in forest
    management and in managing wildlife habitat and ecological functions.
    The Band would use these funds to do a complete inventory of the native
    plant communities cross referenced with an index of important Ojibwa
    plants. The inventory and maps would be made available to the Fond du
    Lac public through the Internet. Knowledge of the distribution of
    native plant communities will help managers determine appropriate
    future habitats.
        BIA: Circle of Flight.--We also urge Congress to restore funding to
    the Circle of Flight Tribal Wetland & Waterfowl Enhancement Program.
    Congress did not fund this program in fiscal year 2009 appropriations.
    Circle of Flight has been one of Interior's best performing trust
    natural resource programs. In 2008, Fond du Lac was able to use funds
    from this program to restore 41 acres of wild rice habitat in
    partnership with Minnesota, the Fish and Wildlife Service, and the
    USDA. The preservation and restoration of wetlands are important in
    providing flood control, clean water and recreation, benefiting tribes
    and other residents up and down the Mississippi Flyway.
        BIA: Human Services.--We urge Congress to increase funding for
    Human Services programs including those funded through TPA, such as the
    Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) program. Increases are needed to
    address the impact that the methamphetamine epidemic has on not only
    public health and safety, but also on child protection, child welfare
    and foster care services. Increased funding for Social Services and
    ICWA programs are essential if tribes are to have any realistic hope of
    protecting Indian children, preventing domestic violence, and fostering
    Indian families.
        Indian Health Service (IHS).--We support the President's proposed
    increase in funding for IHS. This increase is essential to address the
    high rates of medical inflation and the substantial unmet need for
    healthcare 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. While other Federal programs, like Medicare and Medicaid, have
    seen annual increases in funding 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 healthcare 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.
        Environmental Protection Agency (EPA): Tribal Air Quality
    Management.--We urge Congress to increase funding for Tribal air
    quality management. We have operated an air quality monitoring program
    since 1999, and the demands on our program have increased over time. A
    growing number of large industries are located within 60 miles of the
    reservation and impact our air quality. These include Excelsior Energy
    (a coal-gasification plant), Minnesota Steel (new taconite plant),
    Polymet (Cu-Ni mine), Enbridge pipeline expansion, Mittal Steel
    (taconite plant), and U.S. Steel-Keetac (taconite mine expansion).
    Because of this, we test for mercury and operate ambient monitors for
    nitrous oxides, ozone, and fine particulate matter. In addition, we run
    indoor air programs on lead, radon, and mold and provide outreach
    services to tribal members. Demand for the indoor air programs is
    increasing with new housing construction on our reservation.
        Unpredictable funding and, in particular, funding reductions are
    very disruptive to a program's success. As a result of a 25 percent
    funding cut in 2008, we lost experienced staff. We are also concerned
    that there may be less money available for Tribal Air Program grants
    through our region (region 5) in 2009, which may force further cuts.
    Given the critical need to protect reservation air quality, we urge
    that fund levels for Tribal Air Quality programs be increased.
        EPA: Clean Water and Drinking Water Programs for Tribes.--We
    support the President's proposal to increase funding for Clean Water
    and Drinking Water Programs and urge that these include increases to
    the funding for tribally administered programs The Fond du Lac Band
    administers a water quality program within the reservation. Forty-four
    percent of the lands within our reservation are wetlands which, in
    turn, support many natural resources on which our tribal members depend
    for subsistence--wild rice, fish, wildlife, and culturally important
    plants. These resources, however, are being adversely affected by
    mining activities which, although outside the reservation, directly
    affect the watersheds upstream of the reservation. Current program
    funding levels are not sufficient to support surface water quality and
    wetland program implementation. And additional funding is needed to
    conduct the necessary environmental reviews, water quality tests,
    mapping, and analysis to enable us to identify environmental impacts of
    proposed projects outside the reservation on tribal resources, so that
    we can provide recommendations on project planning, mitigation, and
    alternatives to avoid adverse environmental impacts.
        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 Alaska National Wildlife Refuges

        Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee: On behalf of the
    Friends of Alaska National Wildlife Refuges, I wish to express our
    appreciation for the opportunity to provide this statement concerning
    the fiscal year 2010 appropriations for the National Wildlife Refuge
    System (NWRS). We urge adoption of a funding level of $514 million for
    fiscal year 2010 for the NWRS, the amount advocated by the Cooperative
    Alliance for Refuge Enhancement and the House National Wildlife Refuge
    Caucus. This funding level will help to address recent reductions of
    staffing and programs vital to ensuring the NWRS's wildlife and habitat
    conservation mission and will put the NWRS on the path to reach
    adequate baseline funding of $765 annually by fiscal year 2013.
        The Alaska Friends is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization composed
    of individuals who reside throughout the State of Alaska and many lower
    48 States. We work on a volunteer basis to assist the U.S. Fish and
    Wildlife Service (FWS) to accomplish their congressionally mandated
    mission for the 16 Alaska National Wildlife Refuges. The Alaska Refuges
    encompass more than 77 million acres and comprise approximately 83
    percent of the lands in the NWRS, but they receive approximately 12
    percent of the total budget for the NWRS.
        We appreciate the foresight of your subcommittee in successfully
    spearheading the critically needed budget increases for fiscal year
    2008 and fiscal year 2009 to the current level of $463 million.
    However, a funding level of $514 million for fiscal year 2010 is needed
    to avert continuing reductions in personnel and operations. Every year,
    the FWS needs at least a $15 million increase just to maintain current
    personnel and operations, and that is likely to increase as energy
    costs and inflation rise. In response to past budget shortfalls, FWS
    has been forced to downsize and eliminate staff, resulting in
    completely destaffing scores of refuges and requiring: remote
    management of many refuges; major reductions in visitor services,
    wildlife and habitat management, conservation, and restoration;
    diminished hunting and fishing opportunities; limited ability to
    control damaging invasive species; curtailment of environmental
    education programs; and reductions in law enforcement.
      --The NWRS tracks its backlog of needs in two major areas:
        Deferred Maintenance.--Needs associated with maintaining
    constructed assets, such as administrative and visitor buildings,
    roads, levees, water control structures, visitor facilities, and
    underground water lines. This work is considered ``deferred'' because
    it is overdue and funding resources are not currently available to
    complete the work.
        Operations.--Needs associated with the annual operation of a refuge
    in all respects. These include staffing needed to manage habitat,
    provide law enforcement, provide services to visitors, and maintain
    assets. These needs can also be contracts or projects, such as
    controlling invasive species, monitoring habitat, restoring wetlands,
    and developing an environmental education curriculum. These needs are
    calculated in dollars as well, but it can be in the context of staff
    salaries, contracts, or supplies and materials needed to complete
    projects.
      --The NWRS's deferred maintenance backlog tracked in the Service
            Asset and Maintenance Management System database has hovered
            around $2.5 billion for the past few years.
      --The NWRS's operations backlog is tracked in the Refuge Operating
            Needs System database (RONS). For several years the operations
            backlog has hovered around $1 billion, and a portion of that $1
            billion has been assigned a higher-priority status called
            Mission Critical. For the past few years the Mission Critical
            part of the backlog was approximately $335 million. When
            refuges updated their highest-priority needs in RONS in late
            2008, the Mission Critical part of the backlog grew to $355
            million.
      --The increase in the Mission Critical backlog is primarily due to
            the addition of refuges and the use of models that more
            accurately predict staffing needs. However, the backlog figures
            do not reflect the needs for 50 million acres recently added to
            the NWRS through the designation of the three new marine
            monuments (Rose Atoll, Mariana Trench, and Pacific Remote
            Islands).
        As of January 2009, the RONS projects in Alaska Refuges totaled
    $272 million. Alaska's wildlife refuges have special management and
    budgetary needs because they occupy a unique place within the NWRS.
    This is clearly illustrated by the Alaska Maritime Refuge, which is
    headquartered in Homer. Spread out along most of Alaska's 47,000 miles
    of coastlines, the Maritime Refuge includes some 2,500 islands, islets,
    pinnacles, active volcanoes, and headlands that are home to 40 million
    seabirds (80 percent of all seabirds in North America) and significant
    populations of marine mammals, including fur seals, otters, whales, and
    Steller sea lions. The Maritime Refuge stretches from Forrester Island
    in the southeastern corner of Alaska north to Point Barrow on the
    Arctic Ocean and west to Attu Island at the end of the Aleutian Chain
    in the Eastern Hemisphere. The distances are daunting; traveling east
    to west across the Refuge is approximately the same distance as a trip
    from the Atlantic Coast of Georgia to the Pacific Coast of California,
    and logistically much more complex and expensive.
        Management and monitoring of the far-flung Maritime Refuge is a
    prodigious and costly task. This requires long-term scientific studies
    and monitoring of populations, habitat, and trends in the ocean
    environment; eradication of destructive invasive species, such as
    farmed foxes, rats, and invasive plants; restoration of habitat damaged
    by cattle, horses, and the increasing threat of oil spills; and
    restoration of native species exemplified by the successful 20-year
    effort that brought the Aleutian cackling goose back from the brink of
    extinction. The Maritime Refuge's 120-foot research vessel Tiglax
    travels up to 22,000 nautical miles in a single year to support such
    activities. These types of activities on Alaska's refuges require
    substantial resources in terms of personnel, equipment, travel, fuel,
    supplies, and maintenance. Thus, any direct or indirect reductions in
    budgets can have severe effects on the management capability of
    Alaska's refuges and long-lasting impacts on the wildlife and habitat
    that play a central role in the biological health of the entire
    continent.
        To effectively manage the Alaska Refuges, the Alaska region has
    adopted a goal of devoting 30 percent of its budget to Management
    Capability (MC) and 70 percent to personnel, as compared to a national
    target of 20 percent and 80 percent, respectively. This greater
    allocation to MC is necessitated by the inherently higher costs of
    equipment, such as boats and airplanes rather than trucks, higher fuel,
    and other utility costs for the more remote offices and stations
    located in Alaska Refuges, and higher costs of repairs and maintenance
    of equipment and buildings in the many remote areas. For example, in
    2006 the Tiglax required $98,000 and refuge aircraft required $506,000
    in fuel with major increases in the past 2 years, and remote refuge
    offices pay a premium to operate in rural Alaska.
        In recent years, budget reductions and lack of funding to meet
    increased costs of operations and maintenance caused by inflation have
    placed a great strain on these resources. This led to continuing staff
    reductions to maintain the MC level that is necessary to implement the
    basic programs of the 16 Alaska Refuges. For 10 years, the Alaska
    region has been actively working to maintain its MC at 30 percent.
    Since 1999, it has made ``full inflation offsets'' a top priority. When
    the RONS increases began to dwindle in 2003, the Alaska region began
    the process of abolishing positions and using the savings to fund
    inflation offsets. During fiscal year 2005 through 2007, downsizing
    resulted in the elimination of 29 positions, including assistant
    managers, education specialists, and biologists, and the salary savings
    were rolled into inflation offsets for all 16 Alaska Refuges.
        The 16 Alaska Refuges provide a myriad of opportunities to more
    than 1.3 million visitors each year. There are summer science camps and
    local environmental education programs, mainly in rural areas and
    native communities and schools; outstanding recreational opportunities,
    such as fishing, hunting, hiking, boating, wildlife viewing, and
    photography; important subsistence activities that support the
    traditional lifestyles of Alaska Natives and other rural residents;
    partnering with native corporations and local governments that provide
    valuable experiences and job opportunities, such as Refuge Information
    Technicians; and cooperative programs and matching grants with the
    Alaska Friends to conduct rural outreach and environmental education
    programs and to remove invasive species that threaten the health and
    integrity of refuge ecosystems. The contribution of refuges to local
    economies is illustrated by the Kenai Refuge where every $1 spent by
    the Refuge produces almost $15 in local recreational expenditures and
    more than $12 million in local tax revenues.
        Invasive plant species are advancing northward and threatening the
    habitats of Alaska Refuges. With 50 percent cost-share funding for the
    3 years, Alaska Friends volunteers have removed invasive species
    affecting six Alaska refuges. In conjunction with these activities, we
    organized public meetings to inform the local populace about their
    refuges and the opportunities and challenges they provide. This year,
    we have several similar projects underway. Without matching funding,
    these volunteer programs could not continue the work to protect our
    valuable wildlife habitats from destructive invasives.
        In addition to the traditional refuge programs and activities, the
    Alaska Refuges are uniquely situated to contribute information and
    expertise to major national and worldwide problems. The mounting
    scientific evidence of global warming has shown that northern Alaska is
    experiencing far greater impacts than other regions. The rate of
    temperature increase in Alaska is twice that of the lower 48 States.
    Coastlines, nesting areas, and villages are being severely damaged by
    the decreasing size of polar icepacks and the longer ice-free periods,
    which increase the severity and destructiveness of coastal storms.
    Homes, offices, and other structures are being destroyed by the melting
    of permafrost, and plant and animal species are advancing northward to
    areas where they have been unknown in human history. These changes not
    only interfere with the subsistence way of life of rural Alaskans, but
    they impede and increase the costs of refuge research, management, and
    maintenance. Given adequate budgetary support, the Alaska Refuges can
    provide extremely valuable biological and climatological studies and
    monitoring to increase our understanding of the processes and hopefully
    design and implement mitigation projects to reduce the impacts of
    global climate change.
        The Alaska Refuges are also on the frontlines of potential
    transmission of avian influenza by migratory birds from Asia. Since a
    major portion of these populations depends on refuge habitats during
    migration and breeding, early detection can be improved by monitoring
    programs conducted within the refuges. There is presently some funding
    available to support such monitoring programs, but continued or
    increased funding may be necessary to provide adequate early warning
    capability.
        Failure to increase the budget of the Alaska National Wildlife
    Refuges will result in:
      --reduced subsistence and recreational opportunities;
      --fewer visitor services;
      --loss of important environmental education and science camps,
            especially for children and youth in rural native villages;
      --increased maintenance backlogs;
      --reduction of important scientific studies, such as wildlife
            population and habitat monitoring and enhancements that assist
            in understanding global climate change and avian influenza; and
      --overall degradation and decay of the NWRS and public enjoyment of
            the resources
        Finally, the Alaska Friends is strongly opposed to a provision
    included in the 2009 Public Lands Omnibus bill that may result in a
    land exchange for a road through the Izembek National Wildlife Refuge,
    Alaska. We believe that the $37.5 million Congress appropriated in 1998
    for a solution to the transportation needs of the town of King Cove has
    already addressed the town's health and safety needs by resulting in:
    an upgraded medical clinic; purchase of a state-of-the-art hovercraft
    that has met every medical evacuation need since it became operational
    in February 2007, and construction of a marine terminal and road to
    access the terminal. We urge the subcommittee to prohibit funds for
    activities that would advance a road, and feel it is particularly
    difficult to rationalize this questionable expenditure given the budget
    shortfalls the FWS is facing.
        We urge you to adopt the recommended $514 million appropriation for
    the NWRS which will allow necessary programs to be maintained and
    enhanced for our magnificent National Wildlife Refuges. We have an
    obligation to provide future generations the same opportunities to
    learn and benefit from our NWRS that all of us enjoy today.
                                     ______

                 Prepared Statement of the Friends of Back Bay

        I am Molly Brown from Virginia Beach, Virginia. I am the President
    of Friends of Back Bay, a group of more than 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 (FWS) 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 2010. 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. This continuing project was first funded by Congress in 1990.
    With only a few remaining parcels to purchase, we hope Congress will
    want to see this Back Bay project completed.
        The enclosed map gives a visual description of the acquisitions
    through 2008 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.--Twenty-six 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.--One hundred five 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.--Fifteen 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.--Eight 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 nearby
    tree.
        This March the Back Bay Restoration Foundation is conducting its
    8th annual Back Bay Forum 2009. There were 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. Scientists stated that
    conditions are improving since last year. The water clarity is better
    and vital underwater grasses are growing again. Large numbers of ducks
    are coming back. The local hunters had a very successful season.
        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 more
    than 78 percent completed in 17 years. Thank you for the opportunity to
    comment on this important project.
                                     ______

       Prepared Statement of the Friends of Blackwater National Wildlife
                                     Refuge

        Mr. 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 Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies concerning
    the fiscal year 2010 budget for the National Wildlife Refuge System
    (NWRS). We respectfully request that the subcommittee support the
    following funding levels:
      --$514 million in fiscal year 2010 for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
            Service's (FWS) NWRS Operations and Maintenance (O&M) account;
      --$60 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;
      --$900 million over the next 5 years, as President Obama has
            requested for the Land and Water Conservation Fund, and for
            fiscal year 2010, $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 NWRS 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 NWRS to avoid further employee layoffs and reductions in
    services that are important at the Blackwater NWR, and the more than
    150,000 who visit the Blackwater NWR each year, while also preventing
    the approximately $3.5 billion NWRS O&M backlog from growing larger.
    While refuges received an increase for fiscal year 2009, 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 FWS, recreational
    visits to national wildlife refuges generate substantial economic
    activity. Nearly 35 million people visited national wildlife refuges in
    2006, generated more than $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 nonresident
    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 economic depression with which the
    Nation is currently struggling.
        While providing adequate funding to operate and maintain the NWRS
    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 2010 we respectfully ask that the
    subcommittee appropriate $60 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 Interior, Environment,
    and Related Agencies should provide strong funding for Refuge System
    Visitor Services programs and visitor facility enhancement projects.
    Visitor services funding pays for many Friends and volunteer programs.
    We depend on this funding for programs that allow us to remain
    effective stewards of our refuge.
        Recognizing invasive species as a top threat to our refuge lands,
    we also ask the subcommittee to continue their support by again
    providing $1 million ``for cooperative projects with Friends groups 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 NWRS and FWS.
        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, NWRS
    land acquisition backlog is estimated at more than $4 billion, with
    more than 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 NFWF
    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.
                                     ______

                Prepared Statement of Friends of Congaree Swamp

        Madam Chairman and members of the subcommittee: We appreciate this
    opportunity to present testimony in support of an appropriation of
    $2.69 million from the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF)--to
    enable the National Park Service (NPS) to complete acquisition of the
    1,840-acre Riverstone tract for Congaree National Park in South
    Carolina.
        Congaree Swamp National Monument was authorized as a NPS unit in
    1976. In 2003, Public Law 108-108 elevated Congaree to a National
    Park--South Carolina's 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 are
    designated outstanding resource waters, and much of Cedar Creek within
    the park is designated outstanding national resource waters. Congaree
    River Blue Trail, bordering the park for more than 25 miles, is a
    national recreation trail.
        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 highest temperate deciduous
    forest canopies in the world--higher 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 LWCF
    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. NPS purchased the
    Bates Fork tract in November 2005.
        Fiscal year 2010 presents the opportunity to complete acquisition
    of 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 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 purchase price of the Riverstone property is $5.88 million,
    based on a federally approved appraisal. Recognizing the Riverstone
    tract as a key priority for acquisition, the NPS identified and
    committed $500,000 in existing funds in May 2008 toward purchasing this
    tract. Accordingly, the NPS's funding shortfall became $5.38 million.
        Public Law 111-8 (the recent Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2009)
    allocated $2.69 million to Congaree National Park--the first half of
    the $5.38 million needed to complete Riverstone acquisition for
    Congaree National Park.
        We are delighted that President Obama's fiscal year 2010 budget
    recognizes the Riverstone acquisition at Congaree National Park as a
    national priority for the NPS. However, to complete the second and
    final phase of the acquisition in fiscal year 2010, the project needs
    an LWCF appropriation of $2.69 million, rather than the $1.32 million
    included in the administration's budget proposal. For fiscal year 2010,
    please allocate $2.69 million to enable the NPS to complete Riverstone
    acquisition, thereby permanently protecting the tract's 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 Rachel Carson NWR

        Madam Chairman and honorable members of the subcommittee: I thank
    you for the opportunity to present to the subcommittee testimony in
    support of the acquisition of the 110-acre Timber Point property at the
    Rachel Carson National Wildlife Refuge in Biddeford and Kennebunkport,
    Maine. An appropriation of $3.5 million from the Land and Water
    Conservation Fund (LWCF), to be matched by an equal amount of private
    funds, is needed to protect this exceptional coastal property. I also
    support a funding level of $514 million in fiscal year 2010 for the
    U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's (FWS) National Wildlife Refuge System
    Operations and Maintenance (O&M) account.
        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 FWS, 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 FWS 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.
        The Refuge is unique to the fact that its acquisition zone and land
    division ownership is distributed in more than 11 different towns,
    villages, and cities, therefore creating uncommon municipal
    partnerships with the Federal Government acting through the local
    refuge headquarters in Wells, Maine. In the Timber Point Initiative, we
    have working partnerships established with the town of Kennebunkport
    and its Selectmen, the city of Biddeford and its Mayor and Conservation
    Commission, the Kennebunkport Conservation Trust, National and Maine
    Audubon, the National Wildlife Refuge Association and the Trust for
    Public Land, to name a few. The importance of community involvement and
    cooperation is crucial to the success of this urgent project. Available
    for immediate acquisition from a single willing-seller landowner in
    fiscal year 2010, the 110-acre Timber Point tract is 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 WS 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 more than 2.25 miles of
    undeveloped coastline, an enormous amount for southern Maine. Unlike
    much of the State's southern coastal areas, Timber Point' 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. On occasion, there are bald eagles and seahawks
    (ospreys) nesting on both the island and peninsula.
        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 FWS 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 $3.5 million for the
    Rachel Carson NWR in fiscal year 2010 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.
        I also respectfully request a substantial increase in overall
    funding for the LWCF, specifically urging the subcommittee to provide
    $325 million for the Federal LWCF in the fiscal year 2010 Interior,
    Environment, and Related Agencies appropriations bill. I applaud the
    LWCF funding increases provided by this subcommittee in fiscal year
    2009. And, we are most thankful that the Obama administration budget
    recognizes the importance of these programs by proposing significant
    increases for fiscal year 2010 and setting a goal to achieve full
    funding of the LWCF in the next 5 years. The LWCF should be fully
    funded at $900 million annually--the congressionally authorized level.
        The LWCF is our Nation's premier program to acquire and protect
    lands in national parks, national wildlife refuges, national forests,
    Bureau of Land Management units and other Federal land systems. This
    program faces an extensive and growing backlog of land acquisition
    needs across the Nation. Public lands provide innumerable social and
    economic benefits including a healthy lifestyle, protection of
    watersheds and drinking water supplies, wildfire reduction and
    prevention, and assistance to wildlife and fisheries as they adapt to
    climate change. We urge you to renew this wise investment in America's
    natural heritage and take steps to toward full and consistent funding
    of these vital programs.
        With a $3.5 million appropriation for the Timber Point Project, a
    regional collaboration between the public and private sector will only
    enhance Governor Baldacci's Quality of Place Initiative that he put
    forth last year. This would be a fantastic story for protecting crucial
    habitat for the wildlife at Rachel Carson NWR.
        Thank you again, Madam Chairman, for the opportunity to present
    this testimony in support of this important project.
                                     ______

            Prepared Statement of the Friends of the Columbia Gorge

        Thank you for the opportunity to submit written public testimony in
    support of public land acquisition projects in the Columbia River Gorge
    National Scenic Area. Friends of the Columbia Gorge is requesting an
    appropriation of $6 million from the Land Water Conservation Fund to
    allow the United States Forest Service (USFS) to purchase land with a
    high conservation value. The requested funding will go a long way to
    protect a number of identified high-priority properties totaling 2,191
    acres in the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area. This project is
    authorized by the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area Act, Public
    Law 99-663, section 16 (a).
        Friends of the Columbia Gorge (Friends) is a nonprofit group with
    approximately 5,000 members who live in the Columbia River Gorge, the
    States of Oregon and Washington and across the country. We are
    dedicated to the protection and enhancement of the scenic beauty and
    natural and cultural heritage of the Columbia River Gorge. Friends
    works to promote responsible stewardship of Gorge lands and waters and
    encourage public ownership of sensitive areas. Throughout the year,
    Friends leads more than 70 hikes and stewardship events that are open
    to the public.

    Introduction
        The Columbia Gorge, shared and cherished by both Oregon and
    Washington, is truly one of America's natural scenic treasures. As the
    only sea-level passage through the Cascade Mountain range, the Columbia
    River Gorge has 5 distinct ecosystems. These ecosystems support more
    than 800 species of flowering plants, including 16 that are found
    nowhere else in the world, more than 300 species of birds and provides
    critical habitat for threatened fish and wildlife, such as the western
    pond turtle, Larch Mountain salamander, western gray squirrel,
    steelhead, Chinook, coho, and chum salmon.
        The Gorge has been inhabited by humans for at least 11,000 years.
    Important cultural resources are found throughout the Gorge, including
    a high concentration of Native American rock carvings and paintings,
    called petroglyphs and pictographs, in the eastern end of the Gorge.
    Several tribes retain treaty rights in the Gorge, including the
    preservation of hunting, fishing, and gathering rights on the lands
    ceded to the United States in their respective treaties. In addition,
    the Gorge ranks as the most recognizable natural site along the Lewis &
    Clark trail.
        In 1986, Congress and the States of Oregon and Washington
    recognized the outstanding scenic beauty and natural and cultural
    heritage of the Gorge by designating it as a National Scenic Area. The
    Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area Act (Act) was passed ``to
    protect and provide for the enhancement of the scenic, cultural,
    recreational, and natural resources of the Columbia River Gorge'' and
    to encourage economic growth in nearby urban areas. Today, driving east
    from Portland or Vancouver toward the Columbia Gorge, through miles of
    subdivisions and strip development, one passes the National Scenic Area
    Boundary and is awestruck by the instantaneous transition from an urban
    to a rural setting. The Scenic Area protects nearly 300,000 acres in
    both Oregon and Washington and receives hundreds of thousands of
    visitors annually.

    Land Acquisition
        Although The Columbia River Gorge Scenic Area enjoys national
    protection, preservation of its outstanding natural and scenic
    resources requires proactive management. Section 9(a) of the act,
    created a unique regulatory scheme, which allows conservation in
    partnership with private landowners. The Act also recognized that some
    lands should be in public ownership and that some landowners would
    prefer to sell their property rather than fall under Scenic Area
    regulations, or to insure its future protection. The desire to conserve
    key properties and to provide regulatory relief to landowners led
    Congress to create this special land acquisition program. The act
    further specifies that if the USFS does not acquire land offered by
    sellers within 3 years of an offer, then the land changes to a General
    Management Area (GMA) designation, which is less restrictive, giving
    landowners more flexibility and making it more likely that these lands
    will be logged, mined, or developed.
        Since 2001, more than 4,000 acres of ``high-priority'' private land
    worth an estimated $35 million have been offered for sale to the USFS,
    yet Congress has only appropriated $17.5 million to date.

    Fiscal Year 2010 Request
        USFS's Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area office has
    expressed the need for $6 million in fiscal year 2010 to carry out its
    land-acquisition activities. Currently, USFS has identified 10
    properties in 4 counties located in Oregon and Washington for
    acquisition in fiscal year 2010. The public purchase of these
    properties would protect some of the most scenic Gorge views and
    provide future recreation opportunities, both of which are key to
    maintaining the economic health of local communities. Many of these
    properties are threatened by logging, mining, or development and our
    opportunity to preserve these critical lands could be lost forever.
    This appropriation will go far in supporting willing land sellers and
    protecting this important national treasure.

    Conclusion
        Funding land acquisition in the Gorge is important for three
    reasons. First, these offers represent a commitment to landowners by
    the Federal Government. Second, these lands have critical scenic,
    natural, cultural and recreational values that need to be conserved.
    Finally, these acquisitions are part of the overall strategy to ensure
    that the Columbia River Gorge is a good place to live, work, and visit.
        Funding land acquisition in the National Scenic Area fulfills the
    commitment Congress made in 1986 when they passed the Columbia Gorge
    National Scenic Area Act to protect and enhance the natural, scenic,
    cultural and recreational resources of the Gorge. Please consider our
    request of $6 million to ensure that the Gorge remains a place apart
    for future generations to enjoy.
        Thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony supporting
    public land acquisition in the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic
    Area.
                                     ______

     Prepared Statement of the Friends of Wertheim National Wildlife Refuge

        I am submitting testimony to the Senate Interior, Environment, and
    Related Agencies Appropriations Subcommittee on behalf of Friends of
    Wertheim National Wildlife Refuge. We support a funding level of $514
    million in fiscal year 2010 for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's
    (FWS) National Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS). The $514 million accounts
    for cost-of-living increases for FWS personnel, while maintaining
    current levels of visitor services and wildlife management. Funding
    NWRS at $514 million would allow the NWRS 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 NWRS for
    future generations.
        We ask the Senate Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies
    Appropriations Subcommittee to provide strong funding for Refuge System
    Visitor Services programs and Visitor Facility Enhancement Projects. In
    the last few years many refuges have lost staff due to insufficient
    funding. This has resulted in loss of protection, maintenance, and care
    of the most valuable assets we have in the United States. Visitor
    Services funding pays for many Friends and volunteer programs. The
    Friends depend on this funding for programs that allow us to remain
    effective stewards of our refuge.
        Recognizing invasive species as a top threat to our refuge lands,
    we also ask the subcommittee to continue their support ``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 NWRS and U.S. Fish and
    Wildlife Service (FWS).
        Friends of Wertheim NWR feels that the NWRS deserves $514 million
    in Federal funding for fiscal year 2010 because FWS 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 FWS 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 NWRS is compared to the entire national
    spending it is not even a ``blip on the radar screen''. The NWRS 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 2010
    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
    backlog. Only by being ``faithful stewards'' of all of the NWRS in the
    United States will we ensure that they will be here for our children
    and our children's children. This is why we ask that you support our
    NWRS with adequate funding, $514 million for fiscal year 2010. On
    behalf of Friends of Wertheim NWR we thank you for your consideration
    of our request.
                                     ______

       Prepared Statement of Friends of Wallkill River National Wildlife
                                    Refuges

        Dear Madam Chair and honorable members of the subcommittee: I am
    grateful you are holding public witness day, once again. I am
    requesting $514,000,000 for all National Wildlife Refuges for
    operations and maintenance, for fiscal year 2010. I would also like to
    request emergency funding, now, for the United States Fish and Wildlife
    Service and United States Geological Survey (USGS), to address the
    White Nose Bat Syndrome (WNS) crisis: $2,500,000. For my own refuge,
    Wallkill River National Wildlife Refuge, I request $3,280,000 for land
    acquisition.
        In these trying economic times it seems arrogant to ask for funds
    for National Wildlife Refuges (NWR), something that might seem a
    luxury. In fact our NWRs are a necessity. The United States Fish and
    Wildlife Service (USFWS) are the people we have charged with protecting
    and preserving our most sensitive habitats and wildlife. These are the
    people who monitor and manage the wildlife and environment for current
    and future generations of Americans. Today, they face challenges that
    were inconceivable 20 years ago.
        I would like to draw your attention to some very serious trends in
    occurring in our environment, the ramifications of which are beyond
    frightening This is not alarmism; its the reality of globalization. We
    are seeing plagues of fungi and other pathogens wreaking devastating
    mortality in our environment. In the late 1980's, a fungus called
    Chytrid started killing off amphibians in Costa Rica, now it has spread
    all over this country, South America, and parts of Europe and Africa.
    In 2006, we saw colony collapse among the honey bees. Also in 2006, a
    killing fungus got a foot hold on the cave dwelling bat species in the
    caves near Albany, New York. This flesh eating fungus has now been
    confirmed as having killed tree dwelling bats as well, meaning all bat
    species are vulnerable. This fungus thrives in the cool, dark, damp
    climate of caves and abandoned mines. Now that fungus, called WNS has
    spread like wild fire and we are seeing 95-100 percent mortality of
    several species of bats in 10 States. This has destroyed cave dwelling
    bat populations from New Hampshire, south to West Virginia. These
    plagues are just the tip of the iceberg, the first clear warnings of
    what will affect the human populace sooner or later. Scientists fear
    extinction of many bat species if we can not stop this within a year. I
    encourage you to attend USFWS and USGS briefings May 1.
        USFWS and the USGS are the Federal Emergency Management Agency
    (FEMA) of the environmental world. These agencies have been
    understaffed for far too long and now we are seeing the ramifications.
    We have acted as if the environment were a luxury we could ignore.
    Instead we are seeing just the beginning pathogens and invasive species
    that can travel anywhere humans do. These are the agencies we entrust
    to research and manage invasive species and endangered species. They
    don't have the manpower or the funding to even begin to address these
    catastrophes, spreading beyond control. We are in this situation
    because we undervalued science and how the environment affects human
    quality of life. We know very little about these aggressive fungi and
    pathogens, how long before one arrives that wreaks havoc on the human
    populace? We don't know the answer to that or how climate change will
    affect the environment and impact on human life. We all assume there
    are omniscient scientists lurking somewhere keeping us all safe; the
    somebodies that: ``somebody should do something'' is referring to. They
    aren't there, we didn't hire them, we didn't see that funding as a wise
    investment in the well being of present and future American people.
        These plagues on the environment are our wake-up call. White Nose
    Bat Syndrome, (WNS) is killing literally all cave dwelling bats from
    New Hampshire to West Virginia. Little Brown bats eat 500-1,000
    mosquitoes per hour. They live about 30 years and produce only one baby
    per year. If, we are able to stop WNS now, it would take at least 100
    years for the populations to rebound to previous population levels. In
    the region affected by WNS, there are mosquito transmitted diseases of:
    West Nile Virus and Eastern Equine Encephalitis. Is our only option to
    cover every thing with even more pesticides? What will that do to
    pollinators? How will the ramifications of indiscriminate pesticide use
    affect human health? Is it a risk we can afford to take? These are the
    questions our scientists must address and answer. But, we do not now
    have the scientific infrastructure to resolve these issues or to
    prepare and prevent future catastrophes. It is time to establish a
    National Laboratory, a central station housing these scientists from
    these agencies.
        What we Need.--Hearings on WNS; emergency funding for manpower and
    research now; dedicated funds for 2010; enactment of the North American
    Migratory Bat Act; maintaining captive breeding populations; and a
    national laboratory.
        A century ago the most dominant tree was the American chestnut, now
    there are thought to be less than 500 known trees in existence.
    Billions were killed off by a fungus that was inadvertently brought
    over from Japan. Hemlock forests have been devastated by an insect
    thought to be accidentally introduced from Asia. Likewise, elm trees
    have also been destroyed by a fungus first discovered in Holland, but
    originating in Asia. These are examples of the ramifications of
    globalization, we are not prepared to address these issues.
        We are only beginning to see the ramifications of climate change,
    whether the cause is natural or human induced, we still have to address
    those issues. There will need to be migratory corridors for wildlife
    focusing on efforts in restoration and acquisition. We will see more
    species appearing on the endangered species list as development
    encroaches on what habitat is left. These changes will require careful
    monitoring; it is the USFWS and USGS whose responsibility it is to
    monitor, research, and access conditions and threats for the well being
    of the American people.
        In December 2007, you voted to give the NWR another $39 million
    slated for alleviating staffing shortages. Those funds had the effect
    of stopping the hemorrhaging of staff positions; the USFWS was able to
    stop downsizing. All Regions were able to reach their 75 percent
    manpower-25 percent operations budget. Alaska is 70 percent-30 percent
    because of the higher costs there. It did nothing to restaff refuges
    that had previously been unstaffed due to funding shortages. There are
    approximately 30 percent of all refuges that are tier 1 or focus
    refuges in the system, the refuges that are fully staffed.
    Approximately 35 percent are tier 2 refuges meaning there are a few
    staff members. There are approximately 35 percent tier 3 refuges which
    have no staff and are not planned to have staff, if they will be
    staffed at all, it will be after all of the tier 2 and tier 1 refuges
    are staffed. The 1997 Refuge Improvement Act requires that ``each
    refuge shall be managed'', to the criteria set forth in the act. The
    USFWS is underfunded and can not meet the mandates of the Act with
    current funding. As things are now, only one third of all refuges can
    meet the mandates of the act.
        In reality we are seeing 640,000 new unemployment claims, in the
    United States, as of the week of April 18, 2009. We are at a
    frightening 8.5 percent unemployment rate by household survey,
    nationally. In southern New Jersey the rates are as high as 12 percent
    unemployment. The USFWS currently has approximately 2,871 full time
    employees. With funding of $514,000,000.00 it would allow the USFWS to
    add 529 employees; that's almost one per refuge. According to CARE
    data, the USFWS is understaffed by 2,867 personnel.
        We are seeing increasingly more flooding conditions in our country.
    Flood plains are also known as wetlands, swamps, river basins, and
    watersheds. These just happen to be many of the most desired lands for
    protection of endangered species and migratory bird habitat. I have
    seen far too many times where FEMA funds have been distributed to flood
    victims living in flood prone areas. These areas can flood again and
    again. In some cases the home owners can no longer get insurance and
    they can not sell their homes, FEMA digs them out when the floods come.
    As a taxpayer I would prefer to see these lands paid for once, becoming
    part of the National Wildlife Refuges System (NWRS) where these waters
    have the ability to replenish the aquifer and reservoirs.
        Wallkill is the primary Refuge in the area designated by the New
    York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Connecticut Highlands. The newest
    refuge: Cherry Valley in Pennsylvania, is also in this area. These
    areas have been protected because of their habitat for wildlife and
    water recharge values. These areas are in the most congested areas of
    the East Coast and warrant funds and manpower for safeguarding these
    lands and wildlife in these areas.
        We are requesting $3,280,000 for land acquisition for the Wallkill
    River Refuge for 2010. Our fiscal year 2010 Land Water Conservation
    Fund (LWCF) request for the Wallkill River National Wildlife Refuge
    will allow the USFWS to acquire three critical resource and recreation
    properties. They include the 324-acre Armstrong Bog with important bog
    turtle habitat, the 52-acre Whispering Hills property supporting State
    and federally listed species including the Indiana bat and wood turtle,
    the 68-acre Wild Stone Canyon tract. These properties include rivers
    streams, aquifer recharge zones, and critical wetlands to protect the
    integrity of the Wallkill River National Wildlife Refuge and provide
    habitat and migratory corridors for fish and wildlife. These wetlands,
    watersheds, and forestlands helps filter pollution prevents erosion and
    decreases the costs and damage from floods. Further, the protection of
    forests and wetlands that protect and retain water provide significant
    economic benefits to our communities by lowering water treatment costs.
    Protection of clean drinking water is of the utmost concern to the
    American public. Purchases of land and water with the LWCF--such as
    these proposed at the Wallkill River National Wildlife Refuge--will
    help maintain the long-term integrity of water quality and quantity at
    the Refuge and in our surrounding New Jersey communities.
        We thank you for your consideration of this LWCF funding request.
    We are delighted to see the LWCF program identified as a top priority
    for Secretary of the Interior, Kenneth Salazar, and join other groups
    of the LWCF Coalition in urging support for increased overall funding
    of the LWCF to meet needs at the Wallkill River National Wildlife
    Refuge and refuges across the nation.
        Wallkill is the primary Refuge in the area designated by the New
    York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania and Connecticut Highlands. The newest
    refuge: Cherry Valley in Pennsylvania, is also in this area. These
    areas have been protected because of their habitat for wildlife and
    water recharge values. These areas are in the most congested areas of
    the East Coast and warrant funds and man power for safeguarding these
    lands and wildlife in these areas.
        Thank you for your time and consideration.
                                     ______

             Prepared Statement of The Fort Peck Indian Reservation

        The Fort Peck Tribes are pleased to present testimony on the fiscal
    year 2010 budget. The Fort Peck Reservation encompasses 2.09 million
    acres of which only 378,000 are tribally owned, with another 548,000
    held as individual allotments. The Reservation population is 11,000
    people. The tribes' unemployment rate on the Reservation is 57 percent
    (BIA Labor Force Report, 2005). Of our tribal members who are working,
    approximately 43 percent live below the poverty level (BIA Labor Force
    Report, 2005). Given the enormous unemployment and poverty rates on the
    Reservation, our needs for both Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) and
    Indian Health Service (IHS) programs and services is substantial.
        So many of the tribes' needs are for basic services; safe drinking
    water, healthcare, law enforcement services, and safe, modern
    facilities to house our program staff so that our members will utilize
    the services and programs we have available. If the Federal Government
    could assist the tribes with these core governmental services, our
    members would be so much better off. Here are a few of our key funding
    requests which ask the Congress and the administration to support.

                                      BIA

        The Fort Peck Reservation Rural Water System.--The tribes request
    $457,809 for the operation, maintenance, and replacement (OM&R) of the
    Fort Peck Reservation Water System. Congress enacted the Fort Peck
    Reservation Rural Water System Act of 2000, Public Law 106-382, to
    ensure safe and adequate municipal, rural, and industrial water supply
    to all of the residents of the Fort Peck Indian Reservation. The law
    directs that funding for the operation of the water system is to come
    from the BIA. The tribes and the Bureau of Reclamation have completed
    construction of many components of this important project, including
    the raw water intake facility, and we now seek funding for the
    operation, maintenance, and replacement costs for these components as
    required by the act. It is important that our water treatment plant
    staff have the resources they require to properly maintain this multi-
    million dollar investment to provide safe drinking water to the
    reservation and surrounding communities.
        Funding for Law Enforcement Programs.--The need for increased law
    enforcement remains a priority for the Fort Peck Tribes. While we
    greatly appreciate the increases Congress provided last year, including
    the increase for Meth Hot Spots and to address domestic violence on
    Reservations, the amounts are insufficient to fulfill the United
    States' basic trust responsibility in the areas of health and safety.
    An independent ``Gap Analysis'' study prepared in 2006 for the BIA's
    Office of Law Enforcement Services confirms the glaring shortage of law
    enforcement officers in Indian country. The BIA's Office of Law
    Enforcement Services divides Indian country into six districts. Montana
    is located in district 5. In 2006, district 5 had 87 law enforcement
    officers, including criminal investigators and telecommunication
    operators. To reach the recommended level of 3.3 law enforcement
    officers per 1,000 population, District 5 would need to increase its
    law enforcement personnel by 135 to reach 222 law enforcement officers.
    Of this amount 111 or 50 percent would be police officers. Unlike far
    less violent non-Indian communities, which have 2.9 officers to every
    1,000 inhabitants, Indian country averages about 1.3 officers for every
    1,000 inhabitants. The Gap Analysis revealed that BIA District 5 is at
    39 percent capacity for law enforcement. That is one of the primary
    reasons our crime statistics are so poor. What has the BIA done with
    this 2006 Gap Analysis report. Apparently, not much.
        On the seven reservations in Montana for the 2-year period of 2004-
    2005 (the period for which we have the most complete data), there were
    10 murders, 62 forcible rapes, 1,147 aggravated assaults, and 529
    burglaries. In 2007, the tribes' Public Safety Department was
    responsible for addressing 3,956 offenses committed on the Fort Peck
    Reservation, including 595 violent or serious offenses and 1,004
    juvenile offenses. The BIA has reported that the Fort Peck Reservation
    crime data ranks us in the top 10 for the worst crime areas in all of
    Indian country. We need more resources in every area of law enforcement
    from police staffing, tribal courts, detention, and equipment.
        In the area of staffing, the Fort Peck Tribes' Public Safety
    Department currently has 22 sworn personnel, less than half the number
    needed to provide adequate coverage for our large reservation. These
    officers cannot adequately patrol a 2 million acre reservation with a
    population of more than 11,000 and a high incidence of substance abuse
    and violent crimes. A survey of current officers has shown that they
    will not continue to work for the tribes under conditions where they
    must patrol alone, respond to calls without backup, and work longer
    hours for the same or less pay.
        To address this need, the Fort Peck Tribes request $1 million to be
    added to the tribes' law enforcement base budget to ensure the
    continued staffing and operation of the Fort Peck Tribes' Public Safety
    Department. Without these funds, the Fort Peck Tribal Council will
    reluctantly be forced to consider returning the operation and
    management of the law enforcement department, which the tribes have
    operated under an Indian Self-Determination Act contract since 1995, to
    the BIA.
        One issue that I would like to bring to the attention of the
    subcommittee is the issue of how crime data is reported from the BIA to
    the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). Currently, the BIA reports
    Indian country crime data to the FBI in the aggregate form, rendering
    the data useless to the FBI. Consequently, tribal nations have missed
    out on Department of Justice funding because DOJ relies on State and
    tribal specific crime data in the distribution of funds. In Montana
    alone, Montana tribal agencies may have been eligible for more than
    $700,000 in stimulus Byrne/JAG direct allocation funding had the BIA
    reported the district 5 data individually to the FBI. We would urge the
    subcommittee to direct the BIA to work with the Department of Justice
    to correct this and properly report tribal crime data so that it can be
    utilized in allocating this desperately needed funding.
        Equally as important as funding for law enforcement programs is the
    funding for tribal courts. There has not been a significant increase in
    the BIA tribal courts budget in almost 20 years. This is true despite
    the fact that tribal court dockets have substantially grown in the last
    20 years. Tribal courts serve an important and vital role in dispensing
    justice in Indian country and must be fully funded.
        Finally, in the area of law enforcement, I would be remiss if I did
    not call for increased funding for detention facilities, for operation
    and maintenance and construction. As the subcommittee well knows,
    detention facilities in Indian country are overcrowded and in many
    instances simply not safe for the inmates or the personnel. At Fort
    Peck, we frequently have to release inmates before their release date
    because we have to make room for other more violent offenders. This is
    not safe for our community. Do not let the United States violate its
    trust responsibility to us on so important an issue as public safety
    and justice.
        Tribal Colleges.--Tribal colleges are important institutions in the
    remote tribal communities that they serve. On our Reservation, we
    operate the Fort Peck Tribal College, a fully accredited institution
    that offers associate degrees in arts, science, and applied sciences.
        The college offers our students an opportunity to obtain a higher
    education without having to leave their homes and families, which can
    strain important cultural ties. The need for rural tribal colleges is
    critical for many of our students, especially our single-parent
    students who need family members in close proximity so that they can
    assist in childcare duties. These students do not have the resources or
    the network to attend school in Billings or Missoula. If it weren't for
    our tribal college they would have no opportunity to improve their
    lives through higher education. Today, with the economy shedding too
    many jobs each month, we strongly urge the subcommittee to increase
    funding for this vital program that is improving the lives of Indian
    people.
        Land Consolidation.--The tribes are very disappointed that Congress
    failed to fund the Indian Land Consolidation Program. The failure of
    the BIA to properly manage trust resources is in large measure the
    result of land fractionation and the inability of the Department to
    properly track the numerous interest holders of land. It has been well
    proven that the only way to avert this continuing problem is to
    consolidate these interests into tribal ownership. Indian Land
    Consolidation makes both good financial and land management sense. We
    would urge the subcommittee to restore funding for this important
    program.

                                      IHS

        While we are not familiar with the exact details of the President's
    fiscal year 2010 budget request, we are encouraged by the outlines that
    have been released. The proposed $400 million increase in IHS funding
    will finally begin to address the staggering health deficits
    experienced in Indian country.
        The health indicators in Indian communities consistently
    demonstrate higher infant mortality, teenage suicide, accident,
    alcoholism, diabetes, and heart disease rates among Indian people when
    compared with other minorities and the general American population. Yet
    money directed to healthcare, especially preventative care--such as
    routine checkups and health education--that clearly improves the
    quality of life and helps avoid more expensive healthcare costs in the
    future, has not been provided. The Federal Government has a trust
    responsibility--reaffirmed through treaties, legislation, executive
    orders, congressional policies and Presidential administrations--to
    provide healthcare to Native Americans, an obligation that was paid for
    by the Native people of this county with millions of acres of land,
    resources, and our traditional way of life. We fully support President
    Obama's position that healthcare is a critical element to having a
    healthy workforce.
        Contract Health.--The Fort Peck Tribes alone need a near doubling
    of our inadequate Contract Health Care budget--to $11 million--to meet
    the growing health demands of our more than 11,000 tribal members. Far
    too many members are not referred out for Contract Health Care Services
    that their primary healthcare professionals determine are medically
    necessary because we are at level 12. Members are told that no funds
    are available for Contract Health Services. Patients requiring
    surgeries are mostly given prescriptions for pain instead of receiving
    Contract Health Services.
        Our community suffers from unusually high cancer death rates, and
    we fear that it is because the patients are not referred to outside
    providers until they have reached the inoperable stage. The crisis is
    so acute that in July 2008, the tribes declared a healthcare emergency.
    We would urge Congress to double the funding for Contract Health Care.
    Healthy families will help strengthen the social and spiritual fabric
    of our reservation.
        Facilities Construction.--The need for Contract Health Care funding
    only highlights the tribes' need for a fully staffed and equipped
    health facility capable of providing a full range of medical services.
    The IHS needs to evaluate and plan the process for new in-patient
    facilities in Montana.
        I return to the original point in my testimony; the United States
    must assist tribes address basic governmental services such as safe
    drinking water, safe streets and communities, fair judicial systems,
    healthcare. More than 20 years ago, an earlier Congress noted that when
    there is community stability--with core governmental services being
    met--``Indian tribes are in the best position to implement economic
    development plans, taking into account the available natural resources,
    labor force, financial resources and markets.''
        The United States boasts the best healthcare system in the world.
    The time for improved healthcare services in Indian country is long
    overdue.
        Thank you for providing me the opportunity to present the views of
    the Fort Peck Tribes.
                                     ______

       Prepared Statement of the Friends of Virgin Islands National Park

        Madam Chairman and honorable members of the subcommittee: We
    appreciate the opportunity to provide testimony on behalf of an
    important land acquisition funding need at Virgin Islands National
    Park. An appropriation of $6.75 million from the Land and Water
    Conservation Fund (LWCF) is requested in fiscal year 2010 to continue
    the acquisition of the unique Maho Bay property by the National Park
    Service (NPS). We were very pleased to learn that your subcommittee
    provided $2.25 million to begin this project in fiscal year 2009.
        I represent the Friends of Virgin Islands National Park, a
    501(c)(3) nonprofit 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
    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 2010 is the second 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.
        Though the park boundaries cover a broad area of St. John, NPS
    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 acquisition of the
    Maho Bay property would be the first link of 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.
        The land was historically used during the plantation era for
    agricultural activities such as sugar cane, coconut, and cotton
    cultivation. The lands 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 unique character of Maho
    Bay. Once this land is acquired by the park, future visitors will be
    treated to spectacular views of Maho Bay and some of the most
    accessible and scenic shoreline and waters on St. John.
        The total estimated fair market value of the 207 acres is $18.6
    million. This property is being made available to NPS for a total of $9
    million over 2 years, with the balance to be provided through private
    donations of cash and land value. As $2.25 million was provided in
    fiscal year 2009, this year, an appropriation of $6.75 million is
    needed from the LWCF toward the purchase of the remaining 181 acres of
    these valuable lands.
        I also respectfully request a substantial increase in overall
    funding for the LWCF, specifically urging the subcommittee to provide
    $325 million for the Federal LWCF in the fiscal year 2010 Interior,
    Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations bill. I applaud the
    LWCF funding increases provided by this subcommittee in fiscal year
    2009, which included the funds for Virgin Islands National Park. And,
    we are most thankful that the Obama administration budget recognizes
    the importance of these programs by proposing significant increases for
    fiscal year 2010 and setting a goal to achieve full funding of the LWCF
    in the next 5 years.
        The LWCF is our Nation's premier program to acquire and protect
    lands in national parks, national wildlife refuges, national forests,
    Bureau of Land Management units and other Federal land systems. This
    program faces an extensive and growing backlog of land acquisition
    needs across the Nation. Public lands provide innumerable social and
    economic benefits including a healthy lifestyle, protection of
    watersheds and drinking water supplies, wildfire reduction and
    prevention, and assistance to wildlife and fisheries as they adapt to
    climate change. We urge you to renew this wise investment in America's
    natural heritage and take steps to toward full and consistent funding
    of these vital programs.
        Madam Chairman and distinguished subcommittee members, I want to
    thank you for this opportunity to testify on behalf of this important
    national protection effort in Virgin Islands National Park. On behalf
    of the Friends of Virgin Islands National Park and the more than 1
    million visitors to the park each year, I appreciate your consideration
    of this funding request.
                                     ______

        Prepared Statement of the Great Lakes Geologic Mapping Coalition

        Background and Funding History.--The Great Lakes Geologic Mapping
    Coalition was established in 1997 by the Illinois, Indiana, Michigan,
    and Ohio State Geological Surveys, in partnership with the U.S.
    Geological Survey (USGS). In January 2008, it expanded to include the
    Minnesota, New York, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin State Geological
    Surveys. The central task of the Coalition is to make three-dimensional
    (3-D) geologic maps characterizing the region's near-surface deposits
    to depths of several hundred feet for decisionmakers. From fiscal year
    2000-2008, the Coalition program was a $500,000 line item in the Earth
    Surface Dynamics Program of the USGS, and from fiscal year 2004-2008
    was included in the President's budget. In the fiscal year 2009
    President's budget request, the $500,000 was removed, and then restored
    and increased to $750,000 in the House Appropriations Committee mark.
    The Coalition also was programmatically relocated to the USGS' National
    Cooperative Geologic Mapping Program (NCGMP). On March 30, 2009, the
    National Geologic Mapping Reauthorization Act (containing the NCGMP)
    was signed into law by President Obama as part of the Omnibus Public
    Lands Act with $750,000 for the Coalition and required match funds from
    the States. The $750,000 for the Coalition is included in the NCGMP in
    the fiscal year 2010 President's budget.
        Programmatic Funding Request.--For fiscal year 2010, the Coalition
    requests an incremental programmatic increase of $4,250,000 in the
    Senate Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies appropriations bill
    that places specific funds for the Great Lakes Geologic Mapping
    Coalition within the USGS' National Cooperative Geologic Mapping
    Program. We urge the subcommittee to recognize the value that geologic
    mapping provides in addressing issues such as natural resources, water,
    and sustainability. To supplement Federal funds, Coalition members have
    dedicated millions of their State funds to this mapping. However,
    additional Federal funds are needed to ramp up the program so it can
    provide economically and environmentally important information in a
    timely fashion to local and State decisionmakers in the Great Lakes
    region.
        Justification.--The 3-D maps produced by the Coalition not only
    show the various materials lying at land surface, they also show ``what
    lies beneath''. For example, aquifers containing water resources can
    now be delineated in much greater detail than previously possible. A 3-
    D map gives water resource planners the tools to determine potable
    water supplies, ascertain their sustainable capacity, and ensure a
    balance between water use and protection from potential contamination.
    It also provides planners with the information necessary to avoid areas
    (and future costly liabilities) where natural hazards might exist at
    and below the surface, such as loose soils that enhance earthquake
    shaking, and terrain subject to erosion, flooding, or subsidence.
    Finally, regional and national concerns addressed by the Coalition
    include rapidly increasing water demands of energy facilities,
    including CO2 sequestration, ethanol plants, and coal-to-
    liquid/gas facilities. These demands, as well as those for high-water-
    use industries, require information about the extent, continuity, and
    thickness of the geologic materials that provide their water supplies.
    Findings also provide critical information related to Global Climate
    Change (e.g., evaluating water as an impacted resource) and Homeland
    Security (e.g., water resource assessment, displaced populations,
    infrastructure support, etc.) both significant Federal issues.
    Appropriate funding for the Coalition will help provide all of this
    information in a timely fashion.

        Priority areas for geological mapping in the Coalition States were
    determined by each State geological survey in cooperation with their
    federally mandated Mapping Advisory Committee, composed of individuals
    from the private sector, State universities, county governments, and
    other State agencies. Priority areas include urban/suburban areas
    experiencing rapid growth and concurrent water resource challenges,
    areas of high recreation use, transportation corridors, regions with
    known energy development, and areas with environmental and homeland
    security demands.
        The Coalition States are unique within the United States because
    they have (1) thick, complex, multiple layers of sediments deposited
    during several glacier advances; the glacial sediments laid down during
    each of these glaciations contain groundwater resources used by a large
    percentage of their residents; (2) high population (about 80 million);
    (3) a long-standing tradition of light and heavy industry; (4) serious
    brownfield redevelopment issues; (5) high agricultural productivity;
    and (6) considerable demands on water resources from the energy sector.
    Unfortunately, only a small percentage of the surface deposits of these
    States has been mapped to address critical land- and water-use
    decisions that State and local officials must make to cope with these
    unique and interrelated regional geological and cultural
    characteristics.
        No single agency among the Coalition partners has the financial,
    technical, or physical resources to conduct a massive geological
    mapping effort at the national standard scale of 1:24,000 (1 inch' on
    the map is equal to 2,000 feet on the ground). Therefore, the Coalition
    relies on the combined physical and intellectual resources of all
    agencies, in concert with increased Federal funding. This combination
    allows 3-D geological mapping to be conducted in the most cost-
    efficient manner as it provides critical information to county/
    municipal decisionmakers, developers, and industrial/commercial
    concerns.
        The Coalition's mapping program commenced in 2000 with 3-D mapping
    of pilot areas in county-sized regions of Illinois, Indiana, Michigan,
    and Ohio. For several years, Coalition members have dedicated millions
    of State dollars to this mapping effort. We estimate that it will
    require $40 million per year over 15 years to complete mapping in the
    highest-priority areas of the 8 States. This figure is the optimum
    amount needed to produce new information in a timely fashion. At the
    present level of Federal funding, the Coalition estimates that it will
    take more than 100 years to produce 1:24,000-scale, 3-D geological maps
    of the high-priority areas. Even with the infusion of millions of State
    dollars already committed to this task, critical land- and water-use
    decisions that may have negative impacts on the region's long-term
    economic development and environmental security, will be made in
    ignorance of basic geologic facts. Particularly, it is well-known that
    important economic development opportunities in these States have
    already been lost because geologic information was lacking and economic
    development opportunities located elsewhere.
        A thorough economic assessment of statewide mapping was conducted
    for Kentucky, the only State to be completely geologically mapped at
    the 1:24,000-scale. Based on extensive polling of map users,
    professional economists conservatively concluded that each Federal and
    State dollar invested in geological mapping generated $25-$39 in
    economic benefits. Furthermore, the Kentucky maps, originally intended
    to boost the State's mineral and energy industries, primarily have been
    used to address water supply and protection issues, growth and
    development concerns, environmental problems, and mitigation of a
    variety of natural hazards.
        Senate and House offices for the last 2 years have received
    hundreds of supportive constituent letters for the Coalition from
    State, county, and municipal agencies, county and regional economic
    development corporations, regional government entities, universities,
    consulting companies, soil and water conservation districts,
    professional associations, environmental groups, State and local
    political office holders, and private practicing geologists. There is
    no known opposition to this program.
        Finally, although funding constraints necessarily have slowed the
    pace of mapping, the Coalition has achieved significant milestones over
    the last 12 years. It has significantly improved the efficiency of
    geological mapping and map production, and shown its capacity to
    perform and produce at appropriate funding levels.
      --The long-term Lake County, Illinois land-use plan requires
            Coalition information for future development planning because
            the location of buried aquifers, recharge areas, and
            vulnerability of aquifers to potential contamination are major
            issues. Geologists have been working closely with Lake County
            municipalities to help delineate groundwater resources, model
            groundwater flow, and ascertain long-range growth and
            development plans. Lake County government officials have stated
            that geologic information is as basic to a county's needs as
            soil information and air photos and have pressed us to speed up
            our mapping program. Illinois has also initiated mapping within
            the city of Chicago to address brownfield re-development
            concerns, Lake Michigan shoreline issues (erosion, shoreline
            protection, sedimentation, beach replenishment, redevelopment,
            and near-shore lake bottom paving), construction favorability
            conditions, contamination hazards, aggregate for construction,
            and land suitability for open space and wetlands.
      --In northeastern Indiana, 3-D geologic mapping of glacial sediments
            has been initiated to develop models of how these materials
            were deposited. The materials enclose a major aquifer system
            that has experienced a long-term decline in groundwater levels.
            The 3-D geologic interpretation is the first step in developing
            a model for the aquifer system, which will help in
            understanding groundwater flow and recharge. In addition, the
            Coalition completed an educational and outreach effort focused
            on Allen County, where Fort Wayne, Indiana's second largest
            city, is located. A Web site was created to disseminate much-
            needed geologic information about accessing and protecting
            groundwater and mineral resources. This Web site, written for
            the general public and water- and mineral-resource,
            environmental, planning, and public health professionals,
            includes an Internet map server where online maps can be
            constructed and with Web pages containing educational summaries
            and discussions of the geology of Allen County. It also offers
            databases that can be downloaded by any user.
      --In Berrien County, Michigan, 3-D geologic mapping saved the village
            of Coloma more than $50,000 by using newly available aquifer
            information when an elementary school discovered contamination
            in their groundwater supply well. The same map was also used to
            exclude the location of a ``peaker'' power plant in an area of
            inadequate groundwater for cooling water needs. Consultants
            used the information to help cleanup a Superfund site in Benton
            Harbor, as well as locate an irrigation well for a planned golf
            course. Also, real estate developers have recognized that
            Berrien County geological maps are important for understanding
            land use and development potential. Spin-off products have
            included maps showing directions and rates of groundwater flow
            in the county, as well as primary areas of groundwater
            recharge, all essential for assessing water resource
            availability and ensuring ``green'' economic development.
            Preliminary mapping on the border of Manistee and Wexford
            Counties has located a huge, previously unknown reserve of
            high-quality foundry sand for the automotive industry.
      --In central Erie County, Ohio, the Coalition completed 3-D geologic
            mapping that delineates the area's most important buried
            aquifer. Advanced groundwater flow modeling performed by
            Coalition partners at the Indiana Geological Survey, based on
            the 3-D geology, provided information on the aquifer's
            groundwater flow contributions to Lake Erie, as well as
            sustainability for public water supplies and vegetable crop
            irrigation. In addition, this work has provided the data needed
            for assessing aquifer vulnerability, particularly in connection
            with a county landfill and two SuperFund sites that are in the
            mapping area. These innovative 3-D mapping processes first
            employed to digitally model the surface deposits of Erie County
            now have been implemented in Delaware and Pickaway Counties in
            central Ohio, thereby increasing the speed at which mapping can
            be completed. Also, shallow geophysical methods capable of
            penetrating to depths of 100 feet are now being used for
            surface/groundwater interaction studies, depth to bedrock
            investigations, determining seismic risk potential, and
            ascertaining the thickness of potential sand and gravel
            deposits for resource studies.
        Congressional allocation of an additional $4,250,000, will allow
    further implementation of the above and expansion of the Coalition
    program to other regions of the four original Coalition States, as well
    as initiate new programs in the four newly added States. Your
    consideration regarding our request is greatly appreciated.
                                     ______

        Prepared Statement of the Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife
                                   Commission

     AGENCIES--BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS (BIA) AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
                                  AGENCY (EPA)

        BIA Treaty Rights Protection/Implementation.--$4,327,000 ($452,000
    more than fiscal year 2009 appropriation).
        Agency/Program Line Item.--Department of the Interior, BIA,
    Operation of Indian Programs, Trust-Natural Resources Management,
    Rights Protection Implementation, Great Lakes Area Resource
    Management.\1\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ The requested BIA funds reflect Great Lakes Indian Fish and
    Wildlife Commission's (GLIFWC) 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.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        EPA Environmental Programs and Management.--$300,000 (fiscal year
    2004 enacted).
        Agency/Program Line Item.--EPA, 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.

      GREAT LAKES INDIAN FISH AND WILDLIFE COMMISSION'S (GLIFWC) GOAL--A
                 SECURE FUNDING BASE TO FULFILL TREATY PURPOSES

        As Congress has recognized for 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: (1) implement Federal court orders and
    intergovernmental agreements governing the exercise of treaty-
    guaranteed hunting, fishing, and gathering rights; and (2) participate
    in management partnerships in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Minnesota.

                      ELEMENTS OF GLIFWC'S FUNDING REQUEST

        BIA Treaty Rights Protection/Implementation.--$4,327,000. As its
    primary Indian Self-Determination and Educational Assistance Act
    funding base, GLIFWC seeks to maintain consistent, stable funding,
    restore and protect jobs, and restore diminished service capacity,
    including:
      --$227,000 \3\ to restore base funding to 2002 levels--to restore two
            full-time equivalent positions and related costs, replace four
            vehicles and restore diminished services including cuts to
            scientific research and monitoring activities;
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \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.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
      --$150,000 for conservation enforcement and emergency services--to
            restore two full-time equivalent positions and related costs
            and provide digital radio upgrades; and
      --$75,000 for cultural infusion programs--to retain one full-time
            equivalent position and related costs to implement programs to
            sustain and foster inter-generational transfer of Chippewa
            language, lifeways and traditional ecological knowledge.
        EPA Environmental Programs and Management.--$300,000. As an EPA
    funding base for its primary environmental program elements, GLIFWC
    seeks to:
      --Provide $190,000 for basic scientific/technical capabilities to:
            (1) including the Binational Program to Restore and Protect
            Lake Superior and other Great Lakes regional protection and
            restoration initiatives); (2) carry out habitat and human-
            health related research; and (3) provide the requisite analysis
            and data to support participation in regional initiatives and
            to assess the impact of particular projects on tribal treaty
            rights.
      --Provide $110,000 to undertake three habitat and human health-
            related research projects regarding: (1) GLIFWC's fish
            consumption mercury advisory program; (2) invasive species
            impacts on the Lake Superior food web; and (3) a global climate
            change pilot project.
           ceded territory treaty rights--glifwc's role and programs

        Established in 1984, GLIFWC is a natural resources management
    agency for its 11-member Ojibwe tribes regarding their ceded territory
    (off-reservation) hunting, fishing and gathering treaty rights. Its
    mission is to: (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: (1) natural resource population assessments and
    studies; (2) harvest monitoring and reporting; (3) enforcement of
    tribal conservation codes in tribal courts; (4) funding for tribal
    courts and tribal registration/permit stations; (5) development of
    natural resource management plans and tribal regulations; (6)
    negotiation and implementation of agreements with State, Federal, and
    local agencies; (7) invasive species eradication and control projects;
    (8 biological and scientific research, including fish contaminant
    testing; and (9) development and dissemination of public information
    materials.

                  JUSTIFICATION AND USE OF THE REQUESTED FUNDS

        For 25 years, Congress has recognized GLIFWC as a cost-efficient
    agency that plays a necessary role in: (1) meeting specific Federal
    treaty and statutory obligations toward GLIFWC's member tribes; (2)
    fulfilling conservation, habitat protection, and law enforcement
    functions required by Federal court decisions affirming the tribes'
    treaty rights; (3) effectively regulating harvests of natural resources
    shared among the treaty signatory tribes; and (4) serving as an active
    partner with State, Federal, and local governments, with educational
    institutions, and with conservation organizations and other nonprofit
    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:
      --Maintain the Requisite Capabilities To Meet Legal Obligations, To
            Conserve Natural Resources and To Regulate Treaty Harvests.--
            Without an increase in its base funding, GLIFWC is at risk of
            losing 10 percent of its full-time employees through attrition
            or job cuts. Flat-line funding, annual across-the-board budget
            cuts, contract support cost shortfalls, rising fixed costs, and
            diminishing ``soft funding'' sources have combined to undermine
            GLIFWC's capacity to fulfill its obligations under a number of
            Federal court decisions and intergovernmental agreements,
            namely to provide a wide range of natural resource management
            and conservation law enforcement services that must be in place
            before tribal members may exercise their treaty rights. These
            cuts also undermine GLIFWC's capacity to sustain conservation
            partnerships and cooperative management responsibilities with
            State, Federal, and local governments, with educational
            institutions, and with conservation organizations and other
            nonprofit agencies.
      --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.\4\ 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.\5\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \4\ 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.
        \5\ With the requested fiscal year 2010 EPA funds, GLIFWC would:
    (1) continue its long-standing program to collect and test fish for
    mercury and to communicate testing results through healthcare providers
    and GIS maps; (2) 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 (3) 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. This is particularly true given
    important recent initiatives such as the Great Lakes Regional
    Collaboration in which GLIFWC participates as a full partner. A secure
    funding base is crucial to provide the basic infrastructure that allows
    access to competitive project funding and discretionary grants.
        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 25 years, GLIFWC has built many partnerships that:
    (1) provide accurate information and data to counter social
    misconceptions about tribal treaty harvests and the status of ceded
    territory natural resources; (2) maximize each partner's financial
    resources; (3) avoid duplication of effort and costs; (4) engender
    cooperation rather than competition; and (5) undertake projects and
    achieve public benefits that no one partner could accomplish alone.

                     OTHER RELATED APPROPRIATIONS CONCERNS

        Full Funding of BIA Contract Support Costs.--GLIFWC seeks full
    funding of its contract support costs as required by the Indian Self-
    Determination and Educational Assistance Act. The BIA has consistently
    failed to fully fund indirect contract support, despite GLIFWC's
    uniformly low indirect cost rates--proposed at 16.3 percent for fiscal
    year 2009. GLIFWC estimates its direct and indirect contract support
    shortfall at approximately $280,000 for fiscal year 2009. This
    shortfall cuts significantly into program funding.
        BIA Circle of Flight Tribal Wetland and Waterfowl Initiative.--
    Congress should restore and fully fund this long-standing tribal
    contribution to the North American Waterfowl Management Plan that was
    eliminated in 2009.
                                     ______

                 Prepared Statement of the Green Mountain Club

        Madam Chairman and honorable members of the subcommittee: Thank
    you, Madam Chairman, for the opportunity to present this testimony in
    support of the Eden Forest project in Vermont. An appropriation of $2.2
    million is needed from the Forest Legacy Program (FLP) to protect the
    second phase of the 5,727-acre Eden Forest property.
        I also respectfully urge a substantial increase in overall funding
    for the FLP, specifically urging the subcommittee to provide $125
    million for the program in the fiscal year 2010 Interior, Environment,
    and Related Agencies Appropriations bill. I applaud the FLP funding
    provided by this committee in fiscal year 2009, including $1.8 million
    for the first phase of this project. We are thankful that the Obama
    administration budget recognizes the importance of this and other
    Federal land conservation programs by proposing significant increases
    for fiscal year 2010.
        The FLP in Vermont seeks to protect 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 FLP priority for fiscal year 2010 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 more than 50 years and has
    valuable forest and forest roads.
        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 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. More than 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. The
    property 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 wetland areas 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 6-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).
    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 vulnerable to
    fragmentation.
        Recognizing the importance of protecting crucial forest resources,
    Congress appropriated $1.8 million in fiscal year 2009 to begin the
    acquisition of a conservation easement on Eden Forest. In fiscal year
    2010, $2.2 million is requested from FLP funds to complete the
    protection of the vast 5,727-acre Eden Forest property.
        Thank you, Madam Chairman, for the opportunity to submit testimony
    in support of a worthy FLP in Vermont.
                                     ______

                Prepared Statement of the Georgia River Network

        Madam Chairman and honorable members of the subcommittee: Thank you
    for the opportunity to present this testimony in support of two
    national forest land conservation projects in Georgia. An appropriation
    of $1.5 million is needed to acquire the 450-acre first phase of the
    Cedar Creek property in the Oconee National Forest (NF), and an
    appropriation of $1.2 million is needed to protect the 84-acre Bear
    Mountain tract in the Chattahoochee NF. These funds from the Land and
    Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) will allow the Forest Service to acquire
    these important inholdings.
        I also respectfully request a substantial increase in overall
    funding for the LWCF, specifically urging the subcommittee to provide
    $325 million for the Federal LWCF in the fiscal year 2010 Interior and
    environment appropriations bill. I applaud the LWCF funding increases
    provided by this committee in fiscal year 2009. And, we are most
    thankful that the Obama administration budget recognizes the importance
    of these programs by proposing significant increases for fiscal year
    2010 and setting a goal to achieve full funding of the LWCF in the next
    5 years.
        The LWCF is our Nation's premier program to acquire and protect
    lands in national parks, national wildlife refuges, national forests,
    Bureau of Land Management units, and other Federal land systems. This
    program faces an extensive and growing backlog of land acquisition
    needs across the Nation. Public lands provide innumerable social and
    economic benefits including a healthy lifestyle, protection of
    watersheds and drinking water supplies, wildfire reduction and
    prevention, and assistance to wildlife and fisheries as they adapt to
    climate change. We urge you to renew this wise investment in America's
    natural heritage and take steps to toward full and consistent funding
    of these vital programs.
        The Chattahoochee-Oconee NFs 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 more than 500
    wildlife species, including many unique mountain species of plants, and
    contain more than 1,000 miles of primary trout and warm-water streams.
        The watersheds within the Chattahoochee-Oconee NFs 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 Chattahoochee-Oconee NFs are also 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. Georgia as a whole has a very high
    rate of population growth; according to the 2000 census, it is one of
    the top 10 States in terms of such growth. Private lands within the
    national forest boundaries are at very high risk for development due to
    proximity to the fast-growing cities of 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.
    Oconee NF
        In central Georgia, lands within the Oconee NF are threatened by
    such growth. The Ocmulgee River flows through the forest, as well as
    important tributaries of the Oconee River, such as the Little River.
    These waters offer outstanding recreational opportunities for residents
    of the nearby population centers of Atlanta and Macon, as well as the
    more closely situated towns of Milledgeville and Monticello. The Oconee
    NF offers excellent canoeing, hiking, horseback riding, and hunting. It
    contains one of the most productive and diverse fisheries in the
    Georgia Piedmont. Bottomland hardwood stands of red oak, beech, and
    tulip support abundant wildlife, including turkey, beaver, wood duck,
    and other indicator species for habitat quality.
        Available for acquisition by the Oconee NF in fiscal year 2010 is
    the first phase of a 901-acre property along Cedar Creek, which drains
    into Lake Sinclair in the Oconee River watershed. Located in Putnam and
    Jones counties within the Oconee NF boundaries, this parcel is
    surrounded almost completely by already protected Forest Service land.
    Its acquisition will further the consolidation of public lands--thus
    helping to reduce management challenges--and protect the water quality
    of Cedar Creek, Lake Sinclair, and the Oconee River. The Forest Service
    has designated Cedar Creek as an ``outstandingly remarkable stream''
    within the Chattahoochee-Oconee NF. Preventing the development of the
    Cedar Creek property 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 2010, $1.5 million is needed from the
    Forest Service through the LWCF to acquire and conserve the first 450
    acres of the Cedar Creek property. When completed, this acquisition
    will provide recreational opportunities, protect clean drinking water,
    and facilitate improved management of national forest lands in Georgia.
    Chattahoochee NF
        Available for acquisition by the Forest Service in fiscal year 2010
    is the 84-acre Bear Mountain property, an inholding of the
    Chattahoochee NF. The tract is completely surrounded by Forest Service
    lands. Almost all of the property, 83 acres, is located in Dawson
    County, while a small 1-acre tract is across the line in Gilmer County.
    A road through the national forest connects the inholding via the
    historic High Falls Church to the nearby road network at Amicalola
    Falls State Park. The property was used in the 1990s as a wilderness
    camp for boys, who helped to construct several buildings on the tract.
    The property contains stunning mountaintop views, two pristine streams,
    a 60-foot waterfall, and a 2-acre pond.
        The Bear Mountain property is accessible through one of the major
    recreational gateways to the Chattahoochee NF, Amicalola Falls State
    Park. The 729-foot Amicalola Falls--named for a Cherokee word meaning
    ``tumbling waters''--is the tallest cascading waterfall east of the
    Mississippi River. The park features a popular lodge with more than 50
    rooms for overnight stays and halls for meetings and conferences.
    Campsites and cottages are also available for visitors. The State park
    is also a major entrance for hikers to the Appalachian Trail (AT).
    Though the southern terminus of the trail is at Springer Mountain to
    northeast, it is difficult to reach via automobile. A nearly 9-mile
    approach trail connects Springer Mountain to the facilities and parking
    at the State park. This trail passes about 1 mile east of the Bear
    Mountain property near Frosty Mountain.
        Also to the east of the property is Ed Jenkins National Recreation
    Area. Created by Congress in 1991 and operated by the Forest Service,
    the 23,300-acre area protects abundant natural, scenic, wildlife,
    historic, and watershed resources, as well as Springer Mountain and the
    AT terminus. The park is named for Ed Jenkins, a Georgia congressman
    who served eight terms from 1977 to 1993.
        Because of the road access through the Amicalola Falls State Park
    and its proximity to the surrounding recreational opportunities, the
    inholding is under threat of development. If not for the current
    slowdown in the real estate market, this tract would probably already
    be developed with home sites.
        An appropriation of $1.2 million from the LWCF in fiscal year 2010
    is needed to protect this critical inholding of the Chattahoochee NF in
    northern Georgia.
        Thank you, Madam Chairman, for the opportunity to present testimony
    in support of these two important Forest Service acquisition projects
    in Georgia.
                                     ______

            Prepared Statement of the Geological Society of America

                                    SUMMARY

        The Geological Society of America (GSA) urges Congress to
    appropriate at least $1.3 billion for the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)
    in fiscal year 2010. The USGS is one of the Nation's premier science
    agencies. It addresses many of the Nation's greatest challenges,
    including energy resources, climate change, water resources, and
    natural hazards. The need for USGS science and information in these and
    other areas has increased dramatically as its budget has stagnated in
    real dollars for more than a decade (see Figure 1).
        GSA supports strong and growing investments in earth science
    research at the USGS and other Federal agencies. Substantial increases
    in Federal funding for earth science research are needed to ensure the
    health, vitality, and security of society and for stewardship of Earth.
    The USGS has a unique combination of biological, geographical,
    geological, and hydrological programs that enables it to address
    interdisciplinary research challenges that are beyond the capabilities
    of most other organizations. The need for USGS science and information
    has never been greater. The USGS benefits every American every day.
        GSA, founded in 1888, is a scientific society with more than 22,000
    members from academia, Government, and industry in all 50 States and
    more than 90 countries. Through its meetings, publications, and
    programs, GSA enhances the professional growth of its members and
    promotes the geosciences in the service of humankind. GSA encourages
    cooperative research among earth, life, planetary, and social
    scientists, fosters public dialogue on geoscience issues, and supports
    all levels of earth science education.

        Figure 1.--USGS funding in constant 2009 dollars, fiscal year
    1996--fiscal year 2009. EI is Enterprise Information and GC is Global
    Change.

        Source: USGS Budget Office.

                                   RATIONALE

        Science and technology are engines of economic prosperity,
    environmental quality, and national security. Federal investment in
    research pays substantial dividends. According to a recent report by
    the National Academies, ``. . . the economic value of investing in
    science and technology has been thoroughly investigated. Published
    estimates of return on investment (ROI) for publicly funded R&D range
    from 20 to 67 percent'' (Rising Above the Gathering Storm, 2007).
        The earth sciences are critical components of the overall science
    and technology enterprise. Substantial increases in Federal funding for
    earth science research are needed to ensure the health, vitality, and
    security of society and for Earth stewardship. Earth science research
    provides knowledge and data essential for developing policies,
    legislation, and regulations regarding land, mineral, and water
    resources at all levels of government. Growing investments in earth
    science research are required to stimulate innovations that fuel the
    economy, provide security, and enhance the quality of life.

                     BROADER IMPACTS OF THE EARTH SCIENCES

        It is critically important to significantly increase funding for
    the USGS to meet challenges posed by human interactions with Earth's
    natural systems in order to help sustain these natural systems and the
    economy. Additional investments in the USGS are necessary to address
    such issues as natural hazards, energy, water resources, and climate
    change.
      --Natural hazards, such as earthquakes, tsunamis, volcanic eruptions,
            floods, droughts, and hurricanes, remain a major cause of
            fatalities and economic losses worldwide. An improved
            scientific understanding of geologic hazards will reduce future
            losses through better forecasts of their occurrence and
            magnitude. Ongoing volcanic activity in Alaska and ongoing
            flooding in North Dakota illustrates the value of robust
            natural hazards monitoring systems and the need for increased
            Federal investments in the USGS.
      --Energy and mineral resources are critical to the functioning of
            society and to national security and have positive impacts on
            local, national, and international economies and quality of
            life. Improved scientific understanding of these resources will
            allow for their better management and utilization, while at the
            same time considering economic and environmental issues. This
            is particularly significant because shifting resource demands
            often reframe our knowledge as new research-enabling
            technologies become available.
      --The availability and quality of surface water and groundwater are
            vital to the well being of both society and ecosystems. Greater
            scientific understanding of these critical resources--and
            communication of new insights by geoscientists in formats
            useful to decisionmakers--is necessary to ensure adequate and
            safe water resources for the future.
      --Forecasting the outcomes of human interactions with Earth's natural
            systems, including climate change, is limited by an incomplete
            understanding of geologic and environmental processes. Improved
            understanding of these processes in Earth's history can
            increase confidence in the ability to predict future States and
            enhance the prospects for mitigating or reversing adverse
            impacts to the planet and its inhabitants.
      --Research in earth science is also fundamental to training and
            educating the next generation of earth science professionals.
        USGS should be a component of broader initiatives to increase
    overall public investments in science and technology. For example,
    earth science research should be included in a recommendation by the
    National Academies to ``increase the federal investment in long-term
    basic research by 10 percent each year over the next 7 years . . .''
    (Rising Above the Gathering Storm, 2007). Likewise, implementation of
    the America COMPETES Act, which authorizes a doubling of the budgets of
    key science agencies in 7 years, should encompass earth science
    research and education programs in the USGS.

                               BUDGET SHORTFALLS

        President Obama's fiscal year 2010 budget request for USGS is
    $1.098 billion, an increase of $54 million, or 5.2 percent, more than
    the enacted level in the fiscal year 2009 Omnibus Appropriations Act.
    Budget increases are proposed for Secretarial Initiatives in climate
    change ($22 million), energy ($3 million), and youth conservation corps
    ($2 million). Budget increases are also proposed for the national
    stream gage network ($5 million), arctic ecosystem studies ($4
    million), staffing for biology cooperative research units ($2 million),
    extended continental shelf studies ($1 million), and sustainable energy
    development ($0.7 million). The budget request would provide full
    funding for increases in ``fixed costs'' totaling $21 million. These
    proposed investments deserve the full support of Congress.
        We urge Congress to increase the USGS budget beyond the President's
    budget request for fiscal year 2010. After years of stagnant budgets
    (see Figure 1) and absorption of fixed cost increases, the USGS has a
    large and growing backlog of monitoring and science needs. Although the
    fiscal year 2010 budget request would provide all USGS programs with an
    increase for fixed costs, most programs would receive no increase for
    program changes. Science cannot thrive on increases in fixed costs
    alone. Congress has an historic opportunity to meet fundamental
    national needs by providing program increases in such areas as
    earthquake hazards, volcano hazards, mineral resources, ground-water
    resources, national water-quality assessment, toxic substances
    hydrology, and hydrologic research, and development.
        The fiscal year 2010 USGS budget request would reduce staff in
    water resources programs by 12 FTE. Congress should monitor the
    continuing decline in staff of USGS water programs.
        The fiscal year 2010 budget request comes at a critical juncture in
    the history of the USGS. From fiscal year 1996 to 2008, funding for the
    USGS declined by 1 percent while total Federal funding for research and
    development increased by 54 percent in real dollars. The decline in
    funding for the USGS during this time period would have been greater if
    Congress had not repeatedly restored proposed budget cuts. The USGS
    budget declined in real dollars for 6 consecutive years from fiscal
    year 2003 to fiscal year 2008 (see Figure 1). In real terms, funding
    for the USGS is at its lowest level since fiscal year 1997, the year
    after the National Biological Service was integrated into the USGS.
        GSA joins with the USGS Coalition and other organizations in
    recommending an appropriation of $1.3 billion for the USGS in fiscal
    year 2010. This budget would enable the USGS to strengthen core
    programs, accelerate the timetable for deployment of critical projects,
    and launch science initiatives that address new challenges.
        GSA is grateful to the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on
    Interior, Environment, and Related Activities for its past leadership
    in increasing the budget for the USGS. We are also grateful to the
    subcommittee for its leadership in providing $140 million in stimulus
    funds for the USGS under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of
    2009. Thank you for your thoughtful consideration of our request. For
    additional information or to learn more about the Geological Society of
    America, please visit www.geosociety.org.
                                     ______

      Prepared Statement of the Greasewood Springs Community School Board

        Greasewood Springs Community School, Inc. (GSCS) is located in the
    central part of the Navajo Nation in Northern Arizona. GSCS was built
    in 1963 as a Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) school. Presently GSCS is a
    Bureau of Indian Education (BIE) funded Public Law 100-297 grant school
    serving the educational needs of approximately 175 Navajo students from
    kindergarten through 8th grade and approximately 60 students in a home
    living program which serves children in a residential setting. I am
    requesting no less than $30 million to rebuild our aging, dilapidated
    facilities and full funding of grant school Administrative Cost Grants
    (ACG) at no less than $68 million, both under the fiscal year 2010 BIE
    budget contained in the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies
    appropriations.
        GSCS was built in 1963. Although GSCS has had the benefit of a
    hardworking, dedicated facilities department its facilities, through
    use and age, are beyond worn out. The BIA/Office of Facilities
    Management and Construction (OFMC) has declared the buildings and
    infrastructure for the campus beyond repair. However, this past year
    BIA/OFMC also has taken steps to revoke and rescind a $10,000,000
    facilities improvement and repair grant that was previously granted to
    repair GSCS. Further, BIA/OFMC has given little, if any, hope of any
    new facility being built in the foreseeable future. GSCS is being left
    to die on the vine by the BIA/OFMC action to refuse to provide
    facilities that are habitable or even slightly competitive with
    alternative, but more distant, State-funded schools. The BIA/OFMC
    action is tantamount to failure to assist.
        This apparently intentional closure of GSCS by refusing to
    construct a safe, modern, habitable facility in which the school's
    educational and residential programs can be provided is compounded by
    the BIE's chronic and downwardly progressive underfunding of the ACG.
    (See attached explanation.) GSCS has, as with all other schools,
    administrative needs. Although GSCS has 100 percent needs in ACG it was
    only funded at approximately 62.3 percent of that need this school year
    due to an arbitrary ceiling that has been placed on ACG by the Federal
    Government. The result of this chronic underfunding is clear, grant
    schools are provided a fraction of their ACG need. This arbitrary,
    increasingly downward underfunding of Public Law 100-297 grant schools'
    ACG will eventually lead to the demise of GSCS and other grant schools;
    there is no other foreseeable alternative for grant schools, but
    intentional extinction. We had hoped the new administration would
    similarly seek a significant increase for ACG as it has for the BIA and
    Indian Health Service (IHS) contract support costs ($5.5 million for
    on-going BIA contracts and $2 million for new contractors, and $107
    million more for IHS contract support). The GSCS is greatly
    disappointed the administration, instead, seeks to flat fund ACG ,
    which will only continue the shortfalls at the school level. If the
    number of grant schools increases in the coming year and the ACG
    funding remains the same, the ACG need of each of these school will be
    even further reduced because the same ``pie'' will have to be cut into
    ever more smaller pieces to provide a ``slice'' for each grant school.
        The above instances of underfunding are further compounded by
    facilities operations grants funded at 52 percent (operations funds go
    to pay for such necessities as electricity, gas and other utilities but
    for which the administration seeks only a $2.4 million increase) and
    transportation funding (slated only for a small increase to cover fixed
    costs in fiscal year 2010) which ignores rural and remote settings in
    which buses must traverse unpaved roads subject to extreme weather and
    road conditions.
        The foregoing has lead to a systematic strangulation and extinction
    of the BIA-funded school system by underfunding. This reality is in
    stark contrast to the language of the United States Congress in which
    it stated in the Native American Education and Improvement Act of 2001
    as follows:
      --Congress declares that the Federal Government has the sole
            responsibility for the operation and financial support of BIA-
            funded schools system that it has established on our near
            Indian reservations and Indian trust lands throughout the
            Nation for Indian children. Public Law 101-17(E) section 1120.
        This obligation arises from GSCS's and the Navajo nation's treaty
    rights. The Federal Government has expressly stated that the quality of
    the ``Bureau funded school system'' that they are to provide due to the
    trust responsibility it assumed pursuant to Treaty negotiations as
    follows: ``ensuring that the programs of the Bureau of Indian Affairs-
    funded school system are of the highest quality.''
        Further in section 112(a) of the act Congress further states that
    the purpose of accrediting these schools is to ``ensure that Indian
    students being served by a school funded by the Bureau of Indian
    Affairs are provided with educational opportunities that equal or
    exceed those for all other students in the United States.''
        These have proven to be empty promises. Our demands are simple:
    provide us what you promised and continue to promise and provide us
    with what we bargained for in our good faith negotiations in agreeing
    to our Treaty. We are not asking for charity. We are not asking for a
    handout. We are not asking for new programs. We made a deal. We gave up
    much in reliance on your promises. You are not keeping your promises.
        GSCS offers an invaluable service to our students and community. We
    are carrying out the Federal Government's responsibility pursuant to
    the Indian Self-Determination and Tribally Controlled Schools Grant
    Acts. In the introductory language of those Acts the Federal Government
    admits it has failed in its trust responsibility to educate Native
    American children. It further states, unequivocally, that this
    responsibility remains ``solely'' that of the United States Government.
    However, the Federal Government is using these Acts as a front to
    slowly strangle these schools by chronically underfunding and failing
    to construct habitable facilities. As stated, we are not requesting new
    programs or charity or anything else but what we bargained for and the
    Federal Government agreed to provide.
        We are a local community school. Our children live in and around
    this community and attend our school in lieu of bus rides that may last
    hours. Further, this school is the center of our community. Parents and
    grandparents support this school and come to this school to support and
    ensure their children are prepared for the future the best way
    possible. To callously extinguish and close this school does violence
    to our community and our way of life. Our demands are simple and
    justified and are listed as follows:
      --GSCS must be rebuilt. No where but on an Indian reservation would
            children be required to attend a school as old and in such
            condition as ours. We have been diligent in caring for our
            school; however, it must be replaced now. Children should not
            have to sacrifice adequate facilities to attend GSCS. The
            language quoted above clearly states that our Greasewood Spring
            children should have the highest-quality educational facilities
            and opportunity available.
      --The condition of our facilities is particularly galling given that
            BIA/OFMC officially stated that our facility is in dire shape
            and needs to be replaced; awarded GSCS a $10 million FI&R grant
            to fix the worst problems and is now reneging on that grant
            with no commitment to repairs on a new school in the future.
            The land for construction is available and set aside, our
            program of requirements is completed, we do not need a
            gymnasium. This project could be expedited and completed in 18
            months.
      --Our administrative costs needs must be 100 percent funded. It is
            disingenuous to state that the Federal Government has the sole
            responsibility for the operation and financial support of a
            school system of the highest quality and then for that same
            Government to fund the administrative cost at 64 percent of
            need. Actions must back up these promises and words. Our school
            is channeled toward failure because of this chronic,
            debilitating underfunding. 100 percent funding of
            administrative cost need must begin immediately if the Federal
            Government's promises and agreements mean anything.
      --Full Funding for Operations and Maintenance.--Again it is absurd to
            pledge an absolute commitment to providing a quality
            educational program and then fund the operations portion of
            that program at 52 percent. Operations costs have spiraled. The
            gross underfunding that has occurred in the past few years is
            unconscionable. We must heat our schools, have electricity and
            provide other basics. The strain placed on GSCS and similarly
            situated Grant Schools to find ways to provide the basic
            necessities to its students and staff is indefensible. Again,
            we are not requesting new additional benefits or anything that
            resembles extravagancies. We are only requesting the essentials
            as have been promised.
      --GSCS receives significantly less per student than other schools.
            The result of this is less funds and therefore lower salaries
            in the competition for the limited pool of highly qualified
            teachers that will teach in a remote setting. Salaries for BIA-
            operated school employees are substantially higher than those
            for grant school employees. Again the chronic underfunding will
            lead to a foreseeable result, the demise of grant schools. Due
            to our remote, rural setting our costs are higher and
            recruitment more difficult. Due to these and other factors we
            should receive higher student funding. However, we merely ask
            that per student funding be at least commensurate with that
            received in the State and our neighboring States.
      --Transportation must be adequately funded. Without our efforts our
            community's children will be left behind. They will be left
            without options. They will either be forced to leave their
            homes or forego schooling. We service remote rural communities
            without paved roads. Due to the conditions, the maintenance
            required on our buses and school vehicles is much greater than
            in urban settings. Due to our remote rural location we are at a
            competitive disadvantage for fuel and supplies. Our
            transportation needs are great and once again are substantially
            underfunded.
        The above scenarios demonstrate a system of schools that are set up
    to fail. By chronic underfunding at all levels these schools will
    eventually fail and the Federal Government's trust responsibility will
    be extinguished with them. This institutionalized war of attrition will
    be successful. Promises will be unmet. These shameful outcomes must not
    be allowed to occur. We respectfully and sincerely request that the
    promises made be supported by action. We request that the bargain made
    in establishing our Treaty be honored. The full funding as noted above
    is what the Federal Government has stated they are solely obligated to
    provide. Providing what was promised must begin immediately.

                           ADMINISTRATIVE COST GRANTS

        Issue.--Grant and Contract schools' Administrative Cost Grants have
    been grossly underfunded for the past 10 years. Currently,
    administrative cost grants are funded at approximately 62.5 percent of
    need. Grant and contract schools need to be funded at the 100 percent
    level to experience success and to meet the needs of native students.
        Background.--The ACG authorized by Public Law 100-297 was provided
    to tribal grant and contract schools to cover their school
    administration costs. Public Law 100-297 directed the establishment of
    a funding formula for the distribution of the ACG funds. Per the
    established funding formula, the calculated need for ACG has been $60
    million plus on an annual basis. However, the ACG has been funded at
    the 100 percent level only once since it was enacted. Forty million
    dollars plus ($40,00,000 +) has been appropriated for the last 10 years
    (fiscal year 2007/$44,060 million; fiscal year 2008/$43,373 million
    fiscal year 2009--the President's request is $43,374 million). The
    number of grant schools has increased to 123 out of 185 BIE-funded
    schools and keeps increasing. The funding amount remains arbitrarily
    capped and grossly insufficient. The ACG has remained at the same
    funding level while the number of BIE schools becoming grant schools
    and taking from this static amount has greatly increased. The share of
    the ACG funds for grant school each year has substantially decreased.
    Under these circumstances, grant schools cannot operate effectively or
    provide the administrative functions and services necessary to meet AYP
    as required under the No Child Left Behind Act.
        Impact.--The Navajo Nation has 29 grant schools and 2 contract
    Navajo schools. Navajo schools lost -$19,847,550 in 4 years due to the
    chronic underfunding of the ACG. In the 2004-2005 school year the
    schools' actual funding was $11,940,500; a 76.05 percent level of
    funding compared to the formula generated amount of $15,701,853; a loss
    of -$3,761,353. In school year 2005/2006, the actual funding was
    $11,251,100, a 71.66 percent level compared to formula generated amount
    of $15,699,740; a loss of -$4,448,640. In the 2006-2007 school year the
    actual funding level was $11,937,000, a 64.99 percent funding level
    compared to the formula generated amount of $18,319,671; a loss of
    -$5,224,215 for the 2006-2007 school year. In the 2007-2008 school
    year, the actual funding level was $11,906,330 at a 64.99 percent
    funding level compared to the formula generated amount of $18,319,671 a
    loss of -$6,413,341 for the 2007-2008 school year. It is estimated that
    due to an increase in grant schools the ACG will be funded at 62.5
    percent of need this year.
        The decreasing amount of ACG funds is not the only problem the
    schools face. The amount distributed to each school has been impacted
    when more schools are allowed to join the grant school system. The
    amount of funds distributed to each school becomes smaller and smaller
    as more schools join the grant system. Consequently, schools are forced
    to dip into other accounts not intended to cover the administrative
    costs such as funds from facilities, academic and even title programs.
    The cost of mandated programs such as health insurance, worker's
    compensation insurance, pensions, personnel services, utility costs,
    human resource, accountants, and property management are not covered
    due to the budget constraints caused by underfunding the ACG.
        Recommendations.--Immediate action to: (1) Increase the ACG funds
    to $68 million to cover 100 percent ACG funding level for schools and
    continue 100 percent funding of the ACG under the formula and (2) Place
    a moratorium on BIE-operated schools converting to Public Law 100-297
    grant school system until such a time ACG funds are appropriated and
    available to cover the incoming schools.
                                     ______

             Prepared Statement of the Gathering Waters Conservancy

        Madam Chairman and honorable members of the subcommittee: I want to
    thank you, Madam Chairman, for the opportunity to present this
    testimony in support of the Chippewa Flowage project in Wisconsin. An
    appropriation of $6 million is needed from the Forest Legacy Program
    (FLP) to protect the 18,259-acre property.
        I also respectfully urge a substantial increase in overall funding
    for the FLP, specifically urging the subcommittee to provide $125
    million for the program in the fiscal year 2010 Interior, Environment,
    and Related Agencies appropriations bill. I applaud the FLP funding
    provided by this subcommittee in fiscal year 2009. In addition, we are
    most thankful that the Obama administration budget recognizes the
    importance of this and other Federal land conservation programs by
    proposing significant increases for fiscal year 2010.
        Gathering Waters Conservancy's mission is to help communities, land
    trusts, and landowners protect the places that make Wisconsin special.
    We do this in the following ways: supporting more than 50 private,
    nonprofit land trusts serving communities across Wisconsin; working
    with private landowners and their advisors to protect individual
    parcels of land; promoting land conservation policies and programs at
    all levels of government; and fostering innovative public-private
    partnerships around conservation goals. The Chippewa Flowage project
    will protect one of Wisconsin's most special places, and we strongly
    support the appropriation from the FLP.
        The variety of forest types within Wisconsin's northern forest is
    virtually unmatched elsewhere in the United States. The north woods
    boast towering stands of balsam and spruce, a variety of hardwoods such
    as red and sugar maples, hemlock and birch, and swamp forests
    containing black spruce, larch, and white cedar. The combination of
    forestland with an abundance of lakes, rivers, and streams offers some
    of the best recreational opportunities in the country, especially
    fishing and canoeing. Recognizing the unique attributes of its forests,
    the State of Wisconsin is focused on the protection of undeveloped
    lakefront properties and the acquisition of easements that benefit
    recreational and natural resources. The Wisconsin Department of Natural
    Resources has proposed FLP projects over the last several years to
    implement this critical protection effort.
        This year, there is an opportunity to add more than 18,000 acres of
    Forest Legacy conservation easement lands to create a unified block of
    more than 1 million acres of protected forest and natural lands in the
    Chippewa Flowage watershed. The Chippewa Flowage is one of the wildest
    lakes in Wisconsin, drawing recreationists from around the world for
    its muskie fishing. It is an ecological gem, more than 12,000 acres of
    which are managed jointly by the Wisconsin Department of Natural
    Resources, the U.S. Forest Service, and the Lac Courte Oreilles Band of
    Lake Superior Chippewa (LCO). The western boundary of this property
    adjoins nearly 24,000 acres of LCO tribal land, which is primarily
    natural land. This property extends the critical migratory corridor
    surrounding the Chequamegon portion of the Chequamegon-Nicolet National
    Forest, which covers 858,400 acres in 6 northwestern Wisconsin
    counties.
        Many natural resources used by the LCO tribe traditionally and
    currently are found on the property and adjoining tribal lands,
    including birch and pole oak for wigwam poles, morel mushrooms, and
    abundant wildlife for trapping and hunting. Pipestone rock, used to
    craft peace pipes, holds traditional significance for the LCO tribe and
    is present in the northwest corner of the property where it borders the
    Chippewa Flowage. The Village of Radisson's municipal water flows from
    parts of this property as well.
        Fishing, hunting, and wildlife viewing generate $8 million annually
    in Wisconsin, and the Chippewa Flowage is a major tourist destination.
    The public access allowed on this 18,259-acre property will continue to
    support the local economy. Forest-based recreation accounts for about
    $5.5 billion of the $14 billion spent on recreation in the State. The
    Wisconsin Northwoods is a common destination for migratory and forest
    interior birdwatchers. Wisconsin ranks third in the Nation for the
    number of residents and tourists engaged in bird watching and it adds
    $1 billion to the State's economy. This property delivers wood to 66
    different customers. Raw material has been provided for products such
    as coated paper, corrugated packaging, pallets, oriented stand board,
    cabinets, flooring, lumber, moldings, paneling, and many others. If
    this property is not protected by the FLP, it will be divided and sold
    like other nearby timberlands.
        The protection of these forest lands will have significant local
    and regional benefit. An appropriation of $6 million in fiscal year
    2010 from the FLP will conserve 18,259 acres of Wisconsin forest.
    Protecting these parcels by conserving unprotected lands in the
    checkerboard of public and private ownerships preserves vast wildlife
    habitat, ensures public access for recreation, and maintains the
    practice of sustainable forestry that supports the local economy.
        Thank you, Madam Chairman, for the opportunity to present this
    testimony in support of this important FLP project in Wisconsin.
                                     ______

                 Prepared Statement of the Highlands Coalition

        Dear Madam Chairwoman and honorable members of the subcommittee: On
    behalf of the Highlands Coalition, which includes more than 200
    organizations working together to conserve nationally important natural
    resources in the Highlands region of Pennsylvania, New Jersey, New
    York, and Connecticut we would like to thank you for the opportunity to
    provide testimony on the fiscal year 2010 Department of the Interior,
    Environment, and Related Agencies appropriations bill.
        Our top priorities for fiscal year 2010 include:
      --$11 million for the HCA, including $10 million for land
            conservation partnership projects through the U.S. Fish and
            Wildlife Service (FWS), and $1 million for USDA Forest Service
            (FS) technical assistance and research programs in the
            Highlands;
      --$125 million in land acquisition funding for the Forest Legacy
            program (FLP);
      --$450 million for the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act Federal
            and stateside land acquisition program.

                                      HCA

        In November 2004, Congress enacted the HCA, recognizing the
    national significance of the 3.5 million acre Highlands. This region
    has abundant resources providing clean drinking water, productive
    forests and working farms, wildlife habitat, and recreational
    opportunities for the 25 million people who live within an hour of this
    incredible landscape. The Highlands lie in the shadow of some of the
    largest cities in the nation including Philadelphia, New York City, and
    Hartford. The HCA authorizes $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 FS research and
    technical 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. Often the
    State match is double or triple the Federal share. Private foundations,
    counties and local governments have also matched the Federal funds. The
    HCA is a great partnership and brings multiple parties into the funding
    effort thereby highly leveraging the Federal investment.
        We are deeply grateful to the subcommittee for the inclusion of
    $1.5 million for the HCA in the fiscal year 2009 omnibus bill and
    equally pleased that act was included as its own line item. However, as
    the subcommittee may know the cost of land acquisition in the Highlands
    is extraordinary with land as costly as $15,000 an acre. Lands and
    waterways in this highly fragmented landscape are disappearing at an
    alarming rate and funds are needed urgently to protect these areas
    before they are developed. Therefore, we strongly urge the subcommittee
    to provide full funding for the HCA at a total of $11 million with $10
    million in land acquisition funding for the FWS, and $1 million for the
    USDA FS's technical assistance program in the Highlands.
        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 2010, including: Texter
    Mountain (Pennsylvania), Northern Highlands (New Jersey), Greater
    Sterling Forest (New York) and Ethel Walker property, Scoville
    Property, and Naugatuck/Mad River Headwaters (Connecticut).

                                FLP 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
    the FLP at $125 million in fiscal year 2010. We support this funding as
    it will serve to provide support for important Forest Legacy projects
    in the Highlands region including three exemplary projects: Tulmeadow
    Farm (Connecticut), Wolf Hill (Connecticut), and Musconetcong and
    Rockaway Rivers Watersheds (New Jersey).
        FLP has protected more than 1.7 million acres of forestland since
    1990. For fiscal year 2010, the USFS received 84 project proposals from
    44 States and territories to protect 288,530 acres with a total project
    value of more than $363 million. FLP conserves working forests
    threatened by conversion to development or other uses, and promotes
    economic viability as well as recreational open space and wildlife
    protection. Public lands provide innumerable social and economic
    benefits including a healthy lifestyle, protection of watersheds and
    drinking water supplies, wildfire reduction and prevention, and
    assistance to wildlife and fisheries as they adapt to climate change.

                    LAND AND WATER CONSERVATION FUND (LWCF)

        We respectfully request a substantial increase in overall funding
    for the LWCF specifically $325 million for the Federal LWCF and $125
    million for the LWCF stateside program, in the fiscal year 2010
    Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies appropriations bill. We
    applaud the LWCF funding increases provided by this subcommittee in
    fiscal year 2009. And, we are most thankful that the Obama
    administration budget recognizes the importance of this program by
    proposing significant increases for fiscal year 2010 and setting a goal
    to achieve full funding of the LWCF in the next 5 years.
        The LWCF is our Nation's premier program to acquire and protect
    lands in national parks, national wildlife refuges, national forests,
    Bureau of Land Management units, and other Federal land systems. This
    program faces an extensive and growing backlog of land acquisition
    needs across the Nation. The LWCF will provide important funds to
    obtain inholdings and lands adjacent to Federal lands in the Highlands
    such as the Wallkill and Great Swamp National Wildlife Refuges in New
    Jersey.
        The LWCF stateside program provides close-to-home recreation
    through thousands of State and local parks across the country. These
    parks provide millions of urban and suburban residents the benefits of
    access to natural areas while promoting much needed tourism in local
    communities.
        Without adequate funding to the HCA, FLP and LWCF, 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 2010 Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies
    appropriations bill.
                                     ______

     Prepared Statement of The Humane Society of the United States; Humane
             Society Legislative Fund; and Doris Day Animal League

        Thank you for the opportunity to offer testimony to the Interior,
    Environment, and Related Agencies Subcommittee on items of importance
    to our organizations with a combined membership of more than 11 million
    supporters nationwide. We urge the subcommittee to address these
    priority issues in the fiscal year 2010 Department of the Interior
    appropriations bill.
    Bureau of Land Management (BLM)--Wild Horse and Burro Program
        The BLM is charged with the management of approximately 33,000 wild
    horses in 10 Western States, but the current program is grossly
    underfunded. While we support a reduction in the number of annual
    roundups, depending on rounding up horses without implementing any
    active program for preventative herd growth is an unsupportable wild
    horse management approach because it leads to a continual cycle of
    roundups and removals rather than the use of long-term, cost-efficient,
    and humane management strategies. The BLM should focus on five
    mechanisms for managing wild horses and burros: (1) preserving free-
    roaming wild horse and burro populations through the use of humane
    birth control; (2) recolonizing any of the more than 19 million acres
    of zeroed-out habitat with wild horses and burros from the short and
    long-term holding facilities; (3) identifying new, appropriate
    rangelands and establishing sanctuaries for wild horses and burros; (4)
    continuing long-term, humane pasturing for equines that must be removed
    from the range utilizing birth control on these captive animals; and
    (5) implementing creative and more aggressive marketing strategies to
    increase adoption rates for captured equines.
        The BLM's current focus on roundup and adoption tools has resulted
    in an increasing number of wild horses being permanently warehoused in
    BLM-sponsored holding centers, at a cost of $27 million annually
    (representing almost 75 percent of the BLM's $36.2 million wild horse
    management budget). Peer-reviewed studies have shown that costs to
    manage the herd could decrease significantly by treating more mares
    with the immunocontraceptive porcine zona pellucida (PZP) and returning
    them to the range, rather than detaining them indefinitely in holding
    centers, and through the wide-scale marketing of the BLM's Adopt-a-
    Horse program. According to a paper published in the Journal of
    Wildlife Management in 2007, contraception on-the-range could reduce
    total wild horse and burro management costs by 14 percent, saving $6.1
    million per year (Bartholow, J. 2007. Economic benefit of fertility
    control in wild horse populations. J. Wildl. Mgmt. 71(8):2811-2819.).
    This study demonstrates conclusively that the use of
    immunocontraception could easily result in a reduction in the
    continuing long-term expenses associated with the BLM's current wild
    horse management program.
        In October 2006, The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) and
    the BLM signed a memorandum of understanding (MOU) to facilitate the
    use of contraceptive vaccines as a key component for managing wild
    horses on public lands. And this year, the Annenburg Foundation pledged
    $1.6 million to a project launched by The HSUS and the BLM to promote
    the use and application of contraceptives to manage wild horses
    throughout the West. The BLM and The HSUS have an opportunity to
    revolutionize the course of wild horse population control from a
    standard that is often inefficient, costly, and cruel to one which is
    technologically advanced, cost effective, and humane. We urge the
    subcommittee to take advantage of the demonstrated cost savings
    associated with the use of immunocontraceptives by directing BLM and
    the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to take action to facilitate
    the implementation of The HSUS/BLM Research Project, and by increasing
    BLM's budget for PZP research and development programs by $1.5 million.
        The subcommittee's support would encourage greater cooperation
    between the BLM, the EPA, and The HSUS in the implementation of a
    program that we believe will be of great benefit not only to our
    Nation's beloved wild horse populations, but also to the American
    taxpayer.

                    Restoring Longstanding Protections for Wild Horses and
                        Burros
        Wild horses and burros have been protected from commercial sale and
    slaughter since the passage of the 1971 Wild Free-Roaming Horses and
    Burros Act. However, in 2004, an extremely controversial rider--
    commonly referred to as the ``Burns Amendment''--was inserted into the
    fiscal year 2005 Omnibus Appropriations bill by Senator Conrad Burns
    (R-MT). This amendment directed the BLM to sell ``without limitation''
    animals who were either more than 10 years old or had been passed over
    for adoption at least 3 times.\1\ As a result, approximately 8,400 wild
    horses and burros became eligible for sale in 2005, and since then, BLM
    has sold more than 2,700 horses and burros under this authority.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ 16 U.S.C. Sec. 1333(e)(2).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        As amended, the 1971 act requires the BLM to destroy excess animals
    and/or sell them without limitation. Due to concerns about public and
    congressional reaction to the massive slaughter of healthy horses, BLM
    has chosen not to destroy excess animals or sell them without
    limitation. But in an effort to comply with the law and reduce costs
    associated with caring for an increasing number of wild horses in
    short- and long-term holding facilities, the BLM announced that for
    fiscal year 2009, they would consider euthanizing about 2,300 horses in
    short-term holding (about one-third of the animals currently in short-
    term holding) and selling, without limitation, about 8,000 animals from
    both short- and long-term holding.
        We firmly believe that no horse should pay the ultimate price for
    the agency's mismanagement and that killing horses, or allowing them to
    be sold to slaughter, is not the answer. The BLM made a social contract
    with Americans when it placed horses in long-term care: The horses
    would be cared for life, and the commitment should be honored.
        Therefore, we ask the subcommittee to consider including the
    following funding limitation in the fiscal year 2010 Interior,
    Environment, and Related Agencies appropriations bill:

        Provided, That appropriations herein made shall not be available
    for the sale of wild horses and burros pursuant to 16 U.S.C. 1333(e) or
    for the destruction of healthy, unadopted, wild horses and burros in
    the care of the Bureau of Land Management or its contractors.''

    Law Enforcement Division of the Fish and Wildlife Service
        After illegal drugs and arms, trade in wildlife parts is the third
    most lucrative smuggling enterprise in this country. The United States
    remains one of the world's largest markets for legal and illegal trade
    in wildlife and wildlife products. New technology and a full complement
    of special agents are essential if law enforcement is to have any hope
    of effectively enforcing the Nation's endangered species trade laws. We
    are concerned that there are 70 wildlife law enforcement agent
    vacancies and encourage the subcommittee to fully fund the law
    enforcement division.

    EPA--Office of Research and Development
        In 2000, the Interagency Coordinating Committee on the Validation
    of Alternative Methods, ICCVAM Authorization Act (Public Law 106-545),
    created a new paradigm for regulatory toxicology, by promoting chemical
    testing methods that are often faster and more economical than existing
    methods. The new paradigm requires Federal agencies to ensure that new
    and revised animal and alternative test methods be scientifically
    validated prior to recommending or requiring use by industry. All 15
    Federal regulatory and research agencies that compose the ICCVAM agree
    on a common definition of validation as ``the process by which the
    reliability and relevance of a procedure are established for a specific
    use.''
        Several years ago, thanks to the leadership of Representatives
    James Walsh and David Price, Congress provided specific funding for
    research, development, and validation of nonanimal and other
    alternative test methods that replace, reduce, or refine the use of
    animals in toxicity testing. To augment that funding, EPA must increase
    its fiscal commitment to the Computational Toxicology Program to add to
    its value to regulatory toxicology. We urge the subcommittee to
    consider the following report language:

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

        Additionally, finalization of the MOU between the EPA and the FDA,
    under which the EPA will assume the primary authority to review and
    register therapeutic and other products geared toward humane methods of
    population control, should be expedited in order to allow PZP to be
    utilized in a management capacity, rather than an investigational one.
    Multinational Species Conservation Fund
        The HSUS joins a broad coalition of organizations in requesting an
    increase over the administration's request for the Multinational
    Species Conservation Fund (MNSCF) and Wildlife Without Borders. The
    MNSCF was established by Congress to benefit African and Asian
    elephants, rhinos, tigers, great apes, neotropical migratory birds, and
    marine turtles. Congress has been very supportive of these programs in
    the past. Unfortunately in past years, the funding has been
    considerably less than the amounts necessary to carry out these
    valuable missions. We ask that you continue to support these highly
    threatened mammals and birds in fiscal year 2010 by appropriating $2.75
    million each for the Asian Elephant, African Elephant, Marine Turtle,
    and Great Ape Conservation Funds, $4 million for the combined
    Rhinoceros and Tiger Conservation Fund, and $6.5 million for the
    Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Fund. We also request $4
    million for the Wildlife Without Borders regional program.
        While we wholeheartedly support increased funding for the MNSCF, we
    are concerned about past incidents and future opportunities for funds
    from these conservation programs to be allocated to promote trophy
    hunting, trade in animal parts, and other consumptive uses--including
    live capture for trade, captive breeding, and entertainment for public
    display industry--under the guise of conservation for these animals.
    Grants made to projects under the MNSCF must be consistent with the
    spirit of the law.

    Protection for Walruses
        We urge this subcommittee to appropriate $500,000 in fiscal year
    2010 to fund the continuation of much-needed research on the Pacific
    walrus. New promising methodologies for surveying walrus populations
    have been developed and require sustained funding support. A
    comprehensive walrus survey was begun in 2005--the effort must receive
    continued support to maximize the utility of its results. Walruses are
    targeted by Native hunters for subsistence, despite a paucity of data
    regarding their current population status or population structure.
    Hundreds of walruses are killed annually; in some years this number has
    climbed to as many as 7,000. Moreover, in some hunting villages,
    females and their calves are preferentially killed, against the
    recommendation of the Fish and Wildlife Service and standard management
    practice. A portion of the research funds could also be used to improve
    the Walrus Harvest Monitor Project, which collects basic management
    data.
                                     ______

         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 subcommittee regarding the views of the
    Compact's member States on the fiscal year 2010 budget request for the
    Office of Surface Mining (OSM) within the U.S. Department of the
    Interior. In its proposed budget, OSM is requesting $71.3 million to
    fund title V grants to States and Indian tribes for the implementation
    of their regulatory programs and $32.1 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 $71.3 million for title V grants to
    States and tribes in fiscal year 2010, an amount which is matched by
    the States each year. As you know, these grants support the
    implementation of State and tribal 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.
        In fiscal year 2009, Congress approved an additional $1 million
    increase for State title V grants over the fiscal year 2008 enacted
    level, for a total of $65.5 million. The States are greatly encouraged
    by the significant increase in title V funding approved by Congress in
    both fiscal year 2008 and 2009. Even with mandated rescissions and the
    allocations for tribal primacy programs, the States saw a $7 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 more than 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 2010 budget, OSM has followed the example
    established by Congress over the past 2 years and proposed an increase
    of approximately $6 million for State and tribal title V regulatory
    grants, which will, for the first time, fully fund actual State
    requests. This is a welcome shift in direction that recognizes the
    important role played by the States in implementing the environmental
    protection provisions of SMCRA. We strongly endorse this meaningful
    increase in funding and urge Congress to support it. The States are
    still in the process of putting the recent improvements in 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 and hope that the recent increases approved by
    Congress will become the new base on which we will build into the
    future. Otherwise we find ourselves reversing course and creating 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, inflation-adjusted
    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 understaffed 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. As
    it is, State agencies are continually faced with making the case to
    State legislatures and budget officers to support their regulatory
    programs through matching State funds, particularly in the difficult
    fiscal climate being faced by the States. A clear message from Congress
    that reliable, consistent funding will continue into the future will do
    much to ensure that States can continue to implement these vital
    programs.
        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
    62 of OSM's Budget Justification)

        For all the above reasons, we urge Congress to approve OSM's
    proposed budget for State title V regulatory grants in the amount of
    $71.3 million, as fully documented in the States' estimates for actual
    program operating costs.
        With regard to funding for State title IV 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
    should have received a total of $373 million in fiscal year 2010.
    Instead, OSM has budgeted an amount of $232.4 million based on an ill-
    conceived proposal to eliminate mandatory AML funding to States and
    tribes that have been certified as completing their abandoned coal
    reclamation programs. This $141 million reduction flies in the face of
    the comprehensive restructuring of the AML program that was passed by
    Congress in 2006, following over 10 years of congressional debate and
    hard fought compromise among the affected parties. While we have not
    seen the details of the proposal, which will require adjustments to
    SMCRA, it will clearly undermine the delicate balance of interests and
    objectives achieved by the 2006 amendments. It is also inconsistent
    with many of the goals and objectives set forth in the budget
    resolution for fiscal year 2010 and the American Recovery and
    Reinvestment Act. These include environmental stewardship, cleaning up
    abandoned coal and hardrock mines nationwide, creating green jobs,
    sustainable development, infrastructure improvements, alternative
    energy projects, pumping dollars into local communities by putting
    money to work on the ground in an expeditious manner, and protecting
    public health and safety and improving the environment. We urge the
    Congress to reject this unjustified proposal, delete if from the budget
    and restore the full mandatory funding amount of $373 million.
        Included in the mandatory funding mentioned above is supplemental
    funding for ``minimum program'' States. Under the funding formula
    contained in the 2006 amendments to SMCRA, all of the States will
    receive sizeable funding increases except for minimum program States.
    We urge Congress to fund these States at the statutorily authorized
    level of $3 million in fiscal year 2010 so as allow these States to get
    on with the critical AML projects awaiting funding. The current phase-
    in approach limits funding to $2.25 million which greatly inhibits the
    ability of these States to accomplish much in the way of substantive
    AML work--especially given their inventory of remaining high-priority
    problems.
        We also urge Congress to approve continued funding for the AML
    emergency program. In a slight-of-hand move, OSM's budget would
    completely eliminate funding for State-run emergency programs and also
    for Federal emergency projects (in those States that do not administer
    their own emergency programs). OSM accomplishes this by interpreting a
    congressional rescission of $8.5 million in the carryover balance for
    emergencies in fiscal year 2009 as a reduction in the base for
    emergency funding, which was not Congress' stated intent. When combined
    with an additional $12 million reduction in funding, OSM completely
    eliminates funding for the AML emergency program. (See page 31 of OSM's
    budget justification document.) When further combined with the great
    uncertainty about the availability of remaining carryover funds, it
    appears that the program has been decimated.
        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. And for minimum program States, emergency funding is critical
    to preserve the limited resources available to them under the current
    funding formula.
        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). The funding for the emergency
    program is separate from the State and tribal nonemergency 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
    nonemergency State share be used only for annual reclamation project
    construction and administration costs. The nonemergency 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.
        While there were several significant changes to the AML program
    under SMCRA as a result of the 2006 amendments, 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 nonemergency 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 $12.4
    million for the AML emergency program in OSM's fiscal year 2010 budget
    and direct the agency to restore an additional $8.5 million that was
    misallocated last year.
        One of the more effective mechanisms for accomplishing AML
    restoration work is through leveraging or matching other grant
    programs, such as EPA's 319 program. Until fiscal year 2009, language
    was always included in OSM's appropriation that encouraged the use of
    these types of matching funds, particularly for the purpose of
    environmental restoration related to treatment or abatement of acid
    mind drainage (AMD) from abandoned mines. This is a perennial, and
    often expensive, problem, especially in Appalachia. IMCC therefore
    requests the subcommittee to include language in the fiscal year 2010
    appropriations bill that would allow the use of AML funds for any
    required non-Federal share of the cost of projects by the Federal
    Government for AMD treatment or abatement.
        We also urge the subcommittee to support 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 subcommittee to support funding for
    TIPS, a program that directly benefits the States by providing needed
    upgrades to computer software and hardware. We also urge support of the
    Watershed Cooperative Agreement program in the amount of $1.5 million.
                                     ______

            Prepared Statement of the InterTribal Bison Cooperative

                          INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

        My name is Ervin Carlson; I am a member of the Blackfeet Nation in
    Montana and the president of the InterTribal Bison Cooperative (ITBC).
    Please accept my sincere appreciation for this opportunity to submit
    written testimony to the honorable members of the subcommittee, ITBC is
    a Native American nonprofit organization, headquartered in Rapid City,
    South Dakota, comprised of 55 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 $3,000,000 for
    fiscal year 2010, from the Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian
    Affairs, Operation of Indian Programs, to continue our restoration
    effort, to continue to provide highly qualified technical assistance,
    providing implement our marketing initiative and to continue our health
    initiative which utilizes buffalo to teat and prevent diet-related
    diseases among Native Americans; (2) explain to the subcommittee the
    unmet needs of the members of ITBC; and (3) update the subcommittee on
    the present initiatives of ITBC.
        Federal appropriations have allowed ITBC to successfully restore
    buffalo to more than 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, cardiovascular disease
    and others. Viable buffalo herds also offer tribes the opportunity to
    develop sustainable economic development projects surrounding the
    buffalo. The primary focus of ITBC is to help develop tribal herds that
    are able to provide a wholesome healthy meat product to the tribal
    members while remaining economically viable in the reservation
    landscape. This will allow the tribes to utilize a culturally relevant
    resource in a manner that is compatible with their spiritual and
    cultural beliefs and patterns as a means to achieve self-sufficiency.

                                FUNDING REQUEST

        ITBC respectfully requests an appropriation for fiscal year 2010 in
    the amount of $3,000,000. This amount would restore ITBC nearly to the
    fiscal year 2006 appropriation level and is greatly needed to
    successfully accomplish our goals and objectives. This request will
    help balance our continuing growth in membership with our funding
    level. The $3,000,000 funding level would restore vital funding that
    has been cut from the administrations fiscal year 2007, fiscal year
    2008 and fiscal year 2009 budgets. Our requested funding level of
    $3,000,000 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 $4,150,000. The President's budget in fiscal year
    2007 and fiscal year 2008 eliminated funding for ITBC. ITBC was funded
    $1,000,000 in fiscal year 2007 and fiscal year 2008 through a
    congressional appropriation. In fiscal year 2009 ITBC was funded
    $1,000,000 through a congressional appropriation and $421,000 from BIA
    carryover funds from fiscal year 2008. 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 in a manner that would provide economic stability to the
    tribal programs.
        Without the restoration of funding close 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
    toward ITBC's healthcare initiative has been cut to the point of almost
    being nonexistent. This was designed to utilize buffalo for prevention
    and treatment of diet-related diseases among Native American
    populations.
        ITBC is structured as 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 tribe's projects is $10,000,000.

                           ITBC GOALS AND INITIATIVES

    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 15 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 toward self-
    sufficiency. Because of the depressed economies on the reservations
    jobs are scarce and in this arena 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. Tribally owned processing plants would decrease the
    transportation time and increased cold storage capacity would also be
    very beneficial to ensuring a consistent supply of product for
    marketing ventures. ITBC will provide technical assistance in the areas
    of meat processing, cold storage facility development, processing plant
    enhancement, 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 Healthcare Initiative
        ITBC is committed to providing buffalo meat to Indian Reservation
    families both as an economic development effort for Native American
    producers and, more critically, as a healthy food to reintroduce into
    the diets of Native American populations. Current research indicates
    that the diet of most Indian Reservation families includes large
    amounts of high cholesterol, processed meats that contribute to
    diabetes, obesity, cardiovascular disease, and other diet-related
    illnesses.
        ITBC member tribes were just beginning to implement a preventive
    healthcare 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 inexistence. A restoration of
    the funds will allow the program to operate at the fiscal year 2006
    level.
        Generally, buffalo meat is not sold in small quantities 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. Buffalo meat if available is
    usually priced out of the affordable price range of the tribal
    families. ITBC seeks to remedy this concern by providing buffalo meat
    in family sized quantities to reservation markets and interact with the
    Federal food programs. 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 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
    subcommittee to consider restoring ITBC funding close to the fiscal
    year 2006 level of $3,000,000, which will allow ITBC to continue the
    restoration efforts and restore the marketing and health initiative
    program started in fiscal year 2006.
        I would like to thank this subcommittee for the opportunity to
    present testimony and the members of ITBC invite the honorable members
    of the subcommittee to visit our tribal buffalo projects and experience
    first hand their successes.
                                     ______

              Prepared Statement of the Intertribal Timber Council

                                    SUMMARY

        Madam Chairman, I am Nolan C. Colegrove, Sr., president of the
    Intertribal Timber Council (ITC). I am a member of the Hoopa Tribe and
    serve as its forest manager. I am pleased to submit this testimony for
    the subcommittee's formal fiscal year 2010 hearing record with the
    following recommendations for fiscal year 2010 Indian forestry-related
    activities in the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), the Office of the
    Special Trustee (OST), and wildland fire management:
      --In BIA natural resources management, increase BIA tribal priority
            allocations (TPA) forestry by at least $2.6 million to adjust
            for the 14.1 percent consumer price increase since fiscal year
            2003 and up to an additional 25 percent to maintain the pace of
            appropriations provided for the Forest Service (USFS) and
            Bureau of Land Management (BLM). The glaring gap in per-acre
            appropriations for Indian forests compared to those provided
            for USFS and BLM lands continues to widen. From fiscal year
            2004 to fiscal year 2009, BIA TPA forestry funding increased
            only 3.8 percent, compared to 25.5 percent for the USFS timber
            harvest budget and 26.5 percent for BLM public domain forest
            management. We request that the subcommittee initiate a 5-year
            program to fund Indian forestry at per-acre levels comparable
            to the USFS and BLM so as to honor the trust responsibilities
            of the United States.
      --In BIA natural resources management, restore $1 million to the
            Timber Harvest Initiative, and increase forest development by
            $5 million, to begin making-up for an outright funding decline
            from fiscal year 2004 to fiscal year 2009.
      --In BIA natural resources management, provide $4.7 million for the
            Endangered Species Act, including $2.3 million for Northern
            Spotted Owl and marbled murrelet.
      --In OST, restore land consolidation to the fiscal year 2007 $59.5
            million level, and direct priority for Youpee interests and
            forest and other high-value lands.
      --For wildland fire, continue to support preparedness, standardize
            USFS and Department of the Interior (DOI) fire cost accounting
            and business principles, and direct fire 638 indirect costs to
            the BIA indirect cost pool.

                                 ITC BACKGROUND

        ITC is a 33-year-old organization of 70 forest-owning tribes and
    Alaska Native organizations that collectively manage more than 90
    percent of the 18 million acres of timberland and woodland that are
    under BIA trust management. These lands provide vitally important
    habitat, cultural and spiritual sites, recreation and subsistence uses,
    and through commercial forestry, income for the tribes and jobs for
    their members. In Alaska, the forests of Native corporations and
    thousands of individual allotments are equally important to their
    owners. To all our membership, our forests and woodlands are essential
    to our physical, cultural, and economic well-being, and their proper
    management is our foremost concern.
      --In BIA natural resources management, increase BIA TPA forestry to
            adjust for inflationary costs and increase funding to levels
            comparable to those provided to the USFS and BLM. From fiscal
            year 2004 to fiscal year 2009, BIA TPA forestry funding has
            increased only 3.8 percent, while the USFS timber harvest
            budget has increased 25.5 percent and BLM public domain forest
            management has increased 26.5 percent.
        Last year, the ITC testified that a 2003 independent report noted
    that BIA forestry receives only about one-third of the funding provided
    to the USFS. Now, a comparative review of Federal agency forestry
    budgets from fiscal year 2004 to fiscal year 2009 shows the situation
    is becoming much worse for BIA forestry.

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    Fiscal year      Fiscal year                        Percentage
                                                        2004             2009          Difference       difference
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    BLM public domain forest management.........       $8,093,000      $10,242,000      +$2,149,000          +26.550
    USFS NFS forest products....................      265,013,000      332,666,000      +67,653,000          +25.528
    BIA TPA forestry............................       24,641,000       25,574,000         +933,000           +3.786
    BIA forestry projects.......................       17,758,000       17,629,000  -129,000
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Consumer Price Index increase from October 2003 (start
      fiscal year 2004) to January 2009: 14.1 percent.

        Madam Chairman, it is startling and grossly unfair that BIA TPA
    forestry has only received a 3.8 percent funding increase over the past
    5 years while the BLM public domain forest management and the USFS
    forest products timber sales budgets, which perform roughly equivalent
    functions, have received increases of 26.5 percent and 25.5 percent,
    respectively. The United States has a trust responsibility for our
    forests, and is liable for any mismanagement. Our tribal governments,
    often among the neediest in the country, rely on our forest revenues to
    provide basic services, and our forests are very hard-working,
    providing commodity production, clean air, water, fish and wildlife
    habitat, and cultural values. From our 18 million forest acres, our
    fiscal year 2008 harvest is estimated at 500 million board feet, on a
    per-acre basis, about 250 percent of the harvest from the 193 million
    acres of USFS forest lands. Each year we are being required to do more
    with less funding than is being provided for USFS and BLM lands. Given
    the fiduciary trust responsibility of the United States, our forests
    should be receiving the resources necessary to ensure first-class
    management.
        Chronic underfunding of BIA forestry is stripping personnel from
    our forests. Anecdotal data indicates a large and increasing number of
    professional forestry positions are going unfilled in Indian country
    because funding is decreasing. Insufficient fixed cost increases eat
    into the program. Management capacity is seriously eroding. At current
    funding levels, we are struggling just to provide basic management
    functions, and important issues such as adaptive adjustments for
    climate change, which other Federal forest management agencies are now
    focusing on, are left unattended.
        To begin to correct this disparity, the ITC urges the addition of
    $2.6 million to BIA TPA forestry to offset inflationary costs of 14.1
    percent from fiscal year 2004 to fiscal year 2009 (reported by the
    Department of Labor) and that BIA forestry be increased by at least 25
    percent to provide funding increases on a par with those provided for
    the USFS and BLM since fiscal year 2003. We would welcome an
    opportunity to sit down with the subcommittee to learn why these
    disparities have persisted and grown, and what might be done to
    eliminate them.
      --In BIA natural resources management forest projects, restore $1
            million to the Timber Harvest Initiative, and increase forest
            development by $5 million, to begin making-up for an outright
            funding decline from fiscal year 2004 to fiscal year 2009.
        From fiscal year 2004 to fiscal year 2009, the BIA forestry
    projects budget has declined outright from $17.8 million to $17.6
    million, impairing BIA's ability to perform forestry project trust
    functions. To begin to address this problem, the ITC requests that $1
    million be restored to the Timber Harvest Initiative and $5 million be
    added for BIA forest development.
        Since the early 1990s, the Timber Harvest Initiative has provided
    additional forest harvest capacity to those reservations with a timber
    harvest backlog, so they can both meet demand and come into compliance
    with the forest management plans. In fiscal years 2008 and 2009,
    funding for this initiative was cut from $1.8 million to $800,000.
    While we recognize that the timber market is currently depressed, we
    anticipate that the timber market will rebound and Indian country needs
    to have projects prepared and ready for sale. We urge that $1 million
    be restored to the Timber Harvest Initiative to assure BIA can flexibly
    manage trust harvest obligations.
        The ITC also requests that BIA Forest Development funding be
    increased by $5 million. Currently, about one-sixth of the Indian trust
    commercial forest needs either replanting or thinning. This backlog
    must be reduced to improve the productivity of Indian forest lands and
    reduce the threat of catastrophic loss due to insects, disease, and
    wildfire. In fiscal year 2005, the BIA Forest Development budget
    treated 58,000 acres. For fiscal year 2009, BIA's goal is to treat
    52,000 acres, a reduction of more than 10 percent from fiscal year
    2005. With a 1 million acre backlog, more acres must be treated, not
    less. A $5 million increase for fiscal year 2010 will treat an
    additional 30,000 acres, and will increase Indian timber harvest and
    value, improve the health or our forests, contribute to carbon
    sequestration, and produce woody biomass to advance the Nation's
    renewable energy initiatives.
      --In BIA natural resources management, provide $4.7 million for ESA,
            including $2.3 million designated for Northern Spotted Owl and
            marbled murrelet surveys.
        Madam Chairman and members of the subcommittee, the ITC wishes to
    express our great appreciation for this subcommittee's addition of $1
    million to BIA ESA funding for both fiscal year 2008 and fiscal year
    2009. Without that restoration, there would be no BIA endangered
    species activities in the field, where the listed species are and the
    various surveys and protocols must occur.
        In fiscal year 1991, Congress initiated BIA ESA funding with $1
    million in forestry for the Northern Spotted Owl. In fiscal year 1995,
    the marbled murrelet increased that to $1.83 million. In fiscal year
    2002, BIA moved those funds from Forestry to a new office and increased
    funding for all ESA activities to $3 million, acknowledging the
    substantial ESA needs throughout BIA's 56 million trust acres. But
    thereafter, funding steadily declined, and despite continuing ESA
    mandates, among the forestry tribes with the Northern Spotted Owl and
    the marbled murrelet, our field-level funding declined precipitously--
    to zero in fiscal year 2007. While we are pleased with the
    subcommittee's restoration of $1 million in fiscal years 2008 and 2009,
    we are concerned that the BIA now distributes these funds nationwide,
    paying little regard to the Northern Spotted Owl and marbled murrelet
    purpose for which the funds were initially sought and provided.
        For fiscal year 2010, we ask that BIA endangered species be funded
    at least at $4.7 million. That is based on the $21.7 million provided
    for BLM ESA in fiscal year 2009, or 8.4 cents per acre for BLM's 258
    million acres, applied to BIA's 56 million acres, or $4.7 million.
    Within that $4.7 million, we also ask that $2.3 million be designated
    for the Northern Spotted Owl and marbled murrelet, so that tribes that
    initiated the program can have their funds restored to inflation
    adjusted levels provided in fiscal year 1995.
      --In the OST, restore land consolidation at the $59.5 million level,
            and direct consolidation priority for acquisition of Youpee
            interests and forest and other high-value lands.
        We ask that the land consolidation program be restored to the $59.5
    million level requested in fiscal year 2007. Land fractionation is a
    root cause for many of the DOI's high costs and difficulties in trust
    fund and trust asset administration, and must continue to be
    aggressively addressed. We are not aware of any land consolidation
    program problems over its 9-year history that warrant its elimination,
    and we are not aware of any OST out-reach to tribes to discuss the need
    for an ``alternative approach.'' In reviving $59.5 million to land
    consolidation, the ITC urges that it focus not only on highly
    fractionated properties, but also on (a) purchase of the so-called
    Youpee interests to avoid the enormous cost of un-doing the previous
    acquisition of highly fractionated interests through escheat; and (b)
    consolidation of high value lands, including forest lands, before they
    become so fractionated that productive use of the property becomes
    problematic.
      --For wildland fire, continue to support preparedness, standardize
            USFS and DOI's fire cost accounting and business principles,
            and direct fire 638 indirect costs to the BIA indirect cost
            pool.
        The ITC appreciates the subcommittee's maintenance of preparedness
    funding in fiscal year 2009 and urges it be expanded in fiscal year
    2010 by implementing the following recommendations.
        The ITC recommends that USFS and DOI's fire cost accounting and
    business practices be standardized, particularly given the idea that
    the USFS could be moved to DOI. Current accounting differences result
    in significant cost allocation differences between the Departments. The
    charging of Indian hot shot crews to BIA's preparedness budget, when
    USFS crews are charged to suppression, is one such example. The hiring
    of Indian hot shot crews is truly a national suppression resource, and
    requiring BIA to charge those crew costs to preparedness is
    inappropriate and a needless penalty on tribal preparedness funding.
    Hot shot crews, regardless of their origin or Department, should be
    charged as suppression resources.
        We also ask that Congress direct BIA to charge 638 indirect costs
    for tribal wildland fire contracts to the BIA indirect cost pool,
    rather than the preparedness account. This preserves BIA preparedness
    funding's effectiveness and brings 638 tribal wildland fire contracting
    activities into congruence with other BIA contracting indirect cost
    practices.
                                     ______

        Prepared Statement of the Independent Tribal Courts Review Team

        Thank you for the opportunity to testify today and address the
    serious funding needs that have limited and continue to hinder the
    operations of tribal judicial systems in Indian country. I am the
    Leader of the Independent Tribal Court Review Team (ITCRT). I am here
    today to request that this subcommittee increases funding for tribal
    courts by at least $50 million in fiscal year 2010 and maintain the
    tribal courts set-aside.
        We support an increase in funding for:
      --Hiring and Training of Court Personnel.--Tribal Courts make do with
            underpaid staff, underexperienced staff and minimal training.
            (We have determined that hiring tribal members limits the
            inclination of staff to move away; a poor excuse to underpay
            staff.)
      --Salary Increases for Existing Judges and Court Personnel.--Salaries
            should be comparable to local and State court personnel to keep
            pace with the non-tribal judicial systems and be competitive to
            maintain existing personnel.
      --Tribal Courts Need State-of-the-Art Technology (Software,
            computers, phone systems, tape recording machines, etc.).--Many
            tribes cannot afford to purchase or upgrade existing court
            equipment unless they get a grant. This is accompanied by
            training expenses and licensing fees which do not last after
            the grant ends.
      --Security and Security Systems To Protect Court Records and Privacy
            of Case Information.--Most tribal courts do not even have a
            full-time bailiff, much less a state-of-the-art security system
            that uses locked doors and camera surveillance. This is a
            tragedy waiting to happen.
      --Tribal Court Code Development.--Tribes cannot afford legal
            consultation. A small number of tribes hire on-site staff
            attorneys. These staff attorneys generally become enmeshed in
            economic development and code development does not take
            priority. Tribes make do with underdeveloped codes. The Adam
            Walsh Act created a hardship for tribes who were forced to
            develop codes, without funding, or have the State assume
            jurisdiction. (States have never properly overseen law
            enforcement in a tribal jurisdiction.)
      --Financial Code Development.--We have rarely seen tribes with
            developed financial policies. The process of paying a bond, for
            example, varies greatly from tribe to tribe. The usual process
            of who collects it, where it is collected and how much it is,
            is never consistent among tribes.
    Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs: More than $100
            Million for Increased Law Enforcement
        The fiscal year 2010 budget provides increases in law enforcement
    and detention (which we support as needed and necessary costs for
    tribes). Individuals get to detention from law enforcement through
    tribal courts. Tribal courts, located in the Federal budget within law
    enforcement, need a similar proportionate funding boost and we request
    that the fiscal year 2010 budget includes a $50 million increase for
    tribal courts.
        For the past 3 years, the ITCRT has been traveling throughout
    Indian country assessing how tribal courts are operating. During this
    time, we have completed some 50 court reviews. There is no one with
    more hands-on experience and knowledge regarding the current status of
    tribal courts than our review team.
        We have come into contact with every imaginable type of tribe;
    large and small, urban and rural, wealthy, and poor. What we have not
    come into contact with is any tribe whose court system is operating
    with financial resources comparable to other local and State
    jurisdictions.
        There are 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 costs. 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 experience. Tribal court systems
    have appellate courts, jury trials, well-cared-for courthouses (even
    the poorer tribes), 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.
        Our research indicates tribal courts are at a critical stage in
    terms of need. Nationwide, there are 156 tribes with courts that
    receive Federal funding. These tribes divide a mere $11.9 million in
    Federal funds. It is the strong recommendation of the ITCRT that the
    Federal tribal courts budget be substantially increased in the
    President's budget.
        Assessments have indicated that the Bureau of Indian Affairs only
    funds tribal courts at 26 percent of the funding needed to operate. The
    remainder is funded by the tribes. Tribes who have economic development
    general subsidize their tribal courts. On the flip side, tribes who
    cannot afford to assist in the financial operations of the court are
    tasked with doing the best they can with what they have even at the
    expense of decreasing or eliminating services elsewhere. This while
    operating at a disadvantage with already overstrained resources and
    underserved needs of the tribal members. The assessment suggests that
    the smaller courts are both the busiest and most underfunded.
        We thank this subcommittee for additional funding in fiscal year
    2008. These funds were a godsend to tribes. Even minimal increases were
    put to good use:
      --In 2006, a fire destroyed the White Mountain Apache Court. A
            previously condemned building, it went up like a tinder box. An
            extra $200,000 bought the White Mountain Apache Tribe a modern
            digital tape recording machine, a video surveillance security
            system, a telephone system, new computers, and helped restore a
            building so the court had somewhere to go. The chief judge even
            did some of the carpentry work in the two newer courtrooms.
            That's what additional funding does.
      --In Fort Yates and the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, a tribal official
            wept when we told her the Tribe would receive an extra
            $300,000. Law enforcement was increased from 7 to perhaps 30.
            The court ran every day of the week, including Sunday, to
            account for the new cases. Law enforcement response time to a
            phone call for assistance went from 5 hours, if anyone came at
            all, to 15 minutes. Once again there was law and order in
            Standing Rock. That's what additional funding does.
        The grant funding in the Department of Justice is intended to be
    temporary, but instead it is used for permanent needs; such as funding
    a drug court clerk who then is used as a court clerk with drug court
    duties. When the funding runs out, so does the permanent position. We
    have witnessed many failed drug courts, failed court management
    software projects (due to training costs) and incomplete code
    development projects. When the Justice funding runs out, so does the
    project.
        As a directive from the Office of Management and Budget, our
    Reviews specifically examined how tribes were using Federal funding. In
    the last 3 fiscal years (fiscal year 2009 is partial) there was only
    one isolated incident of a 3 percent questionable expenditure of
    Federal funds. It is speculated that because of our limited resources,
    we compromise ones due process and invoke ``speedy trials'' violations
    to save tribal courts money. Everyone who is processed through the
    tribal judicial system is afforded their constitutional civil liberties
    and civil rights.
        We do not wish to leave an entirely negative impression about
    tribal courts. Tribal courts need an immediate, sustained, and
    increased level of funding. True. However, there are strong indications
    that the courts will put such funding to good use.
        The Shoshone-Bannock of Fort Hall, Idaho holds court in a condemned
    building, built in 1888, full of so much mice droppings and bat guano
    that you cannot use the lower floor. They recently had a building
    closed because of the threat of Hanta Virus. They have been unable to
    hire a tribal prosecutor for 2 years because of their remoteness and
    inability to pay a competitive salary. Still, they operate a court as
    best they can and dream of the day they will complete their detention
    center which, after years of waiting, they are paying for themselves.
    Their need exceeds 100 percent.
        The Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe in Eagle Butte, South Dakota (like
    several other places we have reviewed) is fortunate to have dedicated
    court clerks who work for salaries below the poverty level, most at
    less than $10 an hour. Their need exceeds 100 percent.
        Turtle Mountain Chippewa Tribe of North Dakota must operate even
    when the courts' electricity is periodically turned off because they
    can't pay their light bill. Their need exceeds 100 percent.
        There are tribes like the Fort Belknap Tribe of Montana whose chief
    judge manages both offices and holds court in an old dormitory that
    can't be used when it rains because water leaks into the building and
    the mold has consumed one wall. Their need exceeds 100 percent.
        And, there are tribes like the isolated Havasupai, located in the
    bottom of the Grand Canyon. They can only afford a judge 1 day a month.
    Their computers only work sporadically because of the fine layer of
    dust that appears to cover everything. They have a single, underpaid
    clerk, who remains dedicated to her job, even though her employment
    experience means she could make twice as much working out of the Canyon
    away from home. When she goes to pick up her children at school, the
    court must close, because she is the only one there. Their need exceeds
    100 percent.
        Tribal courts have other serious needs. Tribal appellate court
    judges are mostly attorneys who dedicate their services for modest fees
    that barely cover costs for copying and transcription fees. Tribal
    courts offer jury trials. In many courts, one sustained jury trial will
    deplete the available budget. The only place to minimize expenses is to
    fire staff. Many tribal courts have defense advocates. These advocates
    are generally law trained and do a good job protecting an individual's
    rights (including assuring speedy trial limitations are not violated.)
    However, this is a large item in court budgets and if the defense
    advocate, or prosecutor, should leave, the replacement process is slow.
        I come here today to tell Congress these things. We feel it is our
    duty to come here on behalf of tribes to advocate for better funding.
    Tribes ask us to tell their stories. They open their files and records
    to us and say, ``We have nothing to hide''. Tell Congress we need
    better facilities, more law enforcement, more detention facilities,
    more legal advice, better codes. the list goes on and on. But, as we
    have indicated, it all involves more funding. This Congress and this
    new administration can do something great. Put your money where your
    promises have been.
                                     ______

            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 2010 for
    various agencies and programs under the jurisdiction of the
    subcommittee. The League is a national, nonprofit organization founded
    in 1922. We have nearly 37,000 members and more than 270 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 (USFWS) and the U.S. Environmental
    Protection Agency (EPA).

          DEPARTMENTS OF THE INTERIOR AND AGRICULTURE, LAND AND WATER
                               CONSERVATION FUND

        The League is very encouraged by the President's proposal to
    increase funding for the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) to
    approximately $420 million in fiscal year 2010 with the goal of fully
    funding LWCF programs at $900 million by 2014. The League strongly
    supports full funding and its members reaffirmed this commitment last
    year by adopting a resolution during our national convention endorsing
    this goal. It is important to begin to reinvest in strategic land
    acquisition to protect critical habitat, provide recreational access,
    and to buffer against the likely impacts of climate change. The
    dramatic decline in acquisitions over the past 8 years is particularly
    acute across the National Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS). An independent
    analysis last year of NWRS performance by Management Systems
    International (MSI) determined that the System has been ineffective in
    strategic land acquisition mainly because of a precipitous drop in
    requests to buy land. According to MSI, ``[T]he number of requested
    properties to be added to the Refuge System was 53 in fiscal year 2003
    and has declined every year since. In fiscal year 2008 only two
    properties were requested for addition to the NWRS--despite the fiscal
    year 2007 LAPS priority list being composed of 128 available
    properties.'' Acquisition needs are also high across other Federal land
    management agencies and we encourage the subcommittee to approve the
    President's request.

          DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, YOUTH EDUCATION AND INVOLVEMENT

        We applaud the President for specifically highlighting the value of
    recruiting a new generation of hunters and anglers. According to data
    from the USFWS, the number of hunters in America dropped from
    approximately 14 million to 12.5 million between 1996 and 2006. Many
    factors affect participation and recent research highlights the
    essential role that families play in introducing children to hunting.
    This research confirms that hunters who are active today most commonly
    first went hunting when they were between the ages of 10 and 12 and
    nearly all were introduced to hunting by a member of their family.
    Reversing this downward trend will require a range of strategies, and
    some of the most important will focus on children and families living
    in rural, suburban, and urban communities. The League supports the
    request for $28 million for the USFWS to provide grants to States to
    support innovative programs designed to recruitment a new generation of
    hunters and anglers. In addition, we support the request for $1 million
    in additional funding for the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation
    (NFWF) to develop public-private partnerships focused on connecting
    children with nature through hunting, fishing, and other types of
    wildlife-related outdoor recreation.

           FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE, NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE SYSTEM

        The League joins other members of the Cooperative Alliance for
    Refuge Enhancement (CARE), a diverse coalition of 23 wildlife,
    sporting, conservation, and scientific organizations representing more
    than 14 million members and supporters, in requesting $514 million for
    operations and maintenance of the NWRS in fiscal year 2010. We
    appreciate the subcommittee's leadership in boosting NWRS funding to
    $462.8 million in the fiscal year 2009 omnibus appropriations bill.
        National Wildlife Refuges across the country provide some of the
    most important habitat for fish, wildlife, and waterfowl. In addition,
    they offer incredible recreational opportunities for hunters, anglers,
    birdwatchers, and countless others who enjoy the outdoors. Furthermore,
    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
    NWRS has a $3.5 billion backlog in basic operations and maintenance
    projects. Although funding provided in the American Recovery and
    Reinvestment Act will support near-term maintenance projects on
    Refuges, additional and sustained investment is necessary over the long
    term to significantly reduce this backlog.
        Moreover, the NWRS has essential daily operations needs that can
    only be addressed with additional budget resources. For example, the
    MSI evaluation concluded that ``[A]t many refuges, law enforcement
    coverage is insufficient to ensure protection of resources and the
    safety of visitors and refuge staff.'' This analysis recommended that
    the system double the number of law enforcement staff from 200 to ``at
    least 400 full-time officers.'' Moreover, the analysis tied the law
    enforcement problem directly to funding stating: ``[I]t is highly
    unlikely that any meaningful progress towards improving the Refuge
    System's law enforcement capability (will occur) under current and
    expected budget allocation levels.''
        We are encouraged by the administration's request for $483.3
    million for fiscal year 2010. Although this a positive step, we are
    concerned that this amount falls short of what the NWRS needs annually
    and over the long term. For example, although MSI gave the USFWS an
    ineffective rating for Refuge law enforcement, the budget request in
    this critically important area is relatively flat. In addition, the
    USFWS estimates that the NWRS requires at least additional $15 million
    annually simply to keep pace with inflation. However, it does not
    appear that the budget provides even half of this minimum threshold
    when one considers that at least $14 million of the $20 million
    proposed increase is committed to climate change and youth engagement.
    Although these are important, some NWRS functions will suffer if
    funding does not at least keep pace with inflation. Providing $514
    million in fiscal year 2010 will ensure that NWRS can provide quality
    visitor services and effectively manage critical habitat. In addition,
    this would be a critical first step toward achieving CARE's goal of
    fully funding the annual operations and maintenance needs of the NWRS
    by 2013.

                FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE, STATE WILDLIFE GRANTS

        As a member of the Teaming with Wildlife National Steering
    Committee, the League urges the subcommittee to approve the President's
    request for $115 million for State Wildlife Grants in fiscal year 2010.
    We also support his request for $40 million for climate change grants.
    The debate on comprehensive climate and energy legislation highlights
    the impacts of a warming climate on fish and wildlife and the
    importance of investing in adaptation and habitat conservation. States
    will be at the forefront of this effort based on their responsibility
    to manage fish and wildlife. This funding will allow them to update
    wildlife action plans to better account for and proactively respond to
    these impacts.

       ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, CLEAN WATER STATE REVOLVING FUND

        The League appreciates the steps the subcommittee took to provide
    $689 million for the Clean Water State Revolving Fund (SRF) in the
    fiscal year 2009 omnibus appropriations bill. We support the
    President's request for $2.4 billion for the Clean Water SRF next
    fiscal year. Nationwide, broken sewer pipes and overflows spill more
    than 1 trillion gallons of untreated sewage into our waterways every
    year costing more than $50 billion for cleanup. These overflows pose
    serious risks to wildlife and human health. The SRF is a highly
    successful program that provides the funds needed to stop sewage
    contamination. However, the EPA's Clean Water and Drinking Water
    Infrastructure Gap Analysis found a $535 billion gap between current
    spending and projected needs for drinking water and wastewater
    infrastructure over the next 20 years. An investment of $2.4 billion in
    the Clean Water SRF would improve water quality, protect public health,
    and provide jobs across the country.

            ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, GREAT LAKES RESTORATION

        The League is also very encouraged by and supportive of the
    President's proposal to develop a new $475 million initiative to
    protect and restore the Great Lakes. This proposal represents a
    national--not simply regional--investment. The Great Lakes contain more
    than 80 percent of the surface fresh water in the United States and
    more than one-tenth of the country's total population lives in the
    region. Although significant economic challenges confront the area, it
    continues to be the center of manufacturing in this country and
    supports national and world-class recreational opportunities which also
    generate billions of dollars in economic activity.
        The President's proposal strategically targets some of the most
    persistent and pressing natural resource, environmental, and public
    health issues facing the Great Lakes. For example, the proposal would
    direct nearly one-third of funds to address toxic substances and areas
    of concern. Heavy metals and other toxics are dangerous pollutants
    throughout the region and are especially concentrated in contaminated
    sediments. The EPA, States, and localities have identified specific
    areas of concern and new funding could be quickly directed to
    remediation. This proposal also focuses on other key threats, including
    invasive species and nonpoint source pollution. Moreover, the proposal
    is proactive in terms of restoring and improving native species,
    habitat, and aquatic ecosystems.
        The States that border the Lakes and many nongovernmental
    organizations have invested significant resources to preserve these
    national treasures; however, additional Federal investment is needed or
    the problems will only get worse and cost even more to fix. The
    President is proposing to make a significant investment as the first
    step in a long-term effort to restore the Great Lakes ecosystem. The
    League urges the subcommittee to fully fund this important initiative.

     ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, NON-POINT SOURCE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
                         (CLEAN WATER ACT SECTION 319)

        We join American Rivers in urging the subcommittee to appropriate
    $250 million for section 319, the Non-point Source Management Program.
    The fiscal year 2009 omnibus appropriations bill provides approximately
    $201 million, which is also equal to the administration's fiscal year
    2010 request. This program provides grants to States, territories, and
    tribes for nonpoint source pollution reduction activities. States
    report that nonpoint source pollution is the leading cause of water
    quality problems, including harmful effects on drinking water supplies,
    recreation, fisheries, and wildlife.

            ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, CHESAPEAKE BAY PROGRAM

        The League commends the subcommittee for appropriating $31 million
    for the Chesapeake Bay Program in fiscal year 2009 omnibus bill. We
    join the Chesapeake Bay Foundation in requesting $40 million for fiscal
    year 2010, including $5 million for Small Watershed Grants. We
    appreciate the administration's request for $35.1 million for fiscal
    year 2010.
        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 9 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 maintaining the investment in the Program Office with
    particular emphasis on boosting support for Small Watershed Grants.
                                     ______

                      Prepared Statement of John K. Moore

        This testimony addresses three topics:
      --support for fiscal year 2010 Land and Water Conservation Fund
            (LWCF) appropriations for Tahoe and Eldorado National Forests;
      --serious concerns about proposed purchases of low-value lands with
            future LWCF appropriations; and
      --serious concerns about logging of parcels that have been optioned
            for future purchase with LWCF appropriations.
        I have campaigned for more than 30 years for LWCF appropriations
    for acquisition of private lands valuable for wildlife habitat and
    recreation in national forests in the Sierra Nevada.
        These campaigns have enjoyed numerous successes, among them
    acquisitions in Hope Valley, around Castle Peak in Tahoe National
    Forest, on the Pacific Crest Trail, and along the North Fork American
    Wild River. The support of LWCF appropriations by Senate appropriations
    subcommittees has played a major role in these successes.

                SUPPORT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2010 LWCF APPROPRIATIONS

        The checkerboard ownership pattern in the Sierra Nevada is one of
    the most significant challenges facing Forest Service (USFS) land
    management. Incompatible uses on private parcels interspersed with
    public lands would degrade wildlife habitat, water quality,
    recreational access, and scenic views on the public lands and would
    complicate forest management and fire control. Disruption of north-
    south habitat connectivity, essential to wildlife migration in the
    Sierra Nevada, will have much more serious effects as climate change
    significantly shifts wildlife habitats. For these reasons, USFS has
    made consolidation of public ownership in checkerboard areas an
    acquisition priority in California.
        Of the lands proposed for acquisition with LWCF appropriations in
    the immediate future, lands around Castle Peak and along the Middle
    Fork Yuba and North Yuba Rivers should have the highest priority.

                               CASTLE PEAK LANDS

        Two parcels at the north end of the Castle Peaks Proposed
    Wilderness are our highest priority for acquisition. These parcels are
    crucial to the integrity of the wilderness proposal. One of the parcels
    connects to a pristine section of red fir forest that has never been
    logged and also protects a tributary to the Little Truckee River,
    eligible for wild and scenic designation, which is being restored.
    Acquisition of the other parcel would make the proposed wilderness
    boundary west of Mount Lola more logical and defensible.
        In addition, there are three other parcels southwest of Castle Peak
    that adjoin or are within the original Castle Peak Roadless Area.
    Acquisition of these parcels would help consolidate USFS management of
    lands around Castle Peak valuable for wildlife habitat and recreation.

                            MIDDLE YUBA RIVER LANDS

        These lands are in 12 miles of the canyon of the Middle Yuba River,
    a deep rugged canyon that includes three sheer-walled inner box
    canyons. The 12 miles are part of the stretch of the Middle Yuba whose
    exceptional scenic qualities make it eligible for inclusion in the Wild
    and Scenic River System.
        The canyon is a critical wildlife corridor in which bald eagles,
    northern goshawks, and spotted owls occur. National forest lands in the
    canyon are managed to benefit habitat for marten and Pacific fisher.
        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.
    Protecting these parcels will help ensure public access, critical
    habitat protection, and water protection in the Sierra Nevada.

                          NORTH FORK YUBA RIVER LANDS

        Indian Valley in the scenic canyon of the North Yuba River would be
    a very attractive location for a Tahoe National Forest campground. The
    North Yuba Canyon, traversed by Highway 49, is a heavily visited
    recreational area. USFS has had a long-standing interest in acquiring
    Indian Valley for a campground. Acquisition of this land would be very
    consistent with the purposes of the LWCF.

          SERIOUS CONCERNS ABOUT PROPOSED PURCHASES OF LOW-VALUE LANDS

        There are many thousands of acres of private lands valuable for
    wildlife habitat and recreation still to be acquired in Tahoe and
    Eldorado National Forests. Acquisition of a significant proportion of
    these lands will take many years.
        All the lands in Tahoe and Eldorado National Forests purchased with
    LWCF appropriations since 2001 have been lands owned by Sierra Pacific
    Industries (SPI) which are under option to The Trust for Public Land.
    Purchasing the remaining lands under option is likely to require
    several more years of appropriations.
        Some of the remaining lands under option are of such low value that
    purchasing them would not be consistent with the purposes of the LWCF.
    I am very concerned about the proposed use of millions of dollars of
    LWCF appropriations to acquire these low-value lands. These lands
    compare very unfavorably with the more valuable lands in Tahoe National
    Forest previously acquired with LWCF appropriations. Expending LWCF
    appropriations on low-value lands reduces the funds available for
    saving more valuable lands.
        Low-value lands have been optioned because TPL made the very unwise
    decision in 2001 to sign an option which included them. TPL did not
    investigate the merits of the lands and did not ask the advice of
    environmentalists familiar with the lands before signing the option. As
    far as I know, TPL did not ask USFS if acquiring the optioned lands was
    consistent with USFS acquisition priorities before announcing the
    option.
        There are two categories of low-value lands under option: lands
    degraded by intensive timber management and roads, and scattered
    parcels whose acquisition would not help preserve areas with
    exceptional values.
        Thousands of acres of the remaining optioned lands have been
    significantly modified by intensive timber management and the roads
    required for management. Timber management has degraded the wildlife
    habitat and recreational values of these lands, compared to less-
    modified forest. Future management of these lands would require
    substantial expenditures by USFS for reforestation and maintenance and
    possible closure of roads. Acquisition of significantly modified lands
    may be justified to consolidate ownership in mostly unmodified areas
    with exceptional values, but not otherwise.
        LWCF appropriations are best expended for lands that consolidate
    ownership in areas with exceptional values, such as the Castle Peak and
    Middle Yuba areas. The remaining optioned lands include many scattered
    parcels in areas without exceptional values. In some cases public
    ownership would still be significantly fragmented after the optioned
    scattered parcels are acquired. Purchase of scattered parcels in areas
    without exceptional values is not consistent with the purposes of the
    LWCF.
        Maps showing the lands degraded by intensive timber management and
    roads and the low-value scattered parcels will be supplied on request.

              SERIOUS CONCERNS ABOUT LOGGING OF LANDS UNDER OPTION

        The option agreement allows Sierra Pacific Industries to harvest
    timber from the optioned lands. Since the option was signed, Sierra
    Pacific Industries has harvested timber or has obtained permits to
    harvest timber from several thousand acres of optioned lands. Timber
    has been harvested more than once from some areas. Harvesting timber
    from the optioned lands degrades the values of the lands which are
    cited to justify the purchases. Permitting timber harvesting on the
    optioned lands is a very serious defect in the option.
        Announcements celebrating the signing of the option emphasized that
    the optioned lands were more valuable for nontimber uses then for
    timber. The permitted timber harvesting flatly contradicts these much-
    publicized announcements. Has the Appropriations Committee been aware
    that the option allows harvesting of timber from optioned lands?

                       RESPONDING TO THE SERIOUS CONCERNS

        I urge you to consider these serious concerns about acquisition of
    low-value lands and logging of lands under option when appropriating
    LWCF funds for fiscal year 2010 and subsequent fiscal years. In
    addition, The Trust for Public Land and the USFS should be informed of
    these concerns.
                                     ______

              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 this written testimony on
    our funding priorities and requests on the fiscal year 2010 Bureau of
    Indian Affairs (BIA) and Indian Health Service (IHS) budgets. We have
    long appreciated this subcommittee's support of our funding requests.

                    TRIBAL-SPECIFIC APPROPRIATION PRIORITIES

        $1.46 million for land purchase for Tamanowas Rock Sanctuary
    Project; a $200,000 increase to BIA tribal base budget for fish and
    wildlife management; and $10.92 million to support construction of a
    medical clinic serving Medicare/Medicaid and other low-income clients.

                  LOCAL/REGIONAL REQUESTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

        We support all requests and recommendations of:
      --Affiliated Tribes of Northwest Indians;
      --Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission (NWIFC); and
      --Northwest Portland Area Indian Health Board.

                     NATIONAL REQUESTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

    BIA Requests
        Provide $25 million general increase to BIA Tribal Priority
    Allocation (TPA) for inflationary and fixed costs and provide a $57
    million increase for BIA Contract Support Cost (CSC), including direct
    CSC.

    IHS Requests
        Provide $470 million for IHS mandatory, inflation, and population
    growth increase to maintain existing healthcare services; $152 million
    increase for Contract Health Services (CHS); $143 million increase for
    IHS to fully fund CSC, including direct CSC; and a $5 million increase
    to the IHS Office of Tribal Self-Governance (OTSG).
        We support all requests and recommendations of the National
    Congress of American Indians (NCAI) and National Indian Health Board
    (NIHB).

                  TRIBAL-SPECIFIC APPROPRIATION JUSTIFICATION

    $1.46 Million 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 significance for the local non-Indian community. As
    a geological formation, the estimated age of the rock is 43 million
    years. More importantly, the oral history associated with the rock
    among the local tribes includes the era of the mastodons (extinct for
    8,000 years), when it was used as a perch by tribal hunters and a story
    of a great flood (assumed to be a tsunami from around 3,000 years ago)
    when people tied themselves to the rock to avoid being swept away.
        In 1976, the rock was listed in the Washington Heritage Register as
    having significant archaeological interest. The tribes and local
    community have been working for more than 10 years to try to protect
    the property where the rock is located from development. 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 (if dedicated roads
    are vacated, the acreage is closer to 100 acres for the platted
    properties). This property was in imminent threat of development in the
    vicinity of the rock. The local community and the tribes now seek funds
    to purchase the land temporarily secured by the loan 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 and 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 the same size as the other
    three tribes. 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 than received
    by the other three tribes. The Jam
    $10.92 Million To Support Construction of a Medical Clinic Serving
            Medicare/Medicaid and Other Low-income Clients
        The Sequim and Port Angeles areas of Clallam County are designated
    a Primary Care Health Professional Shortage Area due to the low-income
    and Medicaid population and the lack of access that these populations
    have to medical and dental care. The tribe, in order to afford quality
    healthcare for its members, serves a large non-Indian population of
    underserved individuals and families who cannot reasonably find care
    elsewhere. Unlike many other tribes, the Jamestown S'Klallam Tribe does
    not receive direct care funding from IHS to support the operation of
    its medical clinic. Making medical clinic services available to an
    underserved group of non-Indians provides enough income and patient
    base to operate a medical clinic. Profit from clinic operations is used
    to fund health services for tribal citizens and to make up the
    shortfall in IHS funds to fulfill Federal treaty obligations.
        The tribe is proposing to construct a 35,407 square-foot healthcare
    clinic and 94-vehicle parking area. The clinic will serve both tribal
    members and nontribal members. The primary purpose of this project is
    to respond to a documented need to provide health and wellness services
    to the residents of Sequim, Clallam County, and to low- and moderate-
    income people of the surrounding communities. The project will be
    located on 2.5 acres of land as part of the Olympic Medical Clinic
    Campus in Sequim, Washington.
                  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 NWIFC.
                        national requests and priorities
    BIA Requests
        Historically, the discretionary funding levels for programs
    intended to assist Native Americans through the BIA has fallen
    dangerously short. Native Americans living on tribal lands do not have
    access to the same services and programs available to other Americans,
    even though the Government has a binding trust obligation to provide
    these services. In fact, the Congressional Research Service found that
    between 1975 and 2000, funding for the BIA and the Office of Special
    Trustee declined by $6 million yearly when adjusted for inflation.
    Furthermore, between fiscal year 2004 and fiscal year 2007 the BIA
    budget fell significantly from $2.8 billion to $2.2 billion. Funding
    cuts and the reallocation of funds for nontribal use increased the
    level of unmet need in Indian country.
        Provide $25 million (10 percent increase more than fiscal year
    2009) for general increase to BIA TPA for inflationary and fixed costs.
        TPA is one of the most important funding areas for tribal
    governments. It covers such needs as economic development, general
    assistance, and natural resource management. Since tribes have the
    flexibility to use TPA funds to meet the unique needs of their
    individual communities, they are the main resource for tribes to
    exercise their powers of self-governance. However, from 1998 through
    2004, BIA's funding for TPAs declined from 42 percent of BIA's budget
    to only 33.3 percent. In 2000, TPA funding was so inadequate that the
    estimated need was $2.8 billion. According to the budget statistics
    compiled by the NCAI, inadequate TPA funding reaches back two decades
    and has prevented tribes from exercising self-governance.
      --Provide $57 million Increase for BIA to fully fund CSC, including
            direct CSC
        The BIA estimates that the fiscal year 2007 CSC shortfall was
    approximately $54 million ($143 million in CSC appropriations versus
    $197 million in allowable CSC need). Additionally, $3 million is needed
    annually for administrative costs for new and expanded programs (Indian
    Self-Determination Fund). The lack of CSC dollars diminishes the
    administrative capacity of Indian tribes to deliver quality programs
    and services to our citizens. The Tribal administrative personnel hired
    with CSC dollars help ensure accountability and transparency in our
    administration of Federal programs. The Indian Self-Determination and
    Education Assistance Act, Public Law 93-638, mandates that Indian
    tribes be paid these costs. There is no other Government contractor
    that is forced to subsidize Federal contracts.
    IHS Requests
        The President's proposed increase for the IHS is projected to be
    $415 million more than the fiscal year 2009 enacted level. Until the
    full budget details become available, the effect of the President's
    proposal cannot be fully evaluated.
        Provide $470 million for IHS mandatory, inflation, and population
    growth increase to maintain existing healthcare 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.
        Provide $152 million increase for CHS. A $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 healthcare services at
    the same level as those tribes who are served by an IHS hospital.
        Provide $143 million for IHS to fully fund CSC, including direct
    CSC. On March 1, 2005, the U.S. 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).
        Increase $5 million to the IHS OTSG. 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 more than 330
    self-governance tribes with funding totaling $1 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 NCAI and NIHB.
      --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.
                                     ______

    Prepared Statement of the Kern County Valley Floor Habitat Conservation
      Plan Industry and Government; Western States Petroleum Association;
     Independent Oil Producers Association; Occidental of Elk Hills, Inc.;
                     and Buena Vista Water Storage District

        Madam 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 2010.
        First, the Coalition supports the President's budget request for
    the Department of the Interior's Cooperative Endangered Species
    Conservation Fund, especially funding for Habitat Conservation Plan
    (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 more than $550,000 to the
    development of this program. In 1997, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
    Service (FWS) 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 2010 and $500,000 for fiscal year 2011.
        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 FWS, 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 more than 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 2010.
        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 2010, provided
    there is the necessary Federal funding for the acquisition of habitat
    to mitigate for oil and gas operations and development. Additional
    funding is critical to completing the HCP. This is one of the final
    steps necessary to implement the conservation strategy. Because of the
    extensive private, local, and State government financial support that
    went into the development of this program, Federal participation in
    program implementation will demonstrate that the burden of ESA
    compliance is not being placed exclusively on private property owners.
    Program funding will also contribute to eventual species recovery.

                             PROGRAM FUNDING NEEDS

        In order for the KCVFHCP to be implemented, the program requires
    funding in the amount of $1.5 million (augments the $1.5 million in
    State and Federal funding received in 1997) that could be funded in
    increments over the first 2 years of the program. The purpose of this
    funding is described as follows:
    Oil Development Issue
        A mitigation strategy has been devised that is intended to
    acknowledge existing oil field activities within Kern County. The
    strategy proposes to acquire 3,000 acres of endangered species habitat
    to mitigate for species loss resulting from oil field development
    outside of established oil field production areas, but within proximity
    of those areas. This is to allow for reasonable expansion of oil field
    activities over the life of the HCP program. The program strategy
    allocates $3 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 2010
    appropriation to support implementation of this significant program.
                                     ______

                 Prepared Statement of the Keweenaw Land Trust

        Madam Chairman and honorable members of the subcommittee: I thank
    you for this opportunity to present testimony in support of the
    acquisition of a 1,258-acre property at Prickett Lake in the Ottawa
    National Forest (NF) in Michigan. An appropriation of $2.8 million from
    the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) is needed for the U.S.
    Forest Service (USFS) to protect this important property.
        I also respectfully request a substantial increase in overall
    funding for the LWCF, specifically urging the subcommittee to provide
    $325 million for the Federal LWCF in the fiscal year 2010 Interior,
    Environment, and Related Agencies appropriations bill. I applaud the
    LWCF funding increases provided by this subcommittee in fiscal year
    2009. And, we are most thankful that the Obama administration budget
    recognizes the importance of these programs by proposing significant
    increases for fiscal year 2010 and setting a goal to achieve full
    funding of the LWCF in the next 5 years.
        The LWCF is our Nation's premier program to acquire and protect
    lands in national parks, national wildlife refuges, national forests,
    Bureau of Land Management units, and other Federal land systems. This
    program faces an extensive and growing backlog of land acquisition
    needs across the Nation. Public lands provide innumerable social and
    economic benefits including enhanced quality of life, healthy lifestyle
    opportunities, protection of watersheds and drinking water supplies,
    wildfire reduction and prevention, and expanses of habitat supporting
    wildlife and fisheries and their capacity to adapt to climate change.
    We urge you to renew this wise investment in America's natural heritage
    and take steps to toward full and consistent funding of these vital
    programs.
        The Ottawa NF is located within the formerly glaciated landscape of
    Michigan's Upper Peninsula, with hundreds of lakes and tributaries
    across nearly 1 million acres. The forest, which is defined by Lake
    Superior to the north, offers a remote sense of solitude that is unique
    to the Upper Midwest. A core value of the forest is its many diverse
    ecosystems, and is known in particular for hardwood forests, bountiful
    streams, rivers, lakes, spectacular fall foliage, and heavy winter
    snowfall. The forest offers a wide variety of outdoor recreation
    opportunities and provides habitat for deer, fox, snowshoe hares, bald
    eagles, loons, wolves, bears, and other wildlife.
        Located within the Ontonagon Ranger District of the Ottawa NF and
    within a semi-primitive motorized area, the Prickett Lake property has
    been selected as the highest-ranked acquisition within the eastern
    region of the USFS. Prickett Lake immediately adjoins the Sturgeon
    River Gorge Wilderness, which was designated by Congress in 1987 and is
    approximately 14,000 acres in size. Among its outstanding attributes,
    the Wilderness includes the spectacular Sturgeon River Gorge--a
    distinctive landform and unique geologic feature unlike anything else
    in the United States and the deepest canyon in the State of Michigan.
    Congress designated the Sturgeon River part of the national wild and
    scenic river system in 1992 and it is considered a national treasure by
    many. In 2008, the Ottawa NF acquired a 2,000-acre inholding of the
    Sturgeon River Gorge that includes 6 miles of the Wild and Scenic River
    corridor upstream of Prickett Lake.
        Previously owned by the Upper Peninsula Power Company, the entire
    property lies within the boundary of the Ottawa NF and surrounds
    Prickett Lake, which was created as part of a hydroelectric facility on
    the Sturgeon River. Upstream and downstream of Prickett Lake are
    designated sections of the Wild and Scenic Sturgeon River, which flows
    directly into Lake Superior. This property is located in the northeast
    corner of the Ottawa NF in Baraga and Houghton Counties. The North
    Country National Scenic Trail runs right through the property,
    enhancing recreational access for visitors.
        The wilderness on the southern edge of Prickett Lake hosts a
    diverse range of wildlife habitat supporting gray wolves, Canada lynx,
    ruffed grouse, bald eagles, minks, woodcocks, foxes, black bears,
    white-tailed deer, and a variety of fish. Approximately half of this
    tract contains wetlands or riparian areas. Prickett Lake is upstream to
    one of the last remaining productive spawning areas for lake sturgeon
    in the Lake Superior watershed. This area's pristine water quality
    helps protect the overall health of the Sturgeon River watershed.
        An immediate and short-lived opportunity exists this year to
    acquire the 1,258 acre Prickett Lake property. As both the Michigan
    Department of Natural Resources and the Ottawa NF have recently
    acquired acreage upstream, the opportunity to add additional acreage in
    the watershed via conservation of Prickett Lake represents a tremendous
    opportunity to further enhance the previous conservation successes. If
    the Prickett Lake property were sold for fragmented ownerships, the
    Sturgeon River Gorge Wilderness would be irreparably harmed and its
    wilderness character lost forever. Being entirely surrounded by USFS
    lands, acquisition of the Prickett Lake Property by the Ottawa NF will
    yield effective and consistent oversight and management of the larger
    holding and benefit the entire Sturgeon River watershed.
        An appropriation of $2.8 million from the Land and Water
    Conservation Fund in fiscal year 2010 is critical and necessary for the
    immediate protection of the 1,258-acre Prickett Lake property, ensuring
    the integrity of the wilderness experience and the protection of a
    truly superb and unique natural resource area.
        Thank you, Madam Chairman, for the opportunity to present this
    testimony in support of this critical forest and lake protection
    project in Michigan.
                                     ______

            Prepared Statement of the League of American Orchestras

        The League of American Orchestras urges the subcommittee to approve
    fiscal year 2010 funding for the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA)
    at a level of $200 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 and in fiscal year 2009 when
    Congress approved a $10.3 million increase. Still, the NEA has yet to
    recover 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 $83 million. Orchestras in this country are supported by a
    network of citizens that sustain the presence of music in their
    communities--instrumentalists, conductors, managers, board members,
    volunteers, staff members, and business partners.
        As a Nation we have long turned to the arts for their unique
    capacity to offer comfort in times of distress, to provide meaning
    amidst uncertainty, to spark unity during conflict, and to mark many of
    our most historically significant moments. America's orchestras give
    voice to the creativity of individuals, the composer, and the listener;
    and they serve their communities through education, partnerships,
    community engagement, and by bringing people together to share the
    experience of music. Direct funding from the NEA is just one element of
    Federal leadership that supports the presence of orchestras in
    communities nationwide. More than 40 years of support from the NEA has
    increased the capacity of orchestras 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 fiscal year 2009, the NEA's Grants to Organizations included 119
    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 Milwaukee Symphony Orchestra, Omaha Symphony,
    and West Virginia Symphony Orchestra, for example, each received Access
    to Artistic Excellence, Part Two grants to support statewide programs
    that will allow them to reach communities across Wisconsin, Nebraska,
    and West Virginia, respectively.
        In addition to the Access to Artistic Excellence program, the
    Challenge America: Reaching Every Community Fast-Track Review Grants
    offer support to small- and mid-sized organizations for projects that
    extend the reach of the arts to underserved populations. These
    communities do not frequently have the opportunity to experience the
    arts due to limitations of geography, ethnicity, economics, or
    disability. The Richmond Philharmonic is a Challenge America grant
    recipient, which received assistance to help run the ``Discover the
    Orchestra'' program, featuring cellist Andre Gaskins, which targets
    inner-city residents. Another Challenge America grant recipient
    utilizing NEA funds to broaden access to the arts is the Williamsport
    Symphony Orchestra, which produced a concert performance, master
    classes for college students, a pre-concert demonstration for middle
    school students, and a workshop for low-income families, all featuring
    percussionist Lisa Pegher.

     NEA-FUNDED ARTS PROGRAMS NURTURE DIVERSITY AND MULTICULTURAL AWARENESS

        Americans enjoy a rich and diverse cultural heritage in the arts,
    and NEA grants to orchestras allow for creative expression to overcome
    cultural divides in order to help improve our ability to understand and
    honor our history. The arts wonderfully showcase the diversity of our
    society and provide a vehicle to engage and connect with audiences
    across our country. Orchestras such as the Atlanta Symphony and Chicago
    Sinfonietta dedicated tributes to Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. with the
    support of the NEA. The Atlanta Symphony Orchestra's 17th Annual ``A
    King Celebration'' honored the life and work of Dr. King; in
    collaboration with Morehouse College, the project includes
    performances, educational outreach activities, and a national radio
    broadcast. The Chicago Sinfonietta, meanwhile, offered a series of
    concerts and related educational activities in honor of Dr. King. Music
    programming was inspired by oceans, lakes, and rivers and one concert
    reached out to the rising generation of musicians by featuring young
    opera singers.
        Orchestra programming increasingly reflects the cultural diversity
    of cities large and small, such as the programs offered by the Los
    Angeles Philharmonic, the Louisiana Philharmonic, Philadelphia
    Classical Symphony, and Baltimore Symphony Orchestra in the 2009 fiscal
    year. The Los Angeles Philharmonic's California Festival explores the
    State of California as a national cultural nexus, for example. The
    festival features orchestral, jazz, and popular music concerts and also
    offered a symposium and multidisciplinary events. The Louisiana
    Philharmonic Orchestra's ``Purely Percussion'' program will showcase a
    wide variety of percussion instruments and include community activities
    honoring Euro-Afro-Latin-Caribbean drumming traditions of New Orleans.
    Meanwhile, the Philadelphia Classical Symphony's ``First
    Pennsylvanians'' project is based on the culture of the Lenni-Lenape
    Indians of Delaware. Composers Curt Cacioppo and Maurice Wright have
    been commissioned to compose new works and participate in an artist
    residency to include educational programming for school children in
    Philadelphia and surrounding counties. Lastly, the Baltimore Symphony
    Orchestra will use its NEA support toward producing the International
    Folk Arts Project, a series of concerts with related educational
    activities, featuring classical orchestral works influenced by folk and
    traditional music styles.

                NEA FUNDING ENCOURAGES NEW WORKS AND PROGRAMMING

        NEA grants to orchestras help support the creative capacity of
    America's musicians and composers. By identifying and supporting
    projects that connect the arts--and artists--to their broader
    communities, the NEA encourages creative collaboration and building
    artistic strength. Projects supported by the NEA must demonstrate
    artistic excellence and a strong capacity to reach new audiences.
    Orchestras such as the Los Angeles Chamber Orchestra, Oakland East Bay
    Symphony, and ProMusica Chamber Orchestra are examples of NEA-assisted
    orchestras that are in turn supporting new works or performances of
    works by living American composers. The Los Angeles Chamber Orchestra
    utilized its NEA grant for its 40th Anniversary New Music Initiative,
    which includes the commissioning and premiere of new works by three
    composers: Damian Montano, Lalo Schifrin, and Christopher Theofanidis.
    The Oakland East Bay Symphony, a regional orchestra dedicated to
    reaching individuals in the community who might otherwise never hear
    live symphonic music, received NEA funding to premiere works by
    American composers Nathaniel Stookey and Nolan Gasser, as well as works
    by Peteris Vasks, Giuseppe Verdi, and Jerome Kern. The ProMusica
    Chamber Orchestra presents the best of traditional chamber orchestra
    repertoire and promotes the understanding and appreciation of
    contemporary American music. To that end, the orchestra received an NEA
    grant to support the commission and performance of a new work by
    American composer and violinist Mark O'Connor. His concerto for chamber
    orchestra and piano trio will premiere with the renowned Ahn Trio at
    Southern Theatre in Columbus, Ohio.

        NEA GRANTS UNIQUELY SUPPORT CREATIVITY IN COMMUNITIES NATIONWIDE

        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. The ``Ford Made in
    America'' project is a collaborative commissioning, performance, and
    outreach project that involves smaller-budget orchestras, including at
    least one from each of the 50 States. On September 20 and 21, 2008 the
    Reno Chamber Orchestra premiered Pulitzer Prize-winning composer Joseph
    Schwantner's Chasing Light.; the Reno performance alone attracted
    approximately 1,000 concertgoers and National Public Radio reporter
    Jeff Lunden was on-hand for the concerts and prepared a feature that
    was broadcast on National Public Radio's news program ``All Things
    Considered.'' Over the course of the 2008-2009 and 2009-2010 seasons
    more than 50 other participating orchestras will perform Chasing
    Light., including the Nashua Symphony Orchestra, which received NEA
    support for a statewide tour and performances of Schwantner's work in
    the cities of Keene and Derry and in New Hampshire's North Country.
    Education and community engagement activities are developed
    specifically for this round of the Ford Made in America program, and
    these activities are designed to be aligned with national music
    education standards.
        Thank you for this opportunity to illustrate the value of NEA
    support for orchestras and communities across the Nation. The NEA'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 $200 million in funding
    for the NEA.
                                     ______

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

        I am Carl Edwards, President of the Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake
    Superior Chippewa Indians, located in Wisconsin. Today, I am pleased to
    submit this testimony, which reflects the needs, concerns and issues of
    the tribal membership for the fiscal year 2010 budget. The tribe is
    optimistic that the Obama administration takes seriously the United
    States' unique and binding obligations to tribes and Indian people.
    While the details of the President's fiscal year 2010 budget are not
    known, we are pleased with the broad outlines that have been shared
    with us.
        In particular, we are very supportive of the $3.9 billion for the
    EPA's Clean Water and Safe Drinking Water Programs. This would provide
    Indian country with $59 million, which is almost double the amount
    received in fiscal year 2009. This funding is vital to improving the
    most basic of infrastructure in Indian country. Another area in the
    President's budget that the Band is excited about is the Great Lakes
    Initiative program. As the Committee knows, the Great Lakes represent
    three quarters of the world's supply of fresh water. But for us, the
    indigenous people of Wisconsin, the Great Lakes represent the life
    blood of our economies and our culture. The protection and preservation
    of the Great Lakes is necessary to the protection and preservation of
    the tribal communities that have made the Great Lakes their home since
    time immemorial. We would urge, however, that Congress ensure that
    tribes are fully engaged in this process and that we are full partners
    in this important initiative.
        Again, while the specifics of the President's budget are not known,
    we must make the Committee aware of some of our most pressing needs,
    which we fear will not be addressed in the President's proposal.

              INDIAN SELF-DETERMINATION ACT CONTRACT SUPPORT COSTS

        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. In
    fiscal year 2008 (the most recent year for which the IHS has data) the
    IHS estimates that the contract support cost shortfall was $128
    million. In fiscal year 2007, the BIA shortfall was $52 million.
        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/hour employee
    (approximately $20,000 a year), the tribe faces an associated
    healthcare benefit cost of $20,350 for a family health insurance plan.
    When the tribe is forced to supplement underfunded 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 this basic contract
    support cost 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.

                            BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS

        Natural Resources and Conservation Officers.--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 our 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.
        One of the critical elements of our Natural Resource program is our
    Conservation Law Enforcement Officers. 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 the first to respond to emergency
    situations, and are 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
    nonconservation law enforcement programs. The BIA does not provide any
    resources for this activity, which is critical to maintaining and
    protecting our treaty rights. Thus, we appreciate the increase provided
    for law enforcement in fiscal year 2009 and the anticipated requested
    increase in fiscal year 2010, but we ask that the subcommittee direct a
    portion of any increases in law enforcement funding to conservation
    officers, so that more communities can enjoy the benefit of this
    funding.
        Forestry.--The Band requests that the subcommittee increase funding
    for the BIA Forestry Department. The reservation contains 46,000 acres
    of forested land that supports hunting, gathering and employment
    opportunities for tribal members. Proper management of the forest is
    essential not only to sustain our subsistence lifestyle, but also to
    provide economic growth for the Band. Two foresters and one technician
    undertake a broad range of management activities, including tree
    planting, prescribed burning, forest road design and maintenance, and
    timber sale establishment and administration. The total cost of
    operating the forestry program is approximately $217,000. In the last
    several years the level of funding from the BIA has been less than half
    of this. Significantly, the program has not received a substantial
    funding increase since 1991. The additional funding is necessary to
    maintain forest development, timber sale management and wildfire
    control activities. Proper forest management is even more important now
    to maintain and develop this vital component of our tribal economies.
        Wetlands Waterfowl/Circle of Flight Funding.--We urge Congress to
    restore $600,000 to continue funding for the BIA Wetlands Waterfowl
    Program (Circle of Flight). Circle of Flight provides critical
    resources necessary to restore and preserve wetlands and waterfowl
    populations, which are vital to the culture and economy of the Great
    Lakes region.
        Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission.--Related to the
    tribe's natural resource needs, we would like to voice our continuing
    support for the Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission. The
    tribe is a member of the Commission, which assists the tribe in
    protecting and implementing its treaty-guaranteed hunting, fishing, and
    gathering rights.

                                  IHS PROGRAMS

        Contract Health.--A perennial need remains in contract healthcare
    funding. Federal funding for health services has fallen dramatically
    behind the rising cost of healthcare 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.
        Medical Technology and Telemedicine Initiative.--We are encouraged
    by Congress's commitment to fund medical technology and telemedicine
    improvements in the IHS. However, we are concerned that the resources
    will not reach tribes, who provide more than 84 percent of the
    healthcare in Indian country. We would urge the Committee to direct IHS
    to make a proportional share of this funding available to tribal
    healthcare providers. Unless this happens, we fear that the resources
    will be consumed by IHS either at headquarters or only at direct
    service locations and tribal providers will not benefit from this
    initiative.

                         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--8 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 Tribal Historic Preservation
    Officers (THPOs) with an average award of $154,000; now there are 76
    THPOs, and Lac du Flambeau only receives approximately $50,374.
    Paradoxically, the more successful the program becomes overall, the
    less each tribe receives to maintain professional services, ultimately
    crippling the programs. We ask that $13 million be provided for THPOs,
    which would provide a modest base funding amount of $170,000 per THPO
    program.
                                     ______

            Prepared Statement of the Lummi Indian Business Council

        Good morning to the distinguished subcommittee members, thank you
    for this opportunity, I am honored to represent before you the
    appropriations requests of the Lummi Nation for the fiscal year 2010
    Department of the Interior (DOI) in the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA),
    U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), and the Indian Health Service
    (IHS).

                       THE LUMMI NATION SPECIFIC REQUESTS

    BIA/FWS
        +$7.2 million.--Fisherman disaster assistance funding; +$11.64
    million.--Salmon/shellfish hatchery (skookum, Lummi Bay, sea ponds);
    +$300,000.--Administrative streamlining project (education);
    +$500,000.--Tribal community safety center; and +$7 million.--Slater
    elevated road project.
    IHS
        +$2.3 million.--Lummi Nation dental facility/staffing/equipment;
    and +Contract Health Costs.--Request for weighted contract health funds
    allocation formula.

                     NATIONAL REQUESTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

    BIA
        Increase Johnson O'Malley funds ($21.4 million) and Housing
    Improvement Funds ($13.6 million) to tribal base programs; Provide $50
    million general increase to BIA Tribal Priority Allocation (TPA) for
    inflationary and fixed costs; increase law enforcement program by 10
    percent for Indian programs in BIA's budget for law enforcement program
    and activities; and $25 million for tribal courts program; and 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
        Provide $486 million for IHS mandatory, inflation, and population
    growth increase to maintain existing healthcare services (President's
    budget proposes a cut of $21.3 million); $152 million increase for
    Contract Health Services (CHS); and a $160 million increase for IHS to
    fully fund CSC, including direct CSC (recent increases have been
    dedicated for new and expended Public Law 93-638 programs).
        Regional Requests and Recommendations.--Support all requests and
    recommendations of affiliated tribes of Northwest Indians Northwest
    Portland Area Indian Health Board and Northwest Indian Fisheries
    Commission and Pacific Salmon Commission.

                      LUMMI NATION--BACKGROUND INFORMATION

        The Lummi Nation, is located on the northern coast of Washington
    State, and is the third largest tribe in Washington State serving a
    population of more than 5,200. The Lummi Nation is a fishing nation. We
    have drawn our physical and spiritual sustenance from the marine
    tidelands and waters 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 are trying to survive from
    shellfish products. In 1999, we had 700 licensed fishers who supported
    nearly 3,000 tribal members. Today, we have about 523 remaining. This
    means that more than 200 small businesses in our community have gone
    bankrupt in the past 9 years. This is the inescapable reality of the
    Lummi Nation fishers face without salmon. We were the last hunter/
    gatherer society surviving within the co
        Our people have diseases that were unknown to us at the beginning
    of the 20th century. Our people are seeking a return to health and to
    practice our traditional healthy lifestyles. Our families are
    struggling to hold traditional values against the onslaught of poverty,
    drug abuse, and 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 is due to them.
        Our people have problems and needs but we also have solutions.
    Today I am presenting a coordinated set of proposals to address the
    prolonged economic and cultural disaster impacting our people through
    the loss of our sockeye salmon; starting more than 10 years ago, in
    1999.

                      FISHERMAN DISASTER ASSISTANCE NEEDS

        In 2008, the Department of Commerce reissued the disaster
    declaration (see also--Congressional Research Services--CRS Report to
    Congress, Commercial Fishery Disaster Assistance, (RL-34209) May 2,
    2008)), and we now seek ways to turn this scenario around to have a
    more positive outcome.
        Our strategy is to consolidate our native and scientific knowledge
    of fish biology, behavior, and management into the Northwest Indian
    Marine Education and Research Center for Excellence. Collecting our
    professionals and traditional practitioners and field workers into a
    team to plan, design, finance, construct, and operate hatcheries. The
    same group would instruct and train hatchery workers needed by theses
    facilities, through Northwest Indian College. Hatcheries are the only
    way to ensure salmon populations large enough to support our families
    and our way of life.
        Our goal is to increase fish returns by improving hatchery
    production. This creates a reliable backup resource to salmon fishers
    by increasing other salmon stocks. Additionally, we seek to raise the
    value of these harvests through advanced marketing, the introduction of
    a fishermen's co-operative, and grow out operations for shellfish
    products.

                      LUMMI NATION SPECIFIC REQUESTS--BIA

        +$7,200,000.--Fisherman Disaster Assistance Funding (Eight
    Northwest Tribes).--$7,200,000 to BIA--Welfare Assistance Program (WAP)
    to support the West Coast fisherman disaster declaration. Lummi Nation
    is requesting funding to support emergency relief services for our
    fishers. This assistance is needed to help fishers make the transition
    from sockeye salmon to other salmon species and other commercial
    fishery resources. Lummi Nation is requesting the subcommittee provide
    the BIA WAP an additional $7.2 million to address the Lummi Nation
    fishers and west coast fisherman impacted by economic fisheries
    disaster.
        +$11,650,000.--Salmon/shellfish Hatchery (Skookum, Lummi Bay, Sea
    Ponds).--To DOI, FWS hatchery operations program. The Lummi Nation
    currently operates three salmon hatcheries and one shellfish hatchery
    that support tribal and other fisheries in the region. The tribal
    hatchery facilities were originally constructed in the early 1970s.
    Predictably some of the original infrastructure needs to be repaired or
    replaced as it approaches the end of its useful life. Other
    infrastructure needs to be developed or modified to ensure compliance
    with the Clean Water Act and/or the Endangered Species Act. Lummi
    Nation fish biologists estimate that these facilities are now operating
    at 40 percent of their productive capacity.

                  +$2,200,000--LUMMI SKOOKUM HATCHERY--SALMON

        $720,000--Hatchery Intake.--South Fork Nooksack Chinook recovery
    program; replace intake system that has high operations and maintenance
    and often fails.
        $625,000--Large Pond Improvement.--Increase annual production
    capacity.
        $855,000--New Raceways.--Replace originally constructed
    infrastructure that is deteriorating and falling apart.

                        +$5,370,000--LUMMI BAY HATCHERY

        $5,370,000--Nooksack River Pump Station.--This will increase the
    production capacity of Lummi Bay hatchery by improving water pumping
    capacity and resource.
        +$570,000--Lummi Shellfish Hatchery.--Multiple operation and
    maintenance issues for increasing production capacity in areas of feed,
    building insulation, heating and cooling systems, increase grow out
    tank space, results in increased seed production.
        +$3,510,000--Lummi Pond Tide Gates Improvements.--This project
    rehabilitates current shellfish hatchery to optimize production
    capabilities. Increased shellfish seed production increases enhancement
    activities on Lummi tidelands to create jobs for tribal shellfish
    harvesters and increase sales to the west coast shellfish industry to
    create jobs for growers and businesses.
        +$300,000. Education--Lummi Nation Education Future Project.--For
    the Bureau's School Operation Program fund. The Lummi Nation is no
    longer willing to bear the combined burden of five different
    administrative oversight structures of its education programs,
    services, functions and activities. This oversight burden includes the
    Bureau Office of Indian Education Programs, the Department of
    Education, and the State of Washington Office of the Superintendent of
    Public Instruction, the Ferndale School District, and the Lummi Nation
    administrative oversight structures. The weight of this combined
    oversight literally crowds out the only legitimate concern for school
    operations and maintenance, student learning successes. To address the
    need to streamline the administrative process, while still providing
    appropriate oversight, the Lummi Nation is reque
        +$500,000.--Northwest Tribal Detention Facility Project.--Through
    the BIA Detention Center Maintenance and Construction Program. The
    Lummi 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.

                    PLANNING/TRANSPORTATION--BRIDGE PROJECT

        +$7 million--Slater Elevated Road Project Funding Increase.--(Joint
    Inter-local Agreement) through the Bureaus Indian Reservation Roads
    Program
        Project Description.--The Lummi Nation is partnering with the
    Federal Emergency Management Agency and Whatcom County to elevate the
    eastern approach to the Slater Road Bridge over the Nooksack River.
    This section of Slater Road is frequently flooded by Silver Creek,
    which runs parallel to the Nooksack River. The project is an extension
    of the Slater Road Bridge over Sliver Creek, which is a salmon spawning
    stream.
        Need for the Project.--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.
    Most years these limitations last for days at a time. The impact
    threatens public health and safety and has substantial negative
    economic impacts for the retail, commercial, and manufacturing
    businesses in the area.
        Project Funding.--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 is completed but, due to increase material costs, the
    engineer's cost estimate based on the 100 percent design is
    approximately $7 million greater than the available budget. Value
    engineering efforts did not substantially lower the costs and would
    have a greater environmental impact.

                      LUMMI NATION SPECIFIC REQUESTS--IHS

    Request for Contract Health Funds Allocation Formula Methodology
        The Lummi Nation is requesting that the subcommittee direct the IHS
    to develop an allocation plan for contract healthcare 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.
        +$2,300,000--Lummi Nation Dental Facility/Staffing/Equipment
    Increase.--Through the IHS small ambulatory expansion of health clinics
    program.
        LIBC received partial funding for this construction project and is
    requesting full project funding and the inclusion of staffing and
    equipment costs.
        +$1,100,000--Facility.--This funding is needed to all the Lummi
    Nation to return to its original plan approved by the IHS and the Lummi
    Nation. Lummi Nation funding the was allocated for this project is no
    longer available due to the current national.
        +$1,200,000.--Lummi Nation needs additional equipment (eight dental
    chairs at $100,000 each) and staffing to support operations. (four
    dentists at the rate of $100,000 annually each).
                                     ______

         Prepared Statement of the Leech Lake Area Watershed Foundation

        Madam Chairman and honorable members of the subcommittee: I want to
    thank you for this opportunity to present testimony in support of the
    acquisition of two properties in the national forests of Minnesota. An
    appropriation of $3.1 million from the Land and Water Conservation Fund
    (LWCF) is needed for the Forest Service (USFS) to acquire the 60-acre
    Wolf Island tract in the Superior National Forest and the 36-acre Stony
    Point property in the Chippewa National Forest.
        I also respectfully request a substantial increase in overall
    funding for the LWCF, specifically urging the subcommittee to provide
    $325 million for the Federal LWCF in the fiscal year 2010 Interior,
    Environment, and Related Agencies appropriations bill. I applaud the
    LWCF funding increases provided by this subcommittee in fiscal year
    2009, including $1 million provided for the Superior National Forest
    (SNF) in fiscal year 2009. And, we are most thankful that the Obama
    administration budget recognizes the importance of these programs by
    proposing significant increases for fiscal year 2010 and setting a goal
    to achieve full funding of the LWCF in the next 5 years.
        The LWCF is our Nation's premier program to acquire and protect
    lands in national parks, national wildlife refuges, national forests,
    Bureau of Land Management units and other Federal land systems. This
    program faces an extensive and growing backlog of land acquisition
    needs across the Nation. Public lands provide innumerable social and
    economic benefits including a healthy lifestyle, protection of
    watersheds and drinking water supplies, wildfire reduction and
    prevention, and assistance to wildlife and fisheries as they adapt to
    climate change. We urge you to renew this wise investment in America's
    natural heritage and take steps to toward full and consistent funding
    of these vital programs.
        The Minnesota wilderness land acquisition program includes the
    Superior and Chippewa national forests in Minnesota. Located in the
    northeasternmost tip of Minnesota, the SNF spans 150 miles along the
    United States-Canadian border and is one of the wettest, wildest
    forests in the entire National Forest System. The deep pine woods of
    the Superior play host to a landscape of lakes, bogs, and rocky
    outcrops that are remnants of the glacial period and create the only
    thriving boreal or northern forest in the continental United States.
    More than 10 percent of the forest consists of surface water, and
    another 1,300 miles of cold-water streams and 950 miles of warm-water
    streams flow within the forest's boundaries.
        Visitors to the SNF are attracted by its abundance of outdoor
    recreational opportunities. For wilderness devotees, there are few
    areas in the United States that can rival the solitude and timelessness
    of the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness (BWCAW), a maze of lakes,
    rivers, and rocks at the northern edge of the SNF, offering 12,000
    miles of canoe trails. Here and elsewhere in the forest, outdoor
    enthusiasts can enjoy camping, biking, canoeing, fishing, hiking,
    cross-country skiing, snowmobiling, and dog sledding. The deep foliage
    and plentiful water also attract a wide variety of wildlife, including
    bald eagle, common loon, moose, timber wolf, black bear, lynx, and
    migratory birds. The BWCAW draws more than 200,000 campers and
    canoeists annually, following in the wake of Native Americans and the
    voyageurs, those French-Canadian fur traders who canoed these waters
    200 years ago.
        The Chippewa National Forest is located in the heart of northern
    Minnesota and within the Leech Lake watershed in the Upper Mississippi
    River Basin. Within the forest, elements of these two ecosystems are
    found side by side: red oak next to white pine, wild ginger alongside
    wild rice, and Canada lynx habitat abutting sandhill crane territory.
    The Chippewa NF shares borders with the Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe. More
    than 400,000 acres of the Chippewa NF are actually lakes and wetlands.
    The Chippewa contains two of Minnesota's five largest lakes, and eight
    different types of wetlands each with distinct plant and animal life.
    Sixty-seven of the 314 wildlife species that make their home on the
    Chippewa NF are dependent on lakes and wetlands. More that 230 species
    use wetlands and only 20 percent of Minnesota's original wetland remain
    today. The first national forest west of the Mississippi River, the
    Chippewa NF is one of the few areas with wetlands essentially unchanged
    since settlement. This area is unique in that it contains some 40 wild
    rice-producing lakes.
        Through USFS's Minnesota wilderness acquisition program, two
    properties are available for acquisition in fiscal year 2010 in the
    Superior and Chippewa NFs.

                                  WOLF ISLAND

        The 60-acre Wolf Island property in the SNF is located in Lake
    Vermilion and is a high priority for protection this year by USFS.
    Twenty-four miles long, Lake Vermilion is one of Minnesota's largest
    vacation destination lakes. It is home to healthy population of
    walleye, northern pike, muskie, bass, and bluegill populations, and was
    once named by National Geographic as one of the Nation's 10 most scenic
    lakes. Wolf Island's location affords scenic and 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 is 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.
        Wolf Island is at risk of being lost to development. In order to
    ensure the protection of the island and access to quality resources in
    areas of second-home development pressure, The Trust for Public Land
    stepped in at the request of USFS to secure the island in March 2007.
    The acquisition of the island by SNF 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 voyageurs of years gone by.

                                  STONY POINT

        The 36-acre Stony Point property is located on Leech Lake in the
    Chippewa NF. Home to thousands of acres of waterfowl and other
    wildlife, Leech Lake has one of the largest nesting populations of bald
    eagles in the lower 48 States--almost 200 pairs. The Stony Point bald
    eagle nesting site contains one-half mile of Leech Lake frontage. The
    pristine parcel is completely surrounded by national forest ownership.
    Acquisition by the Chippewa NF would eliminate the need for road access
    that would otherwise lose more than one-half mile of undisturbed
    wetlands. It is currently owned by a developer who intends to develop
    the property into several homesites. This property is a prominent point
    on the shores of Leech Lake.
        Public acquisition of the Stony Point and Wolf Island properties
    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 wild--will be protected
    in perpetuity. An appropriation of $3.1 million from the LWCF in fiscal
    year 2010 will secure the public acquisition of Wolf Island and the
    Stony Point properties to maintain key access for thousands of visitors
    each month to the waterways of the BWCAW and to protect critical
    natural resources for the public.
        Thank you, Madam Chairman, for the opportunity to present this
    testimony in support of these critical forest and lake protection
    projects in Minnesota. Our organization, the Leech Lake Watershed
    Foundation works closely with USFS, State and local government, and
    other nonprofit partners to insure the protection of vital natural
    resources within the 855,000-area Leech Lake watershed. Acquisition of
    key parcels, such as Stony Point and Wolf Island, are a critical tool
    to insure that future generations can continue to enjoy these valued
    resources.
                                     ______

         Prepared Statement of the Little River Band of Ottawa Indians

        My name is Larry Romanelli. I am the elected Ogema of the Little
    River Band of Ottawa Indians. On September 21, 1994, Public Law 103-324
    (108 Stat 2156) was enacted, reaffirming our Federal recognition. When
    we were recognized our citizen rolls were approximately 500 persons.
    Since reaffirmation, our rolls have grown to more than 4,000 persons.
        Our tribe administers a clinic that includes a family physician, a
    registered nurse, and a laboratory. We also have community health
    resource staffs, nurses, and diabetic specialists who make home visits
    across a nine-county area. We provide out-patient substance abuse
    treatment services, as well as prevention initiatives, along with
    additional mental health services. And, for care that goes beyond our
    provider capacity, we administer an elaborate contract healthcare
    program under which we collaborate with local private providers. In
    these programs alone, we employ 38 people from several disciplines. In
    addition, we also maintain an environmental health program and a range
    of other services.
        Recently our tribe proudly signed a new agreement with the Indian
    Health Service (IHS) under title V of the Indian Self-Determination
    Act. This new agreement moves us further along in our quest for greater
    self-determination and self-governance, by acknowledging our
    significantly enhanced independence in the manner in which our tribe
    provides healthcare for our people.
        IHS has not honored its bargain with us. Specifically, it has
    failed to pay us the contract support costs that IHS, itself,
    calculates that we have been owed.
        In its 2007 shortfall report, the IHS admits that it underpaid us
    by nearly $70,000, an amount that has only increased in the 2 years
    since.
        For us, $70,000 is a whole nursing position, or an additional
    substance abuse counselor in our understaffed behavioral health
    department. Or, it could be used to buy a year's worth of vaccine and
    medical supplies necessary to operate our clinic.
        IHS provides only $1.4 million for our program services. Delivering
    the services we currently offer (exclusive of environmental health)
    actually cost the tribe more than $4.2 million in 2007. I cannot think
    of a single contractor we work with that would provide service to us
    for one-third of the actual costs to do the work. The commitment of the
    United States to provide healthcare for American Indians is not being
    met.
        But there is yet more. The Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) shortfall
    report for 2007 shows that the BIA failed to pay $220,000 in contract
    support costs. Our total BIA contract is only $2.3 million, supporting
    several Tribal functions including public safety, family services,
    education, governance, and natural resources. $220,000 would enable us
    to expand education and training programs to prepare our students for
    the types of jobs that are currently in demand and will be on the
    cutting edge of the Nation's future. We could expand our economic
    development through diversification of enterprise ventures that could
    meet the needs of the current economic recovery. In short, $220,000
    would provide the people of my Nation economic stability and employment
    security in a populace that critically needs help to attain the
    standard of living most of America enjoys.
        These are some of the reasons why I asked to be permitted to
    testify today.
        We understand that economic times are tough for everyone. We,
    ourselves, have just cut back our employee hours from a 40-hour week to
    a 32-hour week. We all have to pull together.
        So, I come here today to ask that Congress direct the IHS and the
    BIA to finally honor their contracts with our tribe, and their
    contracts with all other tribes, by fully paying the contract support
    costs to which we are entitled, and by adding the necessary
    appropriations to finally get these sums paid.
        Second, I am also here today to ask that Congress address the
    severe funding disparities that continue to leave tribes in our IHS
    Bemidji Area severely underfunded relative to other areas.
      --The Bemidji Area has the lowest life expectancy of all IHS areas.
            The Bemidji Area life expectancy (male and female combined) is
            65.3 years of age; all IHS is 70.6; all United States is 76.5.
      --The Bemidji Area leads all IHS Areas in the cancer rates at 225/
            100,000; all IHS is 124/100,000; and all United States is
            125.6/100,000.
      --The Bemidji Area leads Indian country in nearly every significant
            statistic except the level of funding to address our issues;
            there, we receive 37 percent Level of Need Formula (LNF).
        It is time to create a fund to address the severe disparity that
    exists between the IHS areas. Such a fund would restore equity among
    the tribes.
        Perhaps it is also time to evaluate the level of per capita
    expenditures for Contract Health Services Area to area, and dedicate
    more funding to raise the LNF of those Areas less likely to have access
    to large, directly served IHS facilities that provide direct healthcare
    services.
        A study conducted by the California Rural Indian Health Board,
    published in ``Medical Science'' (a peer review journal), found that
    ``for every 10 points improvement in IHS funding, there was a 12
    percent decrease in ambulatory care preventable hospitalizations.''
        Thank you for the opportunity to testify today on these critical
    issues.
                                     ______

        Prepared Statement of the Marine Conservation Biology Institute,

        The Marine Conservation Biology Institute (MBCI) based in Bellevue,
    Washington, is a national, nonprofit environmental organization whose
    mission is to advance the science of marine conservation biology and
    secure protection for ocean ecosystems. We support national wildlife
    refuge programs that focus on protecting and restoring marine
    ecosystems, habitats, and species. I wish to thank the members of the
    Subcommittee on the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies for the
    opportunity to submit written testimony on the fiscal year 2010 budget
    regarding the newly established marine monuments within the Fish and
    Wildlife Service's (FWS) National Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS). MCBI
    recommends a funding level of $16,869,000 to support the new marine
    monuments.
        In January 2009, President Obama established three marine national
    monuments in the Pacific Ocean. The new monuments include eight
    distinct coral islands areas and their surrounding waters, the Mariana
    Trench and 21 isolated undersea volcanoes. Many of the islands
    protected already were part of the NWRS, however declaration of the
    monument increased the size of these refuges by adding surrounding
    ocean waters. The three new areas have been named Marianas Marine
    National Monument, Pacific Remote Islands National Monument, and Rose
    Atoll National Monument. In total, approximately 192,000 square miles
    was protected, an area larger than California.

                PACIFIC REMOTE ISLANDS MARINE NATIONAL MONUMENT

        These areas are some of the last remaining, relatively intact coral
    reef and pelagic ecosystems in the Pacific. Any one of these islands
    contains nearly four times as many shallow water, reef-building coral
    species as the entire Florida Keys. The monument includes habitat for
    an estimated 14 million seabirds. The islands also provide habitat for
    many rare, threatened or endangered species such as leatherback,
    loggerhead, and green sea turtles, humphead wrasse, bumphead
    parrotfish, and the globally depleted giant clam. An estimated 200
    seamounts, most of which have yet to be identified or explored, are
    predicted to exist in the pelagic zone within 200 nm of this monument.
        The terrestrial areas, reefs and surrounding waters out to 12
    nautical miles (nm) of Howland, Baker, Jarvis Islands, Palmyra Atoll,
    and Kingman Reef are part of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
    National Wildlife Refuge System. The land areas at Johnston and Wake
    Atolls remain under the Department of Defense's authority, but the
    waters out to 12 nautical miles are considered units of the NWRS.

                      ROSE ATOLL MARINE NATIONAL MONUMENT

        Rose Atoll, the smallest atoll in the world, is the easternmost
    Samoan island and the southernmost point of the United States. Rose
    Atoll is home to a very diverse assemblage of terrestrial and marine
    species, many of which are threatened or endangered. Rose Atoll
    supports 97 percent of the seabird population of American Samoa,
    including 12 federally protected migratory seabirds and 5 species of
    federally protected shorebirds. Rose Atoll is the largest nesting
    ground in the Samoan Islands for threatened green sea turtles, and is
    an important nesting ground for the endangered hawksbill turtle. Rose
    also provides sanctuary for the giant clam, which is severely depleted
    throughout the Pacific. Management responsibility was assigned to the
    Secretary of the Interior, in consultation with the Secretary of
    Commerce.

                    MARIANAS TRENCH MARINE NATIONAL MONUMENT

        The Marianas Trench Marine National Monument consists of three
    units which include the Volcanic Unit, the submerged lands within 1 nm
    of 21 volcanic sites; the Islands Unit, the submerged lands and waters
    of the three northernmost Mariana Islands; and the Trench Unit, the
    submerged lands extending from the northern limit of the Exclusive
    Economic Zone of the United States in the Commonwealth of the Northern
    Mariana Islands to the southern limit of the Exclusive Economic Zone of
    the United States in Guam.
        The establishment of this monument protects areas of biological,
    historical, and scientific significance. The volcanic sites support
    unusual life forms in boiling and highly acidic water conditions. The
    island unit is home to highly diverse and unique coral reef systems
    with more than 300 species of stony coral species, which is a greater
    diversity than any other United States reef. The island unit also has
    an astonishingly high population of apex predators. The Mariana Trench
    itself is the deepest ocean area on Earth, deeper than the height of
    Mount Everest.
        The management responsibility for the Marianas Trench Marine
    National Monument is assigned to the Secretary of the Interior, in
    consultation with the Secretary of Commerce. The Mariana Trench and
    Volcanic Units have been placed within the Fish and Wildlife Service
    National Marine Refuge System.

               MARINE NATIONAL MONUMENT MANAGEMENT IMPLEMENTATION

        It is imperative that the Secretary of the Interior establish
    appropriate management measures to adequately protect the land,
    surrounding water and seafloor of these critical and pristine marine
    monuments. In particular, the FWS must have adequate funds to develop
    management plans for each monument with proper management personnel
    with the intent to effectively protect these areas by conserving these
    pristine habitats, developing plans to restore damaged reefs and lands,
    and consult with NOAA to provide proper surveillance and enforcement
    actions.
        Restoration action is desirable at most of the islands, including
    restoring natural water flows, removing discarded equipment and
    structures, and dealing with waste disposal sites. In addition, human
    exploration and occupation brought many invasive species to the
    islands, including various plants, insects, and cats, which should be
    removed. Such removals of invasive species have promoted the healthy
    increase of bird populations and the restoration of nearly extirpated
    species, like black-footed and Laysan albatrosses.
        Additionally, two sunken fishing vessels are causing habitat damage
    in the Pacific Remote Islands Marine National Monument. In 1991, a 121-
    foot Taiwanese fishing boat sank on Palmyra Atoll, and an abandoned 85-
    foot fishing vessel was discovered on Kingman Reef in August 2007. The
    two islands are some the world's last relatively pristine reefs. The
    Palmyra wreck sits directly on the reef and continues to damage the
    ecosystem by accelerating the rapid growth of an invasive corallimorph
    that smothers the reef ecosystem. Since abandonment, there have been
    recorded sightings of continued fuel leakage. Nutrient increases from
    this fuel and corroding metal from the ship is causing devastation to
    the nearby reef. In response to this increase in nutrients, the
    corallimorph Rhodactis howesii has experienced explosive growth,
    quickly outcompeting other organisms (including corals) and covering
    and smothering the substrate surrounding the vessel. After the covered
    coral dies, the infested area is difficult to recolonize by corals.
    According to the report by Thierry Work (USGS) and Greta Abey
    (University of Hawaii), greater than 100 million corallimorph
    individuals cover greater than 1 square kilometer (247 acres) of the
    bottom. The corallimorphs radiate from the ship wreck and were not
    observed in other parts of the reef, indicating a direct correlation
    between the corallimorph and the wrecked vessel. To avoid further
    damage to the reef, the ship needs to be removed by the Federal
    Government immediately.
        The Kingman Reef wreck also is showing early signs of the invasive
    corallimorph, and an elevated growth of blue-green algae, which in time
    can cause algal blooms that block sunlight to the reef below. The
    ship's grounding caused initial gouging of the surrounding reefs and
    has since continued to cause physical and ecological damage in the form
    of wave disturbance and cyanobacteria outbreaks. Cyanobacteria, more
    commonly called blue-green algae, become very abundant when stimulated
    by increases in limiting nutrients, such as iron from corroding steel
    and hydrocarbons found in fuel, both of which are supplied by the
    grounded vessel at Kingman. Cyanobacteria are present on nearly 10
    percent of the metal debris (metallic engine parts, piping, cookware,
    etc.) within 200 meters of the ship. As the ship continues to break
    apart, more steel will be scattered over the reef crest encouraging
    expanded cyanobacteria growth. If this growth continues unabated, it is
    expected to spread toward the north facing shoreline where fragile
    coral gardens are located. The growth of cyanobacteria will block
    needed sunlight to the reef below, as well as smother the coral. There
    is also concern about accelerated growth of the corallimorph Rhodactis
    howesii, which is also present within 200 meters of the shipwreck. The
    corallimorph has caused significant damage at Palmyra Atoll, where its
    growth was stimulated by another wrecked vessel. Rapid growth of
    Rhodactis howesii can quickly outcompete other organisms and kill
    corals.

                              APPROPRIATION NEEDS

        Papahanaumokuakea National Marine Monument, established in 2006,
    received approximately $8 million its first fiscal year. These monies
    went to cover basic start-up needs, such as administration and
    management of the new monument and preparation of management plans. The
    three new national marine monuments have similar needs, as well as the
    urgent restoration project of the two sunken vessels. MCBI recommends
    the following appropriations for the marine monuments within the Fish
    and Wildlife Service:

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  Amount
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    A manager for each new marine monument: These managers          $396,000
     will be responsible for working with the territorial
     governments in the Rose Atoll and Marianas Trench
     Monument, coordinate the mandated management plans,
     etc. ($121,000 each)...................................
    Public Planning Position.--This individual would help            132,000
     prepare management plans, work on logistics of public
     meetings, coordinate with the managers in each
     monument, address agency comments, synthesize public
     comments, and ensure all Federal regulations for
     monument management are met, etc.......................
    Monument Administration.--This allocation would be used          141,000
     for office space costs, vehicle needs, meeting space,
     office supplies, travel expenses, and development of
     monument management plan, etc. for all three monuments.
    Vessel Purchase.--The Office of Naval Research (ONR) and   \1\ 5,000,000
     the FWS are in final discussions concerning refitting
     of one of the ONR retired vessels. It will cost FWS $5
     million to outfit this vessel for use to transport
     personnel and material (building materials, bulk
     material, fuel, etc.), maintenance, research and
     conservation projects, for all Pacific national marine
     monuments. These changes include adding cabins,
     increasing fuel capacity, adding a crane for debris
     removal and other maintenance).........................
    Ship Operating Needs.--The annual operating funds for          1,600,000
     the ship will include six crew members at about 100,000
     each and $1 million for fuel and maintenance expenses..
    Ship Removal.--The grounded fishing vessels found in the   \1\ 9,600,000
     new monument at Kingman Reef and Palmyra Atoll require
     immediate removal for their contribution to habitat
     loss...................................................
                                                             ---------------
          Total.............................................      16,869,000
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ One-time fee.

        In summary, MCBI respectfully requests that the subcommittee
    augment funding for the national wildlife refuge system's national
    marine monuments by $16.9 million in fiscal year 2010.
        Thank you for the opportunity to share our views.
                                     ______

      Prepared Statement of the National Association of Clean Air Agencies

        The National Association of Clean Air Agencies (NACAA),
    representing the State and local air quality agencies in 53 States and
    territories and more than 165 metropolitan areas across the country,
    appreciates this opportunity to provide testimony on the fiscal year
    2010 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. The
    President's fiscal year 2010 budget request calls for $226.6 million in
    grants to State and local air quality agencies. While we appreciate
    that this reflects a slight increase over fiscal year 2009, it is
    unfortunately far short of the amount needed. 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
    $270 million in fiscal year 2010, which is $43.4 million more than the
    President's request ($46 million more than the fiscal year 2009
    appropriation). Additionally, NACAA requests that grants for the
    particulate matter and lead monitoring programs not be shifted from
    section 103 authority to section 105 authority.

                          WHY IS CLEAN AIR IMPORTANT?

        Air pollution is a significant public health concern. Every year
    tens of thousands of people die prematurely as a result of breathing
    polluted air. Millions more are exposed to unhealthful levels of air
    contaminants, resulting in many other health problems, such as
    aggravation of existing respiratory and cardiovascular disease, damage
    to lung tissue, impaired breathing, irregular heartbeat, heart attacks,
    and lung cancer. In spite of the best efforts of Federal, State, and
    local authorities, according to EPA's own estimates, more than 150
    million people live in areas that violate at least 1 of the 6 health-
    based ``criteria pollutants.'' This estimate is likely to increase once
    EPA completes the designation of areas that exceed the new fine
    particulate matter standard. Additionally, more than 270 million people
    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''). It is very likely that poor air quality results in
    more deaths than any other problem under the jurisdiction of this
    subcommittee.

         WHAT ARE STATE AND LOCAL CLEAN AIR AGENCIES' RESPONSIBILITES?

        State and local air pollution control agencies have the primary
    responsibility for implementing our Nation's clean air program. They
    carry out numerous activities, including efforts to develop and
    implement State Implementation Plans (SIPs), monitor emissions, compile
    emissions inventories, conduct sophisticated modeling of emissions
    impacts, inspect sources of pollution, conduct oversight and
    enforcement, provide technical assistance to regulated sources and
    respond to citizens' complaints. In order to accomplish this work, they
    receive funding from several sources, including State and local
    appropriations, the Federal permit fee program under title V of the
    Clean Air Act, State and local permit and emissions fees, and Federal
    grants under sections 103 and 105 of the Clean Air Act. section 105
    grants support the foundation of State and local air quality programs,
    while section 103 grants have typically funded specific monitoring
    efforts, such as the fine particulate matter (PM2.5)
    monitoring network.

            STATE AND LOCAL EFFORTS HAVE BEEN UNDERFUNDED FOR YEARS

        State and local air quality agencies have struggled for years with
    insufficient funding. In addition to the fact that Federal funding
    levels have been relatively stagnant for a long time, over the past 15
    years Federal grants for State and local air quality agencies to
    operate their programs (not including the separate PM2.5
    monitoring program) have actually decreased by approximately one-third
    in terms of purchasing power, due to inflation. This reduced spending
    power has come at the same time as increasing demands related to new
    programs, such as developing State Implementation Plans to meet ozone,
    PM2.5 and haze requirements. State and local agencies have
    felt the repercussions of these limited funds, resulting in adverse
    impacts on their programs that include: reduction in air monitoring and
    associated data analysis; stagnation of emission inventories;
    elimination of air toxics programs; curtailment of small business
    assistance; loss of trained and experienced staff or an inability to
    fill vacancies; reduction in staff training; inability to accept
    delegation of Federal programs (especially related to toxic air
    pollutants from area sources); decline in enforcement and compliance
    activities; and cessation of some public education efforts. When State
    and local clean air agencies are forced to make hard choices and scale
    back essential air quality-related activities, public health, and
    welfare suffer.
        The proposed budget recommends shifting grants for PM2.5
    monitoring from section 103 (which does not require a 40 percent match
    from State and local recipients) to section 105 authority. The
    PM2.5 monitoring program has traditionally been funded under
    section 103 and this arrangement has worked very well in the past. We
    recommend that it continue. Therefore, we urge Congress to retain the
    PM2.5 and future lead monitoring programs under section 103
    authority.

               STATE AND LOCAL FUNDING NEEDS--RESULTS OF A SURVEY

        NACAA recently conducted a comprehensive survey of State and local
    clean air agencies regarding their resource needs and issued a report--
    Investing in Clean Air and Public Health (April 27, 2009)--which was
    provided to the subcommittee. The findings include the following.
        NACAA received responses from State and local air quality agencies
    in 35 States. They confirmed, as long suspected, that State and local
    governments continue to supply more than their fair share of the
    resources necessary for the Nation's clean air program. section 105 of
    the Clean Air Act authorizes the Federal Government to provide grants
    for up to 60 percent of the cost of State and local air quality
    programs, while States and localities must provide a 40 percent match.
    In reality, however, State and local air agencies report that they
    provide 77 percent of their budgets (not including permit fees under
    the Federal title V program), while Federal grants constitute only 23
    percent. Clearly, State and local agencies are providing the lion's
    share of the funding. This will become increasingly difficult, however,
    as State and local budgets continue to shrink due to the country's
    current economic crisis.
        How much additional funding over and above current levels do State
    and local agencies require on an annual basis? The needs are enormous.
    Not including title V permit fees, which are intended to support only
    the permitting program, the survey results indicate that State and
    local air agencies need increases of 47 percent more than what is
    currently expended to carry out their current programs and support
    activities they anticipate they will need to undertake in the next few
    years. In order to protect public health, State, and local air agencies
    would need $1.3 billion annually to operate their programs. If EPA
    supplied 60 percent of that amount, as the Clean Air Act envisions,
    Federal grants would amount to approximately $778 million annually.
    Unfortunately, recent annual appropriations under sections 103 and 105
    of the Clean Air Act have been only approximately $200 million to $220
    million. Thus, Federal grants should be increased by approximately $550
    million to $575 million annually more than recent levels to make up
    this difference and support necessary State and local clean air
    programs.
        Further, as the demands placed on State and local air programs
    become greater, the effect of the shortfall will intensify. Unless
    State and local air quality programs receive substantial increases in
    Federal funding, they will continue to face a serious financial
    deficit, and their ability to protect and improve air quality will be
    further compromised.

                       HOW WOULD ADDITIONAL FUNDING HELP?

        According to our preliminary survey results, State and local air
    agencies report that the two program areas most in need of additional
    resources are climate change and toxic air pollution, where funding
    increases of more than 1,000 percent and 100 percent, respectively, are
    needed. Currently there is little funding available for climate change
    activities--agencies report that more than a quarter of the total
    additional funds needed would be for greenhouse gas-related efforts.
    Some of the specific activities for which additional funding is needed
    in these two areas include the following, among others: programs to
    address toxic air pollution from area (small) sources, including
    accepting delegation of the Federal area source regulations,
    identifying and inspecting sources, providing compliance assistance and
    inspecting facilities; air toxics monitoring; modeling of toxic
    exposures and risk; greenhouse gas planning and permitting;
    development, review and analysis of emissions inventories for
    greenhouse gases and toxic air pollutants; greenhouse gas rule
    development; emission reporting; and public education and outreach on
    toxics and greenhouse gases.
        Other types of programs besides climate change and toxic air
    pollution are also in need of significant funding increases. According
    to the survey responses, the general categories of activities, and the
    percentage of funding increases they need, are ambient monitoring (38
    percent), SIP efforts (34 percent), visibility work (15 percent), and
    compliance and enforcement (27 percent). Additionally, there are
    activities that do not fall within one of these categories that require
    increased grants as well, including programs to address environmental
    justice, asbestos, odors, complaint response, indoor air, training,
    outreach, small business assistance, management, administration,
    information technology, and many others.
        While State and local agencies identified many specific activities
    for which they would most need additional funds, certain efforts
    appeared repeatedly in the survey responses. In addition to those
    listed above related to toxic air pollution and climate change, these
    activities include: placement of additional monitors and commencement
    or continuation of monitoring activities related to new standards for
    fine particulates, ozone and lead; development of and/or improvements
    in emission inventories for criteria pollutants; development of SIPs
    for the new fine particulate matter, ozone and lead standards;
    increased frequency of compliance evaluations, inspections and
    enforcement, specifically for smaller sources; modeling for criteria
    pollutants; small business assistance; public education; regulation of
    emissions from animal feeding operations; programs to address emissions
    from minor sources; retention of experienced staff and hiring of
    additional staff to take on new programs and/or fill vacancies; and
    staff training.

            GRANTS SHOULD BE INCREASED TO FACILITATE REGIONAL SHIFTS

        In addition to the funding shortfalls revealed by the NACAA survey,
    there is another argument to be made for additional Federal grants. For
    more than a decade, EPA has used a formula to distribute State and
    local section 105 grants among the various regions of the country. The
    formula was developed several years after the passage of the Clean Air
    Act amendments and reflected the conditions, priorities and population
    distribution that existed at the time. Over the intervening years, some
    adjustments have been made to the formula to account for new priorities
    and to apportion grant increases and decreases. However, a re-
    examination of the methodology and formula that serve as the foundation
    of the grant allocations had not been done and was overdue. For many
    months, EPA has been developing an updated methodology and is close to
    completing the project. Based on preliminary evaluation of EPA's
    efforts, it appears that the updated formula could result in
    substantial shifts in grants from certain regions of the country to
    others. During these difficult economic times, few if any agencies can
    easily afford to withstand any reductions in resources, including those
    that reallocations might create, and certainly not of the size
    reflected in the proposal under consideration. Since full and even
    partial implementation of the revised formula could create unacceptable
    disruptions in certain regions, NACAA believes that the most essential
    element of the reallocation process would be for the Federal Government
    to provide grant increases sufficient to ensure that no agency suffers
    a decrease, while those that are slated for an increased share of the
    total receive additional funds. At a minimum, grant increases of the
    size NACAA is recommending--$43.4 million more than the President's
    request--would facilitate these shifts.

                             NACAA'S RECOMMENDATION

        While significant grant increases are warranted, NACAA realizes
    that there are many competing priorities for Federal funds and that the
    current economy is very poor, and recognizes that full funding (an
    increase of $550 million to $575 million) is not viable right now.
    Therefore, for fiscal year 2010, NACAA is proposing an increase in
    Federal grants to State and local clean air agencies under sections 103
    and 105 of only $43.4 million more than the President's fiscal year
    2010 request ($46 million more than the fiscal year 2009
    appropriation), for a total of $270 million. This is a modest increase,
    considering that the real needs are over an order of magnitude higher.
    Additionally, NACAA recommends that particulate matter and lead
    monitoring programs be funded under section 103 authority, as such
    expenditures have been in the past.
        Thank you for this opportunity to testify on this critical issue
    and for your attention to the importance of adequate funding for air
    quality and public health programs.
                                     ______

       Prepared Statement of the National Association of Forest Service
                                    Retirees

        As a result of severely constrained budgets in recent years and a
    dramatic shift of money from all accounts to fund the increasing costs
    of wildfire suppression, the capacity of the Forest Service (FS) to
    carry out its missions in protecting and managing the national forests
    and grasslands, research, State and private forestry, and international
    forestry have been severely compromised. It is essential that this
    capacity be rebuilt. For fiscal year 2010 National Association of
    Forest Service Retirees (NAFSR) \1\ recommends the following increases
    more than the levels appropriated for 2009.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ The National Association of Forest Service Retirees is composed
    of people who spent their careers involved with the management of the
    national forest system, research, State and private forestry, and
    international forestry programs. Members remain committed to the proper
    stewardship of our forest lands and to the statutory multiple-use
    mission of the U.S. Forest Service.

                             [In millions of dollars]
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      Fund at most recent 5-
                                                      year average projected
                                                             to 2010
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Wildland fire management:
        Suppression................................  .......................
        Preparedness...............................                       10
    National Forest System: Land management                               10
     planning
    Inventory and monitoring.......................                       10
    Recreation, wilderness, and heritage...........                       20
    Wildlife and fish habitat management...........                       10
    Forest products................................                       10
    Vegetation and watershed management............                       15
    Land ownership management......................                       10
    Research.......................................                       20
    State and private forestry.....................                       10
    Forest stewardship.............................                       20
    Forest health--Federal lands...................                       10
    Forest health--coop lands......................                       10
    Urban and community forestry...................                       10
    National Conservation Education Center.........                        4
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

                           WILDLAND FIRE SUPPRESSION

        It is essential that the costs of wildland fire suppression be
    considered separately from the regular discretionary budget of the FS.
    As Chairman Rahall of the House Natural Resources Committee observed
    last year, ``the dramatic rise in these costs is eroding other nonfire
    programs and impacting the core missions of the Federal land management
    agencies.'' For 2010, NAFSR recommends funding fire suppression based
    on the most recent 5-year average cost projected to 2010 based on the
    cost trend for that period. This should reduce the necessity of fire
    transfers.
        The bulk of the costs for fire suppression are associated with
    large fires that escape initial and extended initial attack. It is
    essential that the agency maintain its capability to successfully stop
    at least 98 percent of the fire starts during the initial stages. In
    recent years there has been a reduction in the number of trained crews
    available for prompt reinforcement of initial attack forces, NAFSR
    recommends an increase of $10 million for preparedness to fund 10
    additional, inter-regional hotshot crews.

                             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 keep national forest and grassland 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 time of climate change. Further
    implementation of ecosystem management and the use of adaptive
    management, key to obtaining public acceptance of vegetative management
    activities, cannot be accomplished without assurance of appropriate
    inventory and monitoring of resources and project outcomes. 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 areas of our country. Some 192 million visitors
    enjoy recreation activities on these lands each year. But the quality
    and access to recreation activities is being lost. The capacity of
    recreation sites managed to standard declined from 93,600,000 people at
    one time (PAOT) in fiscal year 2002 to 70,230,000 PAOT in 2008.
    Priority heritage sites managed to standard declined from 8,112 to
    2,294, and the miles of trail maintained to standard declined 30
    percent in this period. Restoration of these facilities would provide
    badly needed jobs in rural communities. 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 country. Proper stewardship of these
    resources requires on the ground management by biologists and
    technicians. But while the pressures 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 and increase of $10 million for
    wildlife and fisheries.
    Forest Products
        There is widespread 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 clearly inadequate to accomplish the needed work.
    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, particularly under current
    market conditions, but portions are suitable for conventional wood
    products. Much more is suitable for energy production. Capturing these
    economic values is essential to making real progress in improving the
    condition of our forests. It has much potential for contributing to
    meeting our need for renewable energy. NAFSR recommends an increase of
    $10 million for identifying markets and preparing conventional and
    stewardship contracts for material that needs to be removed to promote
    forest health.
    Vegetation and Watershed Management
        One of the primary purposes for the national forests is to provide
    favorable conditions of water flow. National forest watersheds provide
    much of the water used by 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
    needed reforestation has grown, but the reforestation program has been
    shrinking. FS estimates the backlog of needed reforestation is about 1
    million acres. This does not include some 250,000 acres on recent large
    fires that have been identified as potentially needing reforestation
    based on remote sensing, but where on the ground examinations have not
    been completed. 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 boundary 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,
    the national forests are instead becoming, unresponsive, absentee
    landlords. NAFSR recommends an increase of $10 million for land
    ownership management.

                                    RESEARCH

        Forest research in this country has declined significantly, both in
    the private sector at major forest product companies and at
    universities. This trend makes the reduction in research scientists and
    support personnel in the FS over the last few years particularly
    untimely. We urgently need more information on the response of forests
    and the resources they provide to changing climate and on management
    practices needed to respond to and mitigate the adverse impacts of
    these changes. We need leading-edge technologies to effectively use the
    available forest resource, particularly small diameter, overstocked
    material in fire-prone areas, which can enhance rural economies and
    provide alternative energy sources from wood. With water problems in
    many areas of the country, forest management practices to enhance water
    yield and quality are urgently needed. NAFSR recommends increasing
    funding for research by $20 million with emphasis on response to
    climate change, economic uses for small diameter trees (including
    energy), and water.

                           STATE AND PRIVATE FORESTRY

        Two-thirds of our Nation's forests are in small, nonindustrial
    ownerships. These lands are vital to meeting our wood product needs and
    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 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 practices on these lands.
        Continued drought has increased fire, insect, and disease problems
    on private forest lands, just as it has on Federal lands. Continued
    assistance in forest protection and management is needed so that
    private land owners will make the needed long-term investments in the
    management of these lands. The National Conservation Education Center
    and Repository in Missoula, Montana (National Museum of Forest Service
    History) offers an outstanding opportunity to interpret the history of
    the national forests and other FS programs. NAFSR recommends $4 million
    for this facility. NAFSR recommends an increase of $10 million for
    forest stewardship; $10 million for forest health on Federal lands; $10
    million for forest health on coop lands, and $10 million for urban and
    community forestry.

                          REPAYMENT OF FIRE TRANSFERS

        In 5 of the last 7 years, the FS has been forced to transfer money
    from other agency programs to cover the cost of fire suppression. These
    transfers have disrupted on-going activities, increased costs, and
    damaged relationships with other agencies and cooperators. The
    continuing resolution for fiscal year 2009 repaid the nearly $400
    million transferred in fiscal year 2008 and $100 million in K-V Funds
    transferred in prior years. This leaves some $289 million in transfers
    that have not been replaced. This transferred money includes
    commitments for hazardous fuel reduction, noxious weed treatment,
    watershed improvements, fisheries enhancements, and wildlife
    improvements. It includes money deposited into working capitol funds
    for vehicle replacement and facilities maintenance. NAFSR recommends
    that the Congress complete reimbursement of money from trust funds
    transferred for fire suppression.
        The NAFSR believes the national forests and grasslands should be
    managed so they are an asset to the communities in and adjacent to
    them. In all too many instances, rather than an asset, the overstocked,
    insect-infested, fire-prone, poorly maintained, and understaffed
    forests are becoming a liability. We believe the funding increases
    recommended above will began the process of restoring the capability of
    the FS to provide proper stewardship of these national treasures and to
    carryout the other vital missions of the agency.
                                     ______

        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 $105 million, including specific report language directing
    that the funds be utilized only for the Energy Star program. We were
    extremely disappointed with the $50 million fiscal year 2010 request
    and the final fiscal year 2010 funding level. 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 energy prices increasingly volatile, 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 businesses to achieve these
    goals in a cooperative manner. NASEO has worked very closely with EPA
    and more than 40 States are Energy Star Partners. In 2005, EPA and
    NASEO announced a new Clean Energy and Environment State Partnership
    program, which has many State members, including California. We are
    working closely with EPA on the 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 2008 550 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. State energy offices are working with EPA
    to promote Energy Star products, Energy Star for new construction, Home
    Performance with Energy Star (especially for existing homes), Energy
    Star for public housing, etc.
        In addition to the State partners, the program has more than 2,400
    manufacturers using the label, 1,000 retail partners, 6,500 builder
    partners, 4,500 businesses, 550 utilities, and thousands of energy
    service providers. The ``Home Performance with Energy Star'' activity
    allows us to focus on whole-house improvements, not simply a single
    product or service. This is extremely beneficial to homeowners.
    Programs have already been undertaken in California, New York,
    Illinois, Maryland, Oregon, Texas, and Wisconsin. For example, a Mid-
    Atlantic regional effort has been initiated. 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.

                            EXPANSION OF ENERGY STAR

        The Energy Star program saves consumers billions of dollars every
    year. The payback is enormous. NASEO supports an approximate doubling
    of this program to $105 million in fiscal year 2010. The elements of
    the expanded program are as follows:
      --$12.5 million should be appropriated to expand the program to
            upgrade energy-inefficient homes. Consumers could save $500 per
            year on their energy expenditures, which is $10,000 over 20
            years (nominal dollars). This is real money in the pockets of
            consumers. It can help them stay in their homes and help the
            economy. There are significant, off-the-shelf energy efficiency
            measures that can be utilized. A large expansion of the Home
            Performance with Energy Star is the critical element of this
            initiative. Additional work to encourage quality installation
            of heating and cooling equipment would also produce real
            savings.
      --$7.5 million should be appropriated for an expansion of energy
            performance ratings systems for the Nation's buildings.
            Information on energy use per square foot is a key motivating
            tool. This can help commercial building owners make the right
            decisions.
      --$10 million should be appropriated for expansion of Energy Star to
            medium and small manufacturers and small businesses. The State
            energy offices are working hard to preserve and expand jobs in
            this difficult economy. Energy Star is a powerful tool to help
            reduce operating costs and maintain profits and jobs.
      --$10 million should be appropriated for an expanded outreach program
            for energy efficiency to States, utilities, local governments,
            schools, and other potential program sponsors. Energy Star
            provides crucial technical assistance to help work with these
            entities to expand energy efficiency programs throughout the
            economy.
      --$10 million should be appropriated for additional outreach to State
            and local governments. Energy Star has been helpful, but is
            woefully underfunded in efforts to share best practices.
      --$5 million should be appropriated to offer new opportunities to
            incorporate new technologies into Energy Star.
        The funds delineated above should be added to the existing
    appropriation. It is especially critical for the Energy Star program to
    work with the States and local governments as they distribute stimulus
    funds for the State Energy Program ($3.1 billion), the Energy
    Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant (for local and State
    governments) ($3.2 billion), the Weatherization Assistance Program ($5
    billion) and the Appliance Rebates Program ($300 million). The funding
    provided in this bill will help spend this money more effectively.

                                 STATE EXAMPLES

        In California, residents and businesses are projected to save more
    than $14 billion through the Energy Star investments that have already
    been made. Well more than 10,000 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 well more than $2 billion over the
    life of these efforts. Approximately 10,000 homes in the State have
    earned the Energy Star and more than 900 buildings (more than 130
    million square feet) have been rated utilizing the performance rating
    system. Approximately 100 Colorado companies are now building Energy
    Star-rated homes. Aggressive Energy Star efforts are occurring in
    schools throughout the State. With the passage of new State legislation
    and actions by the Governor, aggressive new Energy Star promotion
    activities have had a significant impact.
        Maryland 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. One hundred forty companies and public entities are
    participating in Energy Star in the State. One hundred thirty 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. Millions of
    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.
        Six hundred million dollars will be saved in the Energy Star
    investments that have already been made in Nebraska. Twenty-one 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. Many 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. Two thousand homes so far have
    earned the Energy Star and 14 million square feet of buildings have
    been rated. Scores of 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.
        Rhode Island businesses and residents will save more than $400
    million through Energy Star investments they have already made. More
    than 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. In Tennessee, well
    more than 100 companies and public entities, including significant
    numbers of small businesses, have been participating in Energy Star.
    Businesses and residents are projected to save more than $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 more than $700 million
    through investments they have already made in Energy Star products,
    homes, and buildings. Well more than 100 companies are actively
    participating in the Energy Star program. 7,500 Utah homes have earned
    the Energy Star and more than 17 million square feet has been rated for
    energy efficiency in the State.
        Vermont has aggressively promoted energy efficiency for many years
    and scores of public entities and companies have been involved in the
    program. Approximately 5,000 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 more than $400
    million as a result of Energy Star investments that they have already
    made. More than 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 approximately 500 companies and public entities that
    have been promoting Energy Star. More than 8,000 homes have earned
    Energy Star and more than 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.

                                   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 Conference of State Historic
                             Preservation Officers

        Thank you Chairwoman Feinstein, Ranking Member Alexander, and the
    members of the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Interior,
    Environment, and Related Agencies for the opportunity to provide
    testimony. I appreciate this chance to share the State Historic
    Preservation Office's (SHPOs) 2008 historic preservation
    accomplishments, discuss the SHPOs' role in the economic stimulus, and
    review historic preservation's contribution to economic and
    environmental sustainability.

                  SHPOS ARE THE NATION'S PRESERVATION PROGRAM

        In 1966, Congress affirmed the importance of historic preservation
    in the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA 16 U.S.C. 470). This
    Federal historic preservation program is carried out by the SHPOs for
    the National Park Service (NPS) and the Advisory Council on Historic
    Preservation. Appropriations to SHPOs constitute the operational
    funding for this Federal mandate. The NHPA directs SHPOs to sustain the
    foundation of historic preservation in America by: (1) locating and
    recording historic resources; (2) nominating significant historic
    resources to the National Register of Historic Places; (3) fostering
    historic preservation programs at the local government level and
    promoting the creation of preservation ordinances; (4) providing funds
    for preservation activities; (5) commenting on Federal preservation tax
    projects; (6) reviewing all Federal projects for their impact on
    historic properties; and (7) providing technical assistance to Federal
    agencies, State and local governments, and the private sector.

     HISTORIC PRESERVATION AND THE AMERICAN REINVESTMENT AND RECOVERY ACT
                                     (ARRA)

        SHPOs need $50 million now more than ever to weather ``the perfect
    storm'' created by State budget reductions and ARRA project activity
    increases.
        A recent survey of SHPOs found that the impact of State budget
    reductions includes the following.
      --Nearly half the SHPOs expect State cuts in fiscal year 2009 at an
            average 13 percent.
      --Thirteen States out of 35 report loss of staff and 30 reported
            hiring freezes.
      --In Nevada, funding for the State historic preservation office could
            be cut in half, and the Nevada Historical Society's 10-person
            staff would be reduced to 5.
        While SHPOs operate under these fiscal restraints, Federal stimulus
    projects are being ``fast-tracked'' to create jobs and generate
    investments. Handling the unprecedented volume of projects for historic
    preservation reviews with fewer resources is a challenge. For projects
    that are controversial or fall short of ``shovel-ready'' status,
    Federal law directs SHPOs to resolve and mitigate any issues in a
    timely manner. Providing $50 million to SHPOs in fiscal year 2010 will
    add critically needed resources to expedite the implementation of ARRA
    and stimulate the economy.
        It is also worth noting that this subcommittee acknowledged the
    value of restoration projects in stimulating the economy by including
    $50 million to the SHPOs for restoration grants in the initial stimulus
    proposal. We were disappointed that the final version eliminated the
    funding. Since SHPOs across the country have long lists of SHPO
    approved, shovel-ready projects, just waiting for funding, we look
    forward to working with the appropriations subcommittee to enact this
    program.

                 HISTORIC PRESERVATION IS ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

        Preserving the physical reminders of our past creates a sense of
    place and community and generates a wide range of economic benefits.
    Historic preservation creates jobs, brings people to downtowns and main
    streets, supports affordable housing and small businesses, and
    generates tax revenues while revitalizing communities and
    neighborhoods.
        SHPOs administer the rehabilitation tax credit program which has
    spurred private investment on a 5 to 1 ratio and is a powerful job
    creation tool. More than $50.82 billion in private investment has been
    leveraged from its inception in 1976 and each project approved by the
    NPS creates, on average, 42 new and principally local jobs. The
    following statistics are typical of the positive findings of
    preservation's economic benefits:
      --Historic preservation activities generate more than $1.4 billion of
            economic activity in Texas each year.
      --Each $1 of Maryland's historic preservation tax credit leverages
            $6.70 of economic activity within that State.
      --Massachusetts benefits from historic preservation include a gain of
            about 87,000 jobs, $2.6 billion in income, $3.5 billion in GSP,
            and $944 million in taxes.
      --In New York State, $1 million spent rehabilitating an historic
            building ultimately adds $1.9 million to the State's economy.
        Dollar for dollar, historic rehabilitation creates more jobs than
    most other investments. According to a 1997 study on the economic
    impacts of historic preservation, ``preservation's benefits surpass
    those yielded by such alternative investments as infrastructure and new
    housing construction.'' In Michigan, $1 million in building
    rehabilitation creates 12 more jobs than manufacturing. In West
    Virginia, $1 million of rehabilitation creates 20 more jobs than mining
    $1 million worth of coal. A 2010 $50 million appropriation will allow
    SHPOs to encourage more owners to undertake rehabilitation projects and
    to expedite reviews.

                         PRESERVATION IS SUSTAINABILITY

        Historic preservation can--and must--be an important component of
    any effort to promote sustainable development. The conservation and
    improvement of our existing built resources, greening the existing
    building stock, and reinvestment in historic communities, is crucial to
    using our past to create a better future for generations to come.
        The National Historic Preservation Program and SHPOs are
    responsible for the administration of public and private initiatives
    that advance sustainability. Environmental responsibility is achieved
    in the preservation industry through recycling, waste reduction, saving
    landfill space, saving energy, reducing carbon emissions, and promoting
    renewable resources. The sustainable economic benefits include fiscally
    viable communities, the use local labor forces, increases in property
    values and tax bases and heritage tourism. Historic preservation also
    promotes social and cultural responsibility through creating affordable
    housing, giving people a sense of place and community and incorporating
    smart growth principles. A 2010 $50 million appropriation will provide
    resources to promote sustainability.

                         IMPORTANCE OF DIGITAL RECORDS

        The key to protection of our Nation's historic resources lies not
    only in identifying them, but in making information about their
    location and importance widely available. Yet, in this age of
    electronics, spending hours upon hours--if not days--traveling to one
    location, only to spend additional hours searching through piles of
    maps, charts and documents, is typical for anyone who needs access to
    SHPO documents. Five million dollars for competitive grant funds for
    digitization and inventory will accelerate SHPOs' move into the
    electronic era.
        Specifically, inventory funds would be used for two purposes (1) to
    convert existing paper records to electronic formats (databases, GIS)
    and (2) 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).
        The State of Washington, and a select few other SHPOs have made
    remarkable progress assembling multiple-source 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 do not know the location of hundreds of
    thousands of our historic resources. Knowing what we have and defining
    the location and significance of the Nation's historic assets, is
    fundamental for all historic preservation activities. (NHPA 1966)

                           2008 SHPOS ACCOMPLISHMENTS

        SHPOs used their HPF allocations well in 2008. While virtually
    every State experienced cut backs and reductions, SHPOs are still
    charged with implementing the requirements of the NHPA to their fullest
    extent. Highlights of 2008 historic preservation accomplishments
    include:
      --More than $5.64 billion of private investment in the rehabilitation
            of commercial historic properties under the rehabilitation tax
            credit program.
      --An estimated 67,705 jobs created by the tax credit program in 2008.
      --10,392 low- and moderate-income housing units created through the
            FRTC.
      --Approximately 11 million acres surveyed for cultural resources and
            more than 132,300 properties evaluated for their historical
            significance.
      --1,319 new listings in the National Register of Historic Places.
      --SHPOs reviewed 114,000 Federal undertakings, providing 98,700
            National Register eligibility opinions.
      --51 new communities became Certified Local Governments (CLGs)
      --CLG's newly designated 48,200 properties, and 86,600 properties
            took part in local preservation review, programs, and
            incentives.

             FUNDING FOR ADDITIONAL HISTORIC PRESERVATION PROGRAMS

        In addition, from the HPF NCSHPO supports $20 million for tribes.
    We also would like to see $30 million for Save Americas Treasures and
    $10 million for Preserve America. Additionally, adequate funding for
    the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation and NPS historic
    preservation programs is needed to carry out their missions of
    promoting the preservation of historic resources.

                                   CONCLUSION

        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 what 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 hundred years from
    now. I would like to thank the subcommittee for their commitment to
    historic preservation. The Federal Government's role in preserving our
    Nation's history is only possible through our partnership. SHPOs stand
    committed to identify, protect, and maintain our Nation's historic
    heritage.
        Thank you.
                                     ______

         DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, ENVIRONMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES
                      APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2010

                                  ----------

                                           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 National Environmental Services Center
        Chairwoman Feinstein, Ranking Member Cochran, and members of the
    subcommittee: We request an appropriation of $1.5 million for fiscal
    year 2010 directed to the National Small Flows Clearinghouse
    (Clearinghouse) under the Environmental Programs and Management (EPM)
    account for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The
    Clearinghouse programs assist small and rural communities throughout
    the United States in meeting their wastewater treatment needs.
    Introduction
        My name is Gerald Iwan and I am the Executive Director of the
    National Environmental Services Center at West Virginia University
    (WVU). Our center conducts both EPA- and USDA-funded programs that
    address a national need for environmental services to small communities
    and rural areas. For the past 30 years, our work has focused on
    drinking water, wastewater, and community resiliency. We assist the
    USEPA and USDA in providing information, training, and technical
    assistance essential to their drinking water and wastewater public
    mission.
    Need
        Nearly 1 in 4 households in the United States depends on individual
    septic or other types of onsite systems to treat their wastewater. Many
    of these households are in small and rural communities that have
    limited financial and personnel resources to address wastewater
    treatment problems. Underperforming wastewater treatment systems can
    have considerable quality of life, environmental, and public health
    impacts. Recognizing the need to assist small communities in meeting
    wastewater treatment mandates, Congress, through the 1977 Clean Water
    Act (CWA), authorized the National Small Flows Clearinghouse and
    mandated that it collect and distribute information and also provide
    training to small and rural communities about wastewater treatment.
        The Clearinghouse and its training arm, the National Environmental
    Training Center for Small Communities, are cornerstone programs
    administered by the National Environmental Services Center at WVU.
    Through these programs the USEPA is able to meet its mission of
    providing wastewater-related information, technical assistance,
    publications, products, and training services for little or no cost to
    the public. Such services are especially critical to the small and
    rural communities least likely to be able to assist themselves. Under
    the CWA, Congress mandated annual funding for the Clearinghouse through
    EPA's Construction Grants Program, signaling its commitment to assist
    these small communities through the Clearinghouse's services.
        While the Clearinghouse had been included in subsequent
    reauthorizations of the act, the Construction Grants Program was phased
    out in 1991 and replaced by the Clean Water State Revolving Loan Fund.
    As a consequence, the statutory funding provision for the Clearinghouse
    was lost. This loss of directed funding has jeopardized the
    Clearinghouse's ability to provide essential wastewater services that
    continue to be needed by our Nation's small communities. Reinstatement
    of the Clearinghouse formula funding provision was approved by the
    House in H.R. 1262, The Water Quality Investment Act of 2009.
        Since the expiration of the CWA funding provision, the
    Clearinghouse's 25 employees have continued to provide essential
    wastewater services to the public through congressional appropriations,
    competitive grants, and supplemental funding by WVU. However,
    congressional appropriations ended in fiscal year 2006, University
    funds are limited and competitive funding opportunities in the relevant
    EPA programs are scarce. Most national rural water technical assistance
    organizations (e.g., NRWA, RCAP, and GWPC) providing complementary
    services to EPA are supported through congressionally directed funding
    on an annual basis. Congressional support for reinstatement of the
    Clearinghouse and its formula funding provision under H.R. 1262 would
    enable the Clearinghouse programs to continue with uninterrupted
    services on a firm financial footing. However, until the bill is
    enacted, we need an appropriation of $1.5 million to enable these
    programs to continue their work of serving our Nation's small
    communities.
    Request
        We request $1.5 million in congressionally directed funding for the
    National Small Flows Clearinghouse programs to support our work until
    the CWSRF legislation is reauthorized and enacted.
                                     ______

               Prepared Statement of the Northern Forest Alliance

        Mr. Chairman, and distinguished members of this subcommittee, we
    are grateful for the opportunity to submit testimony today on behalf of
    the member organizations of the Northern Forest Alliance (NFA). The NFA
    is a coalition of 55 national, regional, State, and local conservation,
    recreation, and forestry organizations united by a commitment to work
    together to protect and enhance the ecological and economic
    sustainability of natural and human communities in the Northern Forest.
    Our priorities include: conserving wildlands in the Northern Forest to
    help protect the forest's ecological integrity, its recreational
    opportunities, and it's timber production; encouraging well-managed
    private forests to support the forest-based economy, including high-
    value timber products, recreational tourism, and the jobs these
    industries support; and building strong, diverse, local economies that
    support vibrant communities throughout the Northern Forest.
        With these priorities and goals in mind, we respectfully request an
    increase in overall funding for the Land and Water Conservation Fund
    (LWCF) and the Forest Legacy Program (FLP) and specifically urge the
    subcommittee to provide $325 million for the Federal LWCF, $125 million
    for the LWCF stateside program, and $125 million for the FLP in the
    fiscal year 2010 Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies
    appropriations bill. In addition, we respectfully urge the subcommittee
    to provide a minimum of $10 million for the Community Forest and Open
    Space Conservation Program, $45 million for the Forest Stewardship
    Program, $36 million for the Urban and Community Forestry Program, $53
    million for the Cooperative Lands Forest Health Program, $45 million
    for the State Fire Assistance Program, and $85 million for the State
    Wildlife Grants Program. Finally, we're strongly supportive of funding
    the authorized amount of $5 million for the new Community Wood Energy
    Program.
        We applaud the LWCF and FLP funding increases provided by this
    subcommittee in fiscal year 2009. And, we are most thankful that the
    Obama administration budget recognizes the importance of these programs
    by proposing significant increases for fiscal year 2010 and setting a
    goal to achieve full funding of the LWCF in the next 5 years.
        FLP and LWCF have proven to be the most important tools to fund
    land conservation in the Northern Forest. It is critical that funding
    for these programs be expanded to ensure that as opportunities for
    productive conservation arise, we continue the strong tradition of
    conservation that ensures public access, sustainable forestry, and a
    multitude of recreational opportunities.
        Passage in 2008 of the Community Forest and Open Space Conservation
    Program is exciting for the NFA and for all communities looking toward
    a more empowered and locally controlled future. This new program will
    provide matching funds to help local government entities, Indian
    tribes, and nonprofit organizations to create new community forests. It
    will also offer technical assistance to develop and implement
    management plans for each new community forest. We urge you to provide
    funding for the Community Forest and Open Space Conservation Program in
    the fiscal year 2010 budget for the U.S. Forest Service (USFS). This
    should include funding for the States to administer the program and to
    provide technical assistance, as directed by the program's authorizing
    language.
        NFA is firmly committed to the effort to support a suite of
    programs that support resilient communities, sound forest stewardship,
    and the forest-based economy within the USFS's State and private
    forestry program. The economies and forests of New Hampshire, Vermont,
    Maine, and New York and across the Nation can not afford to lose the
    professional assistance provided by our State Foresters and Cooperative
    Extension Foresters. Programs including the Forest Stewardship Program,
    urban and community forestry, the Cooperative Lands Forest Health
    Program, and the State Fire Assistance Program are critical to the
    needs of Northern Forest communities. This suite of programs ensures
    that resources are available to support the shared goal of landowners,
    State, and local governments to manage their forestlands to the highest
    standards of sustainability.
        The Forest Stewardship Program and Urban and Community Forestry
    Program support the ability of State and country foresters to provide
    technical services to forest landowners, providing educational services
    in urban areas and communities, developing forest stewardship plans,
    providing training for natural resource professionals, increasing
    public awareness of forest resources in rural and urban areas,
    providing training for the public in the coverts programs, and
    supporting the implementation of forest stewardship plans. These
    services benefit not only private landowners, but all in the region who
    benefit from the sustainable and healthy management of forests and of
    trees and urban forests in our communities.
        The Cooperative Lands Forest Health Program provides assistance on
    our non-Federal forestland, the majority of forests in the Northern
    Forest and the eastern half of the Nation, to address forest health
    issues including the prevention, detection, and suppression of damaging
    insects, diseases, and plants. As you're well aware, the spread of
    invasive plants and insects into the forests of the region are causing
    and may cause incredible losses to the value of our crucial
    forestlands.
        The State fire assistance program provides essential financial and
    technical assistance to State and local fire departments for wildland
    fire management. It helps to ensure preparedness in the advent of
    forest fires. In addition, to direct first-responder support, it
    provides funding for fuel reduction work and is one of the only
    programs that help communities develop community wildfire protection
    plans.
        The State Wildlife Grants Program, created by Congress in 2000,
    provides funding to support cost-effective conservation aimed at
    preventing wildlife from becoming endangered. The work of the State
    Wildlife Grants program is done by State Fish and Game agencies
    implementing their wildlife action plans. Every State has completed a
    comprehensive wildlife action plan, as mandated by Congress. These
    action plans detail each State's species of greatest conservation need,
    their habitats, the problems and data gaps that confront them, and the
    conservation actions that are needed to prevent them from becoming
    endangered.
        The Community Wood Energy Program is designed to assist communities
    in creating wood-energy systems to provide heat and/or power for
    municipal buildings and enable them to utilize locally sourced wood for
    their heat and power. This program will be critically important as our
    communities seek to provide fiscal certainty and the opportunity to
    utilize heat and power resources found within the region, rather than
    exporting our hard-earned funds to other regions and other nations.
        In addition to these critically important program requests, NFA
    strongly supports funding for the following specific projects.
    FLP Projects
        Maine--Katahdin Forest Expansion ($3.7 million); Maine--Rangeley
    High Peaks ($3.5 million); New Hampshire--Cardigan Highlands ($3.8
    million); New Hampshire--Mahoosuc Gateway II ($5 million); New York--
    Follensby Pond ($7 million); Vermont--Eden Forest ($2.2 million); and
    Vermont--Adams Pond ($1.6 million).
    LWCF Projects
        New Hampshire--Mahoosuc Gateway I ($1.375 million); New Hampshire,
    Maine--Umbagog NWR ($4.5 million); Vermont--Green Mountain NF ($2.25
    million); Vermont--Chateauguay--No Town ($1.25 million); and New
    Hampshire, Vermont, Connecticut, Massachusets--Silvio O.Conte NWR
    ($2.965 million).
        In closing, we thank the subcommittee for your continuing
    leadership on Federal land conservation and forestry assistance. The
    NFA stands ready to work with you to secure full and consistent funding
    for the LWCF, for the FLP, and for the critically important State Fire
    Assistance Program that ensure that our conserved lands and private
    forests are all well-managed heading into the future. Thank you for the
    opportunity to provide this testimony.

                          MEMBER ORGANIZATIONS OF NFA

        Adirondack Communities Advisory League; Adirondack Council;
    Adirondack Mountain Club; American Hiking Society; Appalachian Mountain
    Club; Appalachian Trail Conservancy; Association for the Protection of
    the Adirondacks; Audubon New York; Audubon Vermont; Biodiversity Legal
    Foundation; Catamount Trail Association.
        Chewonki Foundation; Citizens Campaign for the Environment;
    Conservation Law Foundation; Defenders of Wildlife; Environmental
    Advocates; Environment New Hampshire; Forest Guild; Forest Watch;
    Garden Club of America; Gorham Trails Land Trust; Green Mountain Club.
        Greensboro Land Trust; Jay Ericson Photography; Keeping Track;
    Maine Appalachian Trail Land Trust; Maine Audubon; Massachusetts
    Audubon Society; MetaFore; National Parks Conservation Association;
    National Wildlife Federation; Natural Resources Council of Maine;
    Natural Resources Defense Council.
        New England Forestry Foundation; New York League of Conservation
    Voters; New York Rivers United; North Woods Stewardship Center;
    Residents' Committee to Protect the Adirondacks; Rural Vermont; Sierra
    Club; Student Environmental Action Coalition; The Wilderness Society;
    Trout Unlimited--Basil Woods Jr. Chapter; Trout Unlimited--National.
        Trust for Public Land; Trust to Conserve Northeast Forestlands;
    Vermont Alliance of Conservation Voters; Vermont Businesses for Social
    Responsibility; Vermont Land Trust; Vermont Natural Resources Council;
    Vermont Public Interest Research Group; Vermont Woodlands Association;
    Vermont Woodnet; Vermont Youth Conservation Corps; World Wildlife Fund.
                                     ______

        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 2010 Department
    of the Interior appropriations and funding for the National Fish and
    Wildlife Foundation (NFWF). 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 (FWS)
            resource management general administration appropriation;
      --$3 million through the FWS's resource management endangered species
            appropriation to conserve and restore Pacific salmon in
            Washington State;
      --$5 million through the Bureau of Land Management's (BLM) management
            of lands and resources appropriation; and
      --$5 million through the Forest Service's (FS) National Forest System
            appropriation.
        This funding request for fiscal year 2010 is within the authorized
    levels and would allow the NFWF to uphold our mission and expand our
    successful partnerships with the FWS, BLM, and FS. Mr. Chairman, I
    would like to make one very important point: we are asking for your
    continued support of well-established conservation programs with
    national significance. The NFWF is required by law to match each
    federally appropriated dollar with a minimum of one non-Federal dollar.
    We consistently exceed this requirement by leveraging Federal funds at
    a 3:1 ratio while providing thought leadership and emphasizing
    accountability, measurable results, and sustainable conservation
    outcomes.
        In 2009, the NFWF is celebrating its 25th anniversary and a
    remarkable history of bringing private partners together to leverage
    Federal funds to conserve fish, wildlife, plants and their habitats. As
    of fiscal year 2008, the NFWF had awarded more than 10,000 grants to
    more than 3,500 national and community-based organizations through
    successful partnerships with the FWS, BLM, FS, and other Federal
    agencies. Our collaborative inter-agency model has grown to include
    partnerships with the Environmental Protection Agency, National Oceanic
    and Atmospheric Administration, USDA Natural Resources Conservation
    Service, and several other Federal agencies. This effective model
    brings together multiple Federal agencies with State and local
    government and private organizations to implement conservation
    strategies that directly benefit diverse habitats and a wide range of
    fish and wildlife species.
        This subcommittee's funding has been critical to our success in
    attracting additional funding for conservation through corporate
    contributions, legal settlements, and direct gifts. As a neutral
    convener, the NFWF is in a unique position to work with the Federal
    agencies, State and local government, corporations, foundations,
    conservation organizations, and others to build strategic partnerships
    to address the most significant threats to fish and wildlife
    populations and their habitats. Currently, the NFWF has active
    partnerships with more than 30 corporations and foundations and 17
    Federal agencies.

              IMPLEMENTATION OF STRATEGIC CONSERVATION INITIATIVES

        It is widely known that climate change will endanger some wildlife
    populations and ecosystems more than others. In fiscal year 2008, the
    NFWF-initiated grant-making through new keystone initiatives, which
    focus on select species of birds, fish and sensitive habitats. With
    modest funding increases in fiscal year 2010, we will accelerate
    implementation of these strategic initiatives, many of which seek to
    address the affects of climate change through wildlife and natural
    resource adaptation. To ensure success in these investments, we are
    incorporating monitoring and evaluation into the entire lifecycle of
    the keystone initiatives in order to measure progress, promote adaptive
    management, demonstrate results, and continuously learn from our grant-
    making. With our partners, the NFWF has identified several species and
    ecosystems in need of immediate conservation action, a few of which are
    described below.

                    FISH AND WILDLIFE MOVEMENT AND MIGRATION

        In the Western United States, maximizing wildlife movement
    opportunities and implementing targeted conservation strategies is
    critical to ensure that future generations can enjoy the diversity of
    America's natural resources. The NFWF is specifically launching
    initiatives focused on wildlife movement and migration that will
    improve the resilience of large mammal populations in the Rocky
    Mountains, Green River Basin of Wyoming and Sky Islands region of
    southern Arizona and New Mexico. We are also focusing our efforts on
    sage grouse conservation activities and developing initiatives to
    improve the resilience of imperiled migratory fish species including
    the native fishes of the upper Colorado River basin.
        The Green River Basin of Wyoming--Sublette County and other areas
    in the southwest corner of the State--are a major area for U.S. natural
    gas production and provide some of the highest-quality sagebrush,
    riparian habitats, and forest for wildlife in the west. The area also
    supports a large sage grouse population, as well as mule deer,
    pronghorn, and elk populations. Energy development impacts on wildlife
    movement and habitat are being addressed by energy companies, BLM, and
    other Government agencies. Our goal is to work with public and private
    partners to accelerate these efforts through several key strategies
    which include eliminating fence and other barriers that obstruct
    wildlife movement, reducing road mortality along important migratory
    pathways, and protecting key parcels of private ranchland from
    development and subdivision with conservation easements.

                      WATER SUPPLY AND STREAM RESTORATION

        We also recognize that climate change will greatly exacerbate two
    existing water supply problems which impact wildlife and the public--
    too little water and the seasonality of freshwater supplies. The NFWF
    is working proactively with Federal, State, and local partners to
    expand voluntary water transaction programs and launching new
    initiatives to increase natural water storage. These efforts will
    benefit a diversity of wildlife species while improving water flows
    year-round for human use.
        For example, California faces a likely future climate that drops
    more rain and less snow on the Sierra Nevada Mountains. More water will
    flow off the mountains in the winter and spring, leaving less for fish,
    wildlife, and people during the drier summers to come. Sierra Nevada
    alpine wetlands, or ``wet meadows'', are hotspots within the Sierra
    Nevada ecosystem for wildlife diversity. Federal agencies manage about
    40 percent of the area of these mountain ranges, but wet meadow habitat
    along valley bottoms is primarily private land. Our challenge is to
    foster large-scale restoration efforts to positively impact stream flow
    in the dry season. To that end, the NFWF will invest in partnerships
    that provide incentives to private landowners to conserve springs and
    wet meadows and provide artificial water sources to protect stream
    habitats.
        In the Klamath Basin, the NFWF will be focusing on spring systems
    either by acquisition, easement, or voluntarily modifying agricultural
    practices as it is the soundest strategy for recovery of both
    endangered Suckers and Coho salmon. This strategy will provide these
    species and other fishes the ability to withstand climate change
    (resilience) much longer into this century. Similarly, an investment
    strategy of protecting and restoring spring systems in the Shenendoah
    River Basin will allow for the return of Eastern Brook Trout and 18-24
    additional native species.
        In the Upper Colorado River Basin, locating areas at the warmwater-
    coldwater interface which contain Colorado Cutthroat trout and native
    suckers and chubs is providing the framework to sustain these fishes
    into the next century, on both public and private lands. The NFWF has
    successfully implemented a water transactions program in the Columbia
    Basin in partnership with the Bonneville Power Administration, local
    water trusts, and willing landowners. All of these approaches for
    stream restoration will be necessary to sustain or recover the 700 fish
    species in decline in North America.
        Increased funding through FWS, BLM, and FS in fiscal year 2010 will
    also support the NFWF's ongoing conservation grant programs including
    Bring Back the Natives, Pulling Together Initiative, Great Lakes
    Watershed Restoration Fund, Long Island Sound Futures Fund, and
    Chesapeake Bay Stewardship Fund. FWS funding is also critical to our
    marine and coastal initiatives, such as the Coral Reef Conservation
    Fund and International Sea Turtle Conservation Fund. These grant
    programs, which effectively leverage funds from multiple Federal
    agencies and corporate partners, continued positive results in 2008
    with priority project requests far exceeding available funds.
        The Washington State Community Salmon Fund provides community-based
    grants to assist rural communities, farmers, ranchers and other private
    landowners with salmon habitat conservation projects. We appreciate the
    subcommittee's continued support of this partnership, which has also
    includes funding and participation from the Washington Salmon Recovery
    Funding Board, the Washington Conservation Commission, King County,
    Washington and Pierce County, Washington and benefits every major
    salmon-bearing watershed across Washington. As of January 2009, the
    Fund has supported 391 grants, resulting in improved fish passage and
    habitat on more than 1,000 miles of streams, rivers, and marine
    shorelines and restoration of more than 30,000 acres of complex
    ecosystems. Federal funds are more than doubled by partners and
    grantees at the local level and more than 20,000 local volunteers have
    assisted with projects in all 27 lead entity salmon recovery areas of
    Washington State.

              EFFICIENCY, PERFORMANCE MEASURES, AND ACCOUNTABILITY

        As you know, the NFWF has taken important strides to strengthen our
    performance measures and accountability. For example, the NFWF is
    working with scientists and other experts to develop species-specific
    metrics for each of our keystone initiatives that we will use to
    measure our progress in achieving our conservation outcomes. Our grant
    review and contracting processes have been improved to ensure we
    maximize efficiency while maintaining strict financial and evaluation-
    based requirements. We have enhanced our Web site with interactive
    tools such as webinars and a grants library to enhance the transparency
    of our grant-making, and instituted a new paperless application and
    grant administration system. In 2009, we will continue our efforts
    improve communication between and among our stakeholders and
    streamlining of our grant-making process.
        The NFWF's grant-making involves a thorough internal and external
    review process. Peer reviews involve Federal and State agencies,
    affected industry, nonprofit organizations, and academics. Grants are
    also reviewed by the NFWF's issue experts, as well as evaluation staff,
    before being recommended to the Board of Directors for approval. In
    addition, according to our congressional charter, the NFWF 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 NFWF in
    fiscal year 2010.
                                     ______

             Prepared Statement of the National Humanities Alliance

        Chairman Feinstein and members of the subcommittee: On behalf of
    the National Humanities Alliance and its 102 member organizations and
    institutions, we write to express strong support for 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. We urge you
    to provide the NEH with at least $230 million in fiscal year 2010,
    including: $50 million for competitive grant programs and $25 million
    for operating grants to State humanities councils. This funding level
    would represent a $75 million increase more than the fiscal year 2009
    enacted level, and would allow NEH to meet significant unmet needs at
    both the Federal and State levels.

                                  UNMET NEEDS

        As the single largest source of support for the humanities, NEH
    funding is critical to the health of our Nation's education and
    research infrastructure. NEH represents a unique funding source for
    nonprofit institutions central to the education and the cultural life
    of our Nation's citizens, including: 2- and 4-year colleges,
    universities, local education associations, museums, historical
    societies, libraries, independent research institutions, scholarly
    societies, and State humanities councils. Unfortunately, demand for
    humanities project support, as demonstrated by NEH application rates
    and feedback from the field, far exceeds funding available. In fiscal
    year 2008, applications for NEH grants in all programs represented $421
    million in requested funds, more than three times the program dollars
    obligated for that year.
        At the national level, only 16 percent of competitive, peer-
    reviewed project proposals were funded, compared to a 26 percent
    funding rate for merit-reviewed projects at the National Science
    Foundation (an agency similar to NEH in its mission to strengthen
    education and research at all levels in its sector). We estimate that
    at least $40 million would be required to help close this opportunity
    gap by allowing NEH to increase the number of applications accepted for
    critical, underfunded programs, such as:
      --fellowships for college/university faculty and independent
            scholars;
      --classroom curriculum and materials development;
      --preservation of historically significant collections and resources;
      --digital humanities workshops for teachers and faculty;
      --public media projects in film, radio and television; and
      --capacity-building challenge grants to humanities institutions.
        Additional funding of at least $10 million is also needed to allow
    NEH to begin to introduce or expand targeted support in several areas
    where Federal leadership is essential, including: international
    education and global society perspectives (at all levels of learning),
    digital humanities projects, graduate education, and data collection
    and dissemination of information on the state of the humanities.
        NEH is the only Federal research agency that does not have funding
    to support graduate students, or engage in regular collection and
    analysis of data on the health of the fields it serves.
        Our request would also strengthen the capacity of State humanities
    councils to support local cultural and educational institutions,
    teaching and learning resources, family literacy programs, community
    discussion groups, and programs for new citizens. A recent survey of
    State council capacities and resources has identified $150 million in
    funds needed for programs and infrastructure support in their States.
    State councils seek to secure half this figure in Federal funding over
    the next 3 years.
        NEH has the capacity to operate at much higher funding levels.
    While NEH has made much-needed funding gains in recent years, its
    current budget of $155 million is still far below historical levels.
    For example, in 1994, NEH was funded at $258 million when adjusted for
    inflation; and at its peak in 1979, NEH was funded at $431 million in
    2008 constant dollars. While some additional administrative funds would
    likely be needed to oversee grants at the levels suggested, the
    structure is already in place for NEH to immediately fund more,
    excellent projects in a way that is proven, competitive, transparent,
    and accountable.

                         THE HUMANITIES AND THE ECONOMY

        In an increasingly knowledge-based global economy, study of the
    humanities--languages, literatures, philosophy, the arts, religion,
    anthropology, government, and other related fields--are prerequisites
    for vocational mobility, personal growth, and civic participation. In
    addition, the humanities impart practical knowledge and skills needed
    by all Americans, including reading, writing, language proficiency,
    critical thinking, moral reasoning, effective communication, historical
    knowledge, civic awareness, and cultural literacy.
        Investment in broad-based education through the humanities is
    essential to our Nation's long-term economic well-being, and to our
    continued status as a world leader. The 1965 legislation that
    established the NEH states:

        ``An advanced civilization must not limit its efforts to science
    and technology alone, but must give full value and support to the other
    great branches of scholarly and cultural activity in order to achieve a
    better understanding of the past, a better analysis of the present, and
    a better view of the future.''

        Unfortunately, in the 40 years since NEH's founding, Federal
    investment in the humanities has lagged behind other fields; and it
    continues to fall further behind as billions of Federal dollars are
    rightly invested in science and engineering research and education each
    year. (For example, NEH funding today represents only 2.5 percent of
    National Science Foundation funding, compared to 16 percent 30 years
    ago.) We cannot allow this gap to grow unheeded.
        As the economic recession deepens, it is critical that the Federal
    Government reinvigorate its investment in the humanities, or we risk
    losing a generation of young students, scholars, and researchers.
    Serious long-term challenges posed by rapid globalization, economic
    crisis, and threats to our national security require solutions informed
    by the humanities. As a Nation, we must cultivate deep expertise and
    knowledge in all areas of learning, and support the full range of our
    citizens' talents--from math and science, to history and foreign
    languages. And we must also ensure broad, equitable access to high-
    quality humanities instruction throughout our Nation's K-12 and higher
    education institutions.
        John Hope Franklin, a leading U.S. historian who passed away this
    year at the age of 94, once stated:

        ``I want to be out there on the firing line, helping, directing or
    doing something to try to make this a better world, a better place to
    live.''

        His words express the sentiments of scholars around the country who
    are working to address pressing policy issues, from cultural
    anthropologists lending their expertise to make sure that vaccines are
    used effectively in developing countries, to historians re-examining
    current issues like race, poverty, and immigration in America, to
    college/university faculty volunteering with family literacy programs,
    to linguists documenting disappearing languages among Native Americans
    and populations around the world, to curators repairing documents and
    other artifacts damaged by flood waters.
        The humanities workforce should be recognized as a driver of our
    Nation's long-term recovery efforts, as well as a sector deserving of
    Federal investment to address serious economic pressures facing these
    fields. The humanities workforce is significant--according to data
    published in the newly released Humanities Indicators
    (www.humanitiesindicators.org), more than $2.5 million Americans are
    engaged in a broad range of humanities professions, including:
      --K-12 teaching;
      --postsecondary teaching (including college/university, business, and
            Government posts);
      --newspaper, periodical, book, and directory publishing;
      --humanities professions (librarians, editors, writers/authors,
            archivists, curators, museum technicians, interpreters,
            translators, historians); and
      --other related professions (news analysts, reporters,
            correspondents, tour guides, audiovisual collections
            specialists).
        Unfortunately, negative pressures are threatening the humanities
    workforce. Especially troubling are threats to the pipeline of young
    scholars and teachers, as exemplified by field reports and data from
    the humanities indicators:
      --In 2000, the percentage of middle (29 percent) and high school
            (37.5 percent) students taught by a highly qualified history
            teacher was lower than for any other major subject area.
      --Since 1990 mean math SAT scores have been higher than verbal
            scores, so that by 2006 the mean math score was 15 points
            higher than the mean verbal score (a reversal of historical
            trends).
      --Humanities faculty receive the lowest salaries of all fields. They
            also have a higher proportion of part-time, nontenured
            positions than their counterparts in the sciences and
            engineering.
      --As college/university departments face tightening budgets, the
            availability of tenure-track positions is constricting;
            humanities disciplinary associations report decreased numbers
            of job openings through publication ads and annual meetings in
            2009.
        NEH cannot single-handedly address these issues, but its leadership
    in these areas--research, education, preservation, public engagement,
    data gathering--is needed now more than ever. Each year, NEH grants
    support strengthened institutional capacity, jobs, and professional
    development for thousands of scholars, educators, curators, librarians,
    public historians, museum professionals, filmmakers and others around
    the country. These funds are not only vital for the direct support
    provided, but for the additional, non-Federal dollars stimulated by NEH
    seed money--especially as endowments, State, and local funding,
    individual giving, and other traditional sources of non-Federal support
    constrict.

                               NEH 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. Since 1994, these programs have suffered
    disproportionately from budget cuts and inflation. Requested funds
    would reinvigorate:
      --NEH Research Grants, which support fellowships, stipends,
            collaborative research, and scholarly editions. NEH application
            success rates (less than 12 percent overall, and between 5.7-
            7.8 percent for individual fellowships) confirm findings from a
            recent questionnaire by the National Humanities Alliance that
            identified funding for humanities research as the leading
            priority among its members. Fiscal year 2008 application
            requests in this division totaled $115 million.
      --NEH Preservation and Access Grants, which support the preservation
            of historically significant materials; training and education
            of curatorial staff; the creation of reference materials and
            new methods to increase access to them. 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 more than one-half
            report damage to collections due to poor environmental
            conditions for their collections. Fiscal year 2008 applications
            totaled $85.8 million.
      --NEH Challenge grants, which help local, State, and national
            institutions secure humanities resources and activities through
            fundraising as a means of building permanent resources for the
            future. Since the program started, NEH Challenge grants have
            leveraged $1.58 billion in non-Federal support. Fiscal year
            2008 applications totaled $54.5 million.
      --NEH education programs, which support professional development
            workshops for teachers and faculty members, model curricula,
            and classroom resources for the humanities for all grade
            levels. Fiscal year 2008 applications totaled $48.7 million.
      --NEH public programs, which support traveling exhibits and community
            programs in local museums and libraries; film, television and
            radio productions. NEH public programs reach literally millions
            of Americans each year. Fiscal year 2008 applications totaled
            $61.7 million.
        Launched in fiscal year 2007, the Office of Digital Humanities
    offers grants to support the use of digital technologies in conducting
    research and presenting scholarship. Fiscal year 2008 applications
    totaled $13.7 million.

                                   CONCLUSION

        We recognize that Congress faces difficult choices this year. We
    ask the subcommittee to fund a significant increase for the NEH in
    fiscal year 2010 as a necessary investment in the long-term well-being
    of our Nation's economic, cultural, and civic institutions. We are
    grateful for the subcommittee's vigorous support for the arts and
    humanities, and would especially like to recognize the subcommittee's
    leadership for the $10 million increase received by NEH for fiscal year
    2009. Thank you for consideration of our request.
        Founded in 1981, the National Humanities Alliance is a coalition of
    nonprofit humanities organizations and indications dedicated to the
    advancement of humanities education, research, preservation and public
    programs (www.nhalliance.org).
                                     ______

        Prepared Statement of the Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission

        Mr. Chairman and the other honorable members of the subcommittee, I
    am Billy Frank, Jr., Chairman of the Northwest Indian Fisheries
    Commission (NWIFC). It is indeed a privilege to be among such a
    distinguished cadre of tribal leaders who are also here to present
    funding requests of their people. On behalf of the membership of the
    NWIFC, I will speak to our natural resource management funding request
    for the fiscal year 2010 budget for the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA)
    and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Without the details of
    the President's fiscal year 2010 budget request, my comments are based
    on my best analysis of what could be the outlook. Summary of NWIFC-
    specific appropriations requests are:
    Secure and Enhance Western Washington Fisheries Management Base Funding
        $1.8 Million.--Restore reduction incurred in the President's fiscal
    year 2009 budget: BIA/natural resources management/rights protection
    implementation/U.S.-Canada Pacific Salmon Treaty (PST).
        $12 Million Enhancement of Western Washington Fisheries Management
    Base Funding.--BIA/natural resource management/rights protection
    implementation/western Washington boldt.
    Secure Funding for Newly Mandated Management Responsibilities
        $4 Million--Increase Shellfish Management and Enforcement
    Funding.--BIA/natural resource management/rights protection
    implementation.
        $1.5 Million--New Funding for Tribal Groundfish Management
    Responsibilities.--BIA/natural resource management/rights protection
    implementation.
    Maintain the Timber-Fish-Wildlife (TFW) Program
        $1.74 Million TFW Program.--BIA/natural resource management/rights
    protection implementation.
    Maintain the Mass Marking Program
        $2.4 Million Mass Marking Program.--BIA/natural resource
    management/rights protection implementation.
    Protect Marine Resources of Puget Sound and Co-manage Natural Resources
        $2 Million.--EPA/National Estuaries Program/Puget Sound
    Partnership.
    Protect Tribal Water Resources Through Cooperative Partnerships
        $3 Million.--BIA water resource management.
        $500,000.--United States Geological Survey (USGS) investigations.
    Support and Enhance Tribal Water Quality Programs
        $67 Million.--EPA's Nationwide General Assistance Program (GAP).
        $3.5 Million.--Development of EPA GAP implementation.
    Recover Salmon Through Hatchery Maintenance/Rehabilitation and Reform
        $1.5 Million--Hatchery Maintenance/Rehabilitation.--BIA natural
    resource management/fish and wildlife projects/fish hatchery repair.
        $3.34 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 Implementation.

                   THE NORTHWEST INDIAN FISHERIES COMMISSION

        Indian tribes have always inhabited the watersheds of western
    Washington, with cultures based on harvesting fish, wildlife, and other
    natural resources in the region. In the mid-1850s, a series of treaties
    were negotiated between the Federal Government and the 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. In 1974, the tribes won a
    major victory in United States vs. 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 who were entitled to 50 percent of the
    harvestable number of salmon returning to Washington waters. Following
    the ruling, the tribes created the 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

    BIA/Natural Resource Management/Rights Protection Implementation
      --$1.8 Million Restoration of cut in the President's Budget.--This
            reduction, which targeted the PST, affects the NWIFC, 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. The tribes
            and the NWIFC perform essential governmental services for the
            BIA and the PST process, representing, negotiating, performing
            research and monitoring, policy coordination, technical
            assistance, and other contractual support. These monies are
            critical for the successful renegotiation and implementation of
            the treaty.
      --$12 Million Enhancement of Western Washington Fisheries Management
            Base Funding.--The tribes and the NWIFC request an increase of
            $12 million for the base Western Washington Fisheries
            Management program funding due to long-term 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 increased.
      --$4 million for shellfish management and enforcement
        The tribes request an increase of $4 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 United States vs. Washington case was
    decided. Tribes need new resources to develop several dozen new
    management plans, collect information to assess treaty/nontreaty
    sharing arrangements, to implement the shellfish sanitation consent
    decree and to better monitor and enforce tribal regulations on deep-
    water fisheries.
      --$1.5 million for tribal groundfish management
        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, monitoring and
    enforcement for the four coastal treaty tribes who do not currently
    receive funds for these activities such as data collection, analysis,
    and monitoring. The transition to greater regional- and species-
    specific management increases the demand for information and staff.
      --$1.74 Million to Maintain 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 annual funds from the
            State of Washington. An additional $1.74 million is needed to
            supplement the State funding to make the tribal program whole
            as it implements the adaptive management provisions of the TFW/
            FFR Plan, which has been made a part of a section 10, Habitat
            Conservation Plan under the Endangered Species Act.
      --$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 pursuant to the Federal
            requirement to mass mark Pacific Salmon reared in facilities
            funded by Federal dollars. Plans to implement more extensive
            selective fisheries require additional funding with the total
            cost expected to be at least $2.4 million in fiscal year 2010.
      --$5 Million Tribal Wildlife Management--Treaty Hunting Rights.--
            Wildlife management is a new initiative needed to ensure that
            tribal treaty rights to hunt are being fulfilled. An
            appropriation of $5 million is requested to allow each tribe to
            develop basic infrastructure to deal with tribal wildlife
            management and treaty hunting rights. This funding would also
            provide project monies for competitive grants.

      BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS/U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVERY/COOPERATIVE WATER
                               RESOURCES PLANNING

      --$3.5 million for tribal water resource protection
        This funding request of $3.5 million supports a partnership between
    tribes and the Department of the Interior through the USGS and the BIA.
    This partnership will provide for the collection and organization of
    water resources data important to supporting tribes individually and
    collectively in the management and planning necessary to protect their
    treaty and reserved water rights. This will require new funding from
    the BIA to the individual tribes. The tribes are seeking new financial
    resources to refine and implement the technical strategy. While tribes
    have in place some of the expertise to accomplish components cited
    above, most notably biology and water quality, inadequate levels of
    personnel and expertise hinder our ability to accomplish the other
    tasks.
    bureau of indian affairs/hatchery maintenance/rehabilitation and reform
      --$1.5 Million Salmon Restoration.--BIA/natural resource management/
            fish and wildlife projects/fish hatchery repair
      --$3.34 Million Salmon Restoration.--BIA/natural resource management/
            fish and wildlife projects/hatchery reform implementation or
            NOAA/pacific salmon/Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery Fund
            (PCSRF)
        This package supports hatchery maintenance and rehabilitation and
    hatchery reform implementation funding, which in recent years has come
    from both the BIA/fish hatchery repair and the NOAA fisheries/PCSRF
    accounts. In fiscal year 2009, the BIA/fish hatchery repair account was
    increased by $500,000. In fiscal year 2010, $1.5 million is needed in
    fiscal year 2010 to address the backlog of repair within the BIA fish
    hatchery system; $3.34 million is needed to address currently
    identified hatchery reform projects.
    environmental protection agency/national estuaries program/puget sound

                         PARTNERSHIP/GAP IMPLEMENTATION

      --$2 Million Puget Sound Partnership.--Marine resources are essential
            to all NWIFC tribes. The emerging Puget Sound Partnership
            conveniently brings together key marine issues and focuses on
            salmon recovery, land use management and regulatory changes.
            There is a huge need for additional funding. Tribes will need
            to be funded at $2 million so that they can participate in the
            necessary scientific work and process and policy discussions
            that this partnership entails.
      --EPA/GAP
        We support full funding of the EPA Indian GAP at $67 million as
    this capacity funding is critical to the tribes' ability to sustain
    their important water quality programs.
      --EPA/GAP implementation
        We support the development of an implementation program that
    logically follows the capacity building under the GAP. These existing
    programs represent a substantial investment from the tribes and EPA and
    are the foundation that will support new programs. Tribes in western
    Washington have agreed to partner with EPA region 10 toward development
    of a pilot demonstration project effort to create a pathway from
    capacity development to implementation. The initial cost for this
    effort would be $3.5 million, which would provide coordination,
    technical assistance and start up costs.
        Thank you for allowing me to present these requests to you today.
                                     ______

       Prepared Statement of the National Institutes for Water Resources

        Mr. Chairman, thank you for this opportunity to provide a statement
    in support of funding programs authorized under the Water Resources
    Research Act (42 U.S.C. 10301 et seq.), which Congress unanimously
    reauthorized in 2006 in Public Law 109-471. The act authorizes a
    program of grants through fiscal year 2011 to the Nation's 54 State and
    territorial water resources research institutes for research,
    education, and outreach focused on water supply improvement. The
    National Institutes for Water Resources (NIWR) respectfully recommends
    an appropriation of $8,800,000 in the fiscal year 2010 U.S. Geological
    Survey (USGS) budget for the Water Resources Research Institute Program
    (the act authorizes an appropriation of $18,000,000.) These funds will
    be allocated as follows:
      --$7,000,000 for competitive water supply research seed grants,
            technology transfer, professional education, and outreach to
            the water-user community by the Institutes ($125,000 per
            institute);
      --$1,500,000 to support the national competitive research grants
            program; and
      --$300,000 for program administration by the USGS.
        I am Will Focht, Director of the Oklahoma Water Resources Research
    Institute. In addition, I am president-elect of the NIWR, the
    association of the individual Institutes established under the Water
    Resources Research Act.
        Urgency of Water Supply Improvement.--Two National Research Council
    (NRC) reports (``Envisioning the Agenda for Water Resources Research in
    the Twenty-First Century'' in 2001 and ``Confronting the Nation's Water
    Problems: The Role of Research'' in 2004) thoroughly examined the
    urgency and complexity of water resources issues facing the United
    States. The following challenges are cited as reasons for these
    studies:
      --Abundant evidence demonstrates that the condition of water
            resources in many parts of the United States is deteriorating;
      --Demand for water resources to support population and economic
            growth continue to increase, although water supplies to support
            this growth are fully allocated in most areas;
      --In some areas, the availability of sufficient water to service
            growing domestic uses is in doubt, as is the future sufficiency
            of water to support agriculture in an increasingly competitive
            and globalizing agricultural economy;
      --Repair of the aging water infrastructure will require hundreds of
            billions of dollars;
      --The frequency and magnitude of damages attributable to droughts and
            floods are increasing, providing evidence of increasing
            vulnerability to extreme climate and weather events;
      --The threat of waterborne disease remains, as exemplified by
            outbreaks of cryptosporidium, as well as chronic exposure to
            agricultural contaminants such as nitrates and pesticides; and
      --Resource management institutions have limited capacity to manage
            aquatic habitats to improve species diversity and provide
            ecosystem services, while also meeting human needs.
        These reports identify 43 areas where the need for improved water
    resources management is critical. The following examples highlight the
    importance of increasing our understanding of the interdependence of
    water quantity and quality; the balance between human and ecological
    water uses; and the legal, institutional, and social factors that
    contribute to sustainable water resources management.
      --Improvement of existing supply enhancing technologies such as
            wastewater treatment, desalinization, and groundwater banking.
      --Understanding of the impact of land-use changes and best management
            practices on pollutant loading to waters, ecosystem services,
            and biodiversity.
      --Understanding and prediction of the frequency and causes of floods
            and droughts.
      --Understanding of global climate change and associated hydrologic
            impacts.
      --Development of more efficient water use strategies and optimization
            of the economic return for the water use in all sectors.
      --Development of legal regimes that promote conjunctive use of
            surface and ground water.
      --Development of adaptive management as the best approach to water
            resources management.
      --Understanding of the role of the private sector in achieving
            efficient water services.
      --Development and evaluation of alternative processes for stakeholder
            participation in the formulation and implementation of water
            policies and plans.
        Justification for Federal Funding of Water Resources Research.--
    Several reasons for Federal support of water resources research can be
    given. First, authorized by Congress in 1964 the Institutes conduct
    ``research that fosters (A) improvements in water supply reliability;
    (B) the exploration of new ideas that (i) address water problems; or
    (ii) expand understanding of water and water-related phenomena; (C) the
    entry of new research scientists, engineers, and technicians into water
    resources fields; and (D) the dissemination of research results to
    water managers and the public.''
        Second, water resources are defined not by State boundaries but by
    physical geography. What happens to surface and ground waters in
    upstream States affects water availability and quality in downstream
    States. Federal support of water research can more effectively address
    interstate water resource management challenges than can individual
    States.
        Third, most water problems faced by a State are shared by many
    States. Federally funded research allows an efficient, nonduplicative,
    and comprehensive approach to these problems.
        Fourth, the Federal Government already plays a significant role in
    water resource management through its water quality regulations
    administered by the Environmental Protection Agency as well as water
    management programs administered by the Army Corps of Engineers and
    Bureau of Reclamation.
        Fifth, the water resource research Institutes leverage Federal
    funds to obtain at least two non-Federal dollars for each Federal
    dollar. Thus, the Federal appropriation results in a larger pool of
    research funding. Without this leverage, research support would
    decrease by far more than the Federal funds allocated. In Oklahoma, for
    example, Federal research dollars are matched with State dollars to
    sponsor research totaling $750,000 over 5 years in support of the
    State's comprehensive water planning process. This Federal/State/
    university effort would not exist without the funding from the Water
    Resources Research Act.
        Sixth, the national competitive research program authorized under
    the Act provides Federal grants that focus on regional and interstate
    water resources problems beyond those affecting single States, which
    must also be matched dollar-for-dollar with non-Federal funds. By
    continuing and enhancing these collaborative efforts, Institutes can
    better address critical issues on long-term water planning and supply
    that exceed the resources of any one State.
        Seventh, Federal support of water research, outreach, and education
    is consistent with the concept of water as a public good. As such,
    State and local governments and private entities cannot produce as much
    as can be justified by the overall value of the resource.
        Institutes Conduct Applied Water Research Tailored to State and
    Regional Priorities.--Our Institutes are uniquely positioned to conduct
    water resources research in several ways.
      --Institutes are not limited by a policy-driven or regulatory mission
            and thus can address the entire spectrum of water resources
            issues, including gaps between Government agencies. By focusing
            on science, the program serves as an objective broker of
            information among a wide range of constituencies.
      --Institutes examine long-term consequences of policies and
            recognizing long-term problems across all water-related
            disciplines.
      --Institutes are more flexible in addressing emerging problems and
            more adaptable to local cultures, institutions of governance,
            and regional socio-economic and physical conditions.
      --Institutes and academic researchers are more likely than mission-
            driven agencies to consider institutional, in addition to
            technical, solutions.
      --Institutes provide hands-on educational opportunities to develop
            the highly trained workforce necessary to build national
            capacity for sustainable water resource management.
      --Technology transfer programs at each Institute provide
            scientifically credible communication of research needs and
            results upward from the States and localities to Federal
            agencies and downward from these agencies to users of research
            results.
      --Institutes are experienced in assessing priorities for research
            through advisory boards with representatives from virtually all
            interested agencies and nongovernmental organizations.
      --Institutes provide information to increase the efficiency of
            Federal water resources research investment by identifying
            research gaps and avoiding redundancies.
      --Institutes fill research gaps to improve the effectiveness of water
            resources management.
      --Institutes are held accountable for expenditures as well as for the
            quality and relevance of scientific results and the vigor of
            outreach programs via a triennial quality-review process.
      --NIWR is an established network of immense and geographically
            diverse capabilities on the cutting edge of virtually every
            facet of water resources. The network facilitates regional as
            well as State and local cooperation.
      --Institutes operate their competitive research programs through a
            single computerized research management system managed by NIWR
            and the USGS. There is no other comparable avenue for such
            multidirectional coordination and communication.
      --Institutes have direct access to expertise in the many disciplines
            related to water resources. Institutes are uniquely positioned
            to address the interdisciplinary challenges of sustaining the
            reliability of water supplies in the face of new challenges and
            uncertainties. For 44 years, Institutes have conducted
            independent, objective, and scientifically credible research
            that links science to innovative and cost-effective policies.
        Conclusion.--The activities authorized under the Water Resources
    Research Act are high-quality, cost-efficient, relevant, and needed.
        Quality.--In both the State and national research programs,
    projects are selected for funding on a competitive basis, relying on
    the reviews of peer scientists, economists, and engineers. The
    performance of each Institute is evaluated every 3 years by an
    independent, USGS-appointed panel. The most recent USGS evaluation
    report stated, ``The vast majority of institutes are strong and
    thriving and a significant subset is very strong and distinguished  . .
    . the institute program, with its federal-state matching requirement,
    is an important and significant part of the nation's water resources
    research infrastructure.'' (emphasis in original)
        Efficiency.--The water institutes must match each Federal dollar
    from their base grants with two non-Federal dollars. This is the
    highest match requirement of any Federal research program. The national
    competitive grants program requires a 1:1 match. The overall leveraging
    ratio for all of the Institutes, counting funding from all sources, is
    more than 14:1. During fiscal year 2008, Institutes sponsored 1,042
    research projects across the Nation, generated nearly 1,000 technical
    publications, conducted 142 conferences and workshops, and supported
    the research of 983 students. Only 6.8 percent of the programs'
    expenditures are dedicated to administrative overhead, which is quite
    frugal.
        Activity Relevance.--Congress was quite deliberate in directing the
    establishment of water Institutes at land grant universities because
    they specialize in identifying problems within their States, developing
    solutions, and conducting technology transfer. The act requires that
    Institutes' consult with panels of external advisors representing the
    water interests in their States. Regional and national priorities are
    addressed when the Institutes collaborate on larger projects or conduct
    research under the national competitive grants program.
        Need.--Congressional designation of water resources research
    institutes as focal points of water investigation and outreach enable
    the Institutes to exist and leverage Federal funding against funding
    from non-Federal sources. It is likely that 30 percent of the
    institutes would cease to exist without the Federal funding authorized
    by the Water Resources Research Act. Others would greatly curtail their
    activities. In many States, it is doubtful that the university system
    would be such a strong contributor to the water resources knowledge
    base without this ``seed money'' provided by Congress.
        The investments the subcommittee makes in the USGS and its programs
    underpin responsible natural resource stewardship and contribute to the
    long-term health, security, and prosperity of the Nation. Together, the
    Survey and the institutes address critical public needs and are a
    reasonable priority within an appropriations bill. We commend Secretary
    Salazar and the new administration for requesting $6,500,000 for the
    Water Resources Research Act program in fiscal year 2010. The
    administration's request recognizes the value this collaborative
    research program brings to solving national, regional and State water
    problems, but we believe more should be done. Respectfully, we urge the
    subcommittee to provide $8,800,000 for the Water Resources Research Act
    program for the upcoming fiscal year.
        Mr. Chairman, the water Institute directors appreciate the strong
    support this subcommittee has given to the Water Resources Research Act
    program and to the USGS. I hope that the Nation's water resource
    research institutes have earned your continued confidence. The
    Institute directors are ready to work with you and other stakeholders
    to address the water challenges we face in the future through research,
    education, professional training, technology transfer, and information
    exchange.
                                     ______

             Prepared Statement of the National Mining Association

               NATIONAL MINING ASSOCIATION (NMA) RECOMMENDATIONS

    Department of the Interior
        U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)--Mineral Resources Program (MRP).--
    Fund the MRP at the increased level of $53 million in the
    administration's request and support increased funding of $16 million
    for the Minerals Information Team (MIT).
        Bureau of Land Management (BLM)--Mining Law Administration.--
    Support the $2 million increase for administration of the mining law
    program.
        Office of Surface Mining.--Reject the administration's proposal to
    eliminate mandatory payments to States and tribes that have been
    certified as having completed reclamation of their abandoned coal mines
    under the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act's abandoned mine
    land (AML) program.
    U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
        Methane to Markets.--Support funding for EPA's coordination of and
    participation in the Methane to Markets program.

           MINERAL RESOURCES PROGRAM--MINERALS INFORMATION TEAM (MIT)

        The USGS is the source for the majority of the United States'
    statistical data on mining and mineral commodities. The collection,
    analysis and dissemination of this information is a Federal
    responsibility that cannot be duplicated in either the private sector
    or by other levels of government, and is in fact mandated by the
    Defense Production Act of 1950, as amended in 1980 and 1992.
        The Mineral Resource Program's MIT within USGS is the leading
    source of unbiased research on the Nation's mineral resources. The
    guidance and research the program provides is vital in maintaining the
    growing value of processed materials from mineral resources that
    accounted for $609 billion in U.S. economic activity in 2008, as well
    as assessing the environmental impacts of mining.
        The statistical and analytical information provided by the MIT
    provides the basis for informed policy decisions and is extensively
    used by Government agencies, members of Congress, State and local
    governments, as well as industry, academia, and nongovernmental
    organizations. Collection of this information provides a fundamental
    service to the Nation. Specifically, the U.S. Federal Reserve Board
    uses the data for calculating the Nation's leading economic indicators,
    the U.S. Department of Commerce's Bureau of Industry and Security uses
    the data and analysis to resolve trade disputes, the Federal Reserve
    Board uses global minerals information to prepare economic forecasts,
    and U.S. intelligence agencies use the data to understand the effect
    changes in natural resource markets have on economic and political
    stability of developing countries.
        Mineral resource supply and demand issues are global in nature, and
    our Nation is becoming more dependent upon foreign sources to meet our
    metals and minerals requirements. For example, the United States has
    become more than 50 percent reliant on 43 of the 81 mineral commodities
    essential to the economy and 100 percent reliant on 18.
        In real terms, the MIT has been severely constrained by an ever-
    decreasing budget (a nearly 30 percent decline) since 1996 when the
    mineral assessment group was incorporated in to the USGS. In order to
    restore its budget to levels intended when the group was moved to the
    USGS more than a decade ago, MIT would need to be funded at $24
    million. NMA encourages full funding for this important program.

                       MINING LAW ADMINISTRATION PROGRAM

        NMA believes BLM's Mining Law Administration Program (MLAP) is an
    agency facing ever-growing responsibilities and obligations to process
    notices and plans of operations necessary for domestic exploration and
    mining projects. NMA supports the administration's request for $2
    million in additional funding. The number of mining claims filed over
    the past 6 years has increased by more than 600 percent. In 2002, only
    15,407 new mining claims were filed as compared to 92,284 in 2007.
    During the same time frame, the number of full-time equivalent (FTE)
    employees assigned to the program fell from 359 to 298.
        Additional staffing and other resources are necessary in order to
    process the notices and plans of operations required for expanding our
    domestic mineral supplies. Delays in obtaining permits and other
    authorizations remains a substantial impediment to the financing and
    development of mining projects in the United States. The National
    Academy of Sciences found that the permitting of domestic mining
    projects entails an inordinate amount of time and resources. According
    to Behre Dolbear, the United States ranks among the lowest of the top
    25 mining nations in terms of time and expense for obtaining required
    permits for mineral exploration and development. The consequence of
    this state of affairs is substantially longer lead times to get
    projects up and running so that they begin to generate a return on
    investment. As a result, permitting delays discourage companies from
    exploring in the United States and impair the ability to attract the
    capital investment required for mine development. In short, investment
    capital flows to where investors will experience a quicker return on
    their investment.
        In a 2005 report to Congress, BLM identified insufficient staffing
    as one cause of permitting delays, noting that many BLM offices were
    not backfilling positions as they were vacated. BLM recommended that a
    portion of the increased location and maintenance fees could be used to
    maintain adequate staffing levels needed to review, analyze and approve
    plans of operations. NMA agrees that the increased location and
    maintenance fees should be used to address MLAP budget needs.
        To address this regulatory bottleneck that impairs our Nation's
    economic growth and security, NMA provides the following
    recommendations:
      --Some portion of the location and maintenance fees collected that
            exceed the MLAP budget should be dedicated to the MLAP instead
            of being deposited to the General Fund--in 2007, the amount
            collected from such fees exceeded the budgeted amount by more
            than $24 million. Such funds would allow the hiring by BLM
            State offices of approximately 100 FTEs to allow either
            backfilling of currently vacated positions or new hires; and
      --Allocation of funds to the State offices should be prioritized
            based on the number of notices and plans filed in each office
            and current unfilled openings in MLAP.

             OFFICE OF SURFACE MINING--ABANDONED MINE LAND PROGRAM

        NMA supports the administration's request of $127 million for
    regulation and technology for the Office of Surface Mining, an increase
    from the $120 million enacted in 2009. However, we oppose the proposal
    to cut the abandoned mine reclamation fund to $32 million and eliminate
    mandatory payments to States and tribes that have been certified as
    having completed reclamation of their abandoned coal mines under the
    Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act's abandoned mine land
    program.

                               METHANE TO MARKETS

        NMA supports the EPA's coordination of and participation in the
    Methane to Markets program. Methane to Markets is an international
    private sector and Government partnership initiative launched in 2004
    that aims to lower emissions by promoting methane recovery and use and
    it targets coal mines, landfills, and natural gas facilities. The
    United States provides administrative support to the program, chairs
    the partnership's steering committee and is also co-chair of the
    programs' coal subcommittee.
                                     ______

         Prepared Statement of the New Mexico Game and Fish Commission

        Madam Chairman and honorable members of the subcommittee: I
    appreciate the opportunity to present testimony in support of an
    important land acquisition project in the Gila National Forest (NF) in
    New Mexico. An appropriation of $3 million in fiscal year 2010 from the
    Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) is needed for the Forest
    Service to acquire the 730-acre second phase of the 1,560-acre Bear
    Creek Ranch.
        I also respectfully urge a substantial increase in overall funding
    for the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF), specifically urging
    the subcommittee to provide $325 million for the Federal LWCF in the
    fiscal year 2010 Interior and environment appropriations bill. And, we
    are most thankful that the Obama administration budget recognizes the
    importance of these programs by proposing significant increases for
    fiscal year 2010 and setting a goal to achieve full funding of the LWCF
    in the next 5 years.
        At more than 3.3 million acres, the Gila NF in southwestern New
    Mexico is the sixth largest national forest in the contiguous United
    States. The forest is marked by rugged mountains, isolated canyons,
    quiet meadows, and desert. The biological and geographical diversity of
    the forest is measured by the range of elevation, from 4,200 feet to
    10,895 feet at the summit of White Water Baldy mountain. The varying
    landscapes provide habitat for elk, deer, antelope, bighorn sheep, wild
    turkey, black bear, and mountain lion.
        The Gila NF is noted for its contribution to wilderness protection
    in the United States. Aldo Leopold, an ecologist, writer, forester,
    hunter, fisherman, and environmentalist, worked for the U.S. Forest
    Service (USFS) in the Southwest for more than a dozen years in the
    early 20th century. Many of those years were spent in the Gila forests
    and mountains, conserving the land, observing nature, and enjoying its
    recreational splendor. Leopold successfully argued for special
    protection of the forest, and in 1924, the Federal Government
    recognized a portion of the Gila as wilderness. It was the first such
    designation and predated the passage of the landmark Wilderness Act by
    40 years. Today, the Gila NF includes two large wilderness areas: the
    Aldo Leopold and Gila wilderness areas. Together they protect more than
    760,000 acres of forestland--more than in any other national forest in
    the Southwest--and are a treasure for backpackers and outdoorsmen.
        One outstanding natural feature of the national forest is the Gila
    River. Running east to west from New Mexico into Arizona over a course
    of nearly 650 miles, the river is one of the longest desert rivers in
    the world. The Gila River watershed, the headwaters of which lie in the
    center of the national forest, is a significant stopover point for more
    than 250 species of migratory birds. Within New Mexico, the river is
    unobstructed by dams, but its waters are heavily used for agricultural
    and drinking supplies. Concerned about the future of the river and its
    exceptional watershed, ``American Rivers'' named the Gila to its 2008
    America's Most Endangered Rivers list.
        Available for acquisition in fiscal year 2010 is Bear Creek Ranch.
    At 1,560 acres, the ranch is the largest private inholding remaining in
    the Gila NF. Instead of having a dense contiguous acreage, the property
    extends for 8 miles along Bear Creek, a tributary of the Gila River. It
    is rare for the Forest Service to have the opportunity in New Mexico or
    indeed anywhere in the West to acquire a tract covering such a long
    stretch of an important riparian corridor and watershed. Accordingly,
    the parcel is a top priority acquisition for the USFS in New Mexico and
    in the region for fiscal year 2010. The acquisition of the property
    will be divided into two equal phases of 780 acres. The first phase is
    planned for purchase by the Gila NF in 2009 using Sisk Act funds
    accumulated in New Mexico.
        Given the property's shape and overlap with the Bear Creek
    watershed, it has significant ecological and water resource value.
    Close to the creek are numerous cottonwoods and willows, while further
    away are ponderosa pines, oaks, and meadows. The riparian corridor
    provides important habitat for wildlife that thrive in the larger
    national forest. The canyon includes several waterfalls. The course of
    Bear Creek supports native fish including longfin dace, desert sucker,
    Sonora sucker, and loach minnow. The documentation of loach minnow--a
    federally listed threatened species--is the first in New Mexico in
    several decades. In the United States the species is only found in New
    Mexico and Arizona. The Sonora sucker and desert sucker are Federal
    species of concern.
        Inclusion of the property in the Gila NF would greatly ease USFS
    land management demands in the Bear Creek corridor. The inholding is
    almost entirely surrounded by existing public lands. Upon acquisition,
    the Forest Service would not need to monitor and maintain the 17-mile
    boundary along the property. Public acquisition would also improve fire
    management and public access for outdoor recreation. The Forest Service
    is planning to convert a dirt road that follows the course of Bear
    Creek into a recreational trail for hikers, bikers, and equestrians. In
    addition, both the Continental Divide National Scenic Trail and the
    federally designated Trail of the Mountain Spirits Scenic Byway run
    near the property, which lies just south of the Gila wilderness.
        Currently the owners of the ranch are working to conserve their
    land by selling it to the Forest Service. However, if this cannot be
    achieved, the property is likely to be sold, opening the Bear Creek
    corridor to fragmented ownership and ranchette development. That
    scenario would greatly exacerbate public concerns about fire management
    and access throughout an 8-mile creek corridor and section of the
    national forest.
        The LWCF is our Nation's premier program to acquire and protect
    lands in national parks, national wildlife refuges, national forests,
    Bureau of Land Management units and other Federal land systems. This
    program faces an extensive and growing backlog of land acquisition
    needs across the Nation. Public lands provide innumerable social and
    economic benefits including a healthy lifestyle, protection of
    watersheds and drinking water supplies, wildfire reduction and
    prevention, and assistance to wildlife and fisheries as they adapt to
    climate change. We urge you to renew this wise investment in America's
    natural heritage and take steps to toward full and consistent funding
    of these vital programs.
        Madam Chairman and distinguished subcommittee members, I want to
    thank you for this opportunity to testify on behalf of this important
    national protection effort in the Gila NF, and I appreciate your
    consideration of this funding request.
                                     ______

       Prepared Statement of the New Mexico Interstate Stream Commission

                                    SUMMARY

        This statement is submitted in support of fiscal year 2010
    appropriations for Colorado River Basin salinity control program
    activities of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). I urge that at least
    $5,900,000 be appropriated for the BLM within the land resources
    subactivity: soil, water, and air 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. This request represents an increase of
    $700,000 in that amount requested by BLM to provide for the needed
    Colorado River Basin salinity control activities of the BLM.

                                   STATEMENT

        The Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum (Forum) is
    comprised of representatives of the seven Colorado River Basin States
    appointed by the respective Governors of the States. The Forum has
    examined all of the features needed to control the salinity of the
    Colorado River. Those features include activities by the cooperating
    States, the Bureau of Reclamation, the Department of Agriculture, and
    the BLM. The salinity control program has been adopted by the seven
    Colorado River Basin States and approved by the Environmental
    Protection Agency 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 2010 that benefit salinity control in the
    Colorado River Basin. In addition, BLM needs to target the expenditure
    of $1,500,000 of the $5.9 million specifically for salinity control
    projects and technical investigations. Experience in past years has
    shown that BLM projects are among the most cost-effective of the
    salinity control projects.
        As one of the five principal soil, water, and air management
    program activities, BLM needs to specifically target $5.9 million to
    activities that benefit the control of salinity on lands of the
    Colorado River Basin. In the past, BLM has allocated $800,000 of the
    soil water and air management appropriation for funding specific
    project proposals submitted by BLM staff to the BLM salinity control
    coordinator. 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 2010. 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 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 $350 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
    2010 for Colorado River salinity control activities of BLM within the
    land resources subactivity: soil, water, and air management and that
    $1,500,000 of that amount be marked specifically for the Colorado River
    Basin Salinity Control Program, including projects and technical
    investigations. This request is to provide for the increase of $700,000
    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 New Mexico Wildlife Federation

        Madam Chairman and honorable members of the subcommittee: I
    appreciate the opportunity to present testimony in support of important
    land conservation projects in New Mexico. The first project is in the
    La Cienega Area of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC) where a fiscal
    year 2010 appropriation of $3 million from the Land and Water
    Conservation Fund (LWCF) is needed for the Bureau of Land Management to
    acquire the 280-acre first phase of the Canyon Ranch. The second
    project is the Vallecitos High Country property, where an appropriation
    of $1.65 million in fiscal year 2010 from the Forest Legacy Program
    (FLP) is needed to complete Phase II of this project and protect an
    additional 3,100 acres of the 11,655-acre property.
        I also respectfully urge a substantial increase in overall funding
    for the LWCF, specifically urging the subcommittee to provide $325
    million for the Federal LWCF and $125 million for the FLP in the fiscal
    year 2010 Interior and environment appropriations bill. And, we are
    most thankful that the Obama administration budget recognizes the
    importance of these programs by proposing significant increases for
    fiscal year 2010 and setting a goal to achieve full funding of the LWCF
    in the next 5 years.
        The LWCF is our Nation's premier program to acquire and protect
    lands in national parks, national wildlife refuges, national forests,
    Bureau of Land Management units and other Federal land systems. This
    program faces an extensive and growing backlog of land acquisition
    needs across the Nation. Public lands provide innumerable social and
    economic benefits including a healthy lifestyle, protection of
    watersheds and drinking water supplies, wildfire reduction and
    prevention, and assistance to wildlife and fisheries as they adapt to
    climate change. We urge you to renew this wise investment in America's
    natural heritage and take steps to toward full and consistent funding
    of these vital programs.

                                LA CIENEGA ACEC

        The La Cienega ACEC is made up of more than 4,500 acres of
    ecologically and historically significant lands just 8 miles from the
    City of Santa Fe. In an arid region with little rainfall and few
    perennial streams, the Santa Fe River, which flows through the ACEC,
    sustains a thick canopy of cottonwoods and coyote willows, habitat to
    nesting songbirds such as the southwestern willow flycatcher and to
    numerous other wildlife species. Ancient rock art can be found etched
    into the canyon walls, most likely produced in the 14th through the
    17th centuries by the inhabitants of La Cieneguilla Pueblo, a
    prehistoric Native American site with remnants of adobe rooms and stone
    and pottery artifacts.
        Available for acquisition in fiscal year 2010 is a critical
    property adjoining the boundary of the La Cienega ACEC that would
    protect the southern side of the dramatic and scenic Santa Fe River
    Canyon and provide access to this little-seen natural resource gem just
    a few miles from Interstate 25. The northern rim is already protected
    through Federal ownership. The 700-acre Canyon Ranch property is
    located just below the confluence of the Santa Fe River and La Cienega
    Creek just 10 miles southwest of Santa Fe. The property has
    approximately 2 miles of frontage on the Santa Fe River Canyon, with
    the river meandering hundreds of feet below the deep canyon walls. This
    property also gives access to parts of the ACEC that have been
    effectively landlocked and inaccessible to the public.
        The location of this property, its protections of the southern rim
    of the Canyon and the improved access it allows to the ACEC make the
    protection of Canyon Ranch extremely important to the future management
    of the ACEC. The El Camino Real de Tierra Adentro National Historic
    Trail, the main road that led from colonial New Mexico to Chihuahua and
    Mexico City, runs along the Santa Fe River hundreds of feet below the
    canyon rim. The road dates back to 1598 when the Spanish made their way
    to northern New Mexico and established the first capital city near San
    Juan Pueblo. La Cieneguilla Pueblo lies along this historic route, as
    does a nearby 17th century Spanish hacienda that was burned in the
    Pueblo Revolt of 1680.
        Support for this land protection effort has come from the
    community, local and State governments, archaeological groups, and
    local environmental groups. The ACEC and surrounding lands contain
    important historical and ecological resources that need to be protected
    as growth from the city of Santa Fe puts additional development
    pressure on outlying areas.
        In fiscal year 2010, $3 million is needed through the LWCF to
    protect the first 280-acre phase of the 700-acre Canyon Ranch property,
    before the opportunity to protect this outstanding resource is lost
    forever.

                            VALLECITOS HIGH COUNTRY

        The New Mexico FLP is devoted to the protection and management of
    environmentally important forest areas that are threatened by
    conversion to nonforest uses. In addition, the program gives priority
    to private forested lands which protect and enhance watershed and water
    quality, maintain and restore riparian areas, protect important
    wildlife habitats, and contribute to the cultural and economic vitality
    of rural communities.
        The State of New Mexico has submitted a request for the second
    phase of a conservation easement on 3,100 acres of the Vallecitos High
    Country property. The property, located within the Rio Vallecitos
    watershed in Rio Arriba County, is an 11,655-acre parcel of mixed
    conifer, aspen, and spruce-fir forests interspersed with mountain
    meadows and creeks. It adjoins the Carson National Forest on three
    sides and is visible from the Continental Divide Trail. The Rio
    Vallecitos, an important cold-water fishery, is managed by the U.S.
    Forest Service as a wild and scenic river. It provides irrigation and
    municipal water to the downstream villages of Vallecitos and La Madera.
    The property boasts critical wildlife habitat that includes old growth
    forest, wet meadows, and clear creeks. The wide diversity of wildlife
    on the property includes several threatened and endangered species. In
    addition, several miles of riparian woodlands, considered relatively
    rare in New Mexico, are found along the Rio Vallecitos, Jarosa Creek,
    and North Creek. The important Rio Vallecitos runs 5 miles across the
    property near the national forest boundary, and another 12 miles of
    tributary creeks on the property feed the Rio Vallecitos.
        The old-growth mixed conifer and spruce-fir forests on this
    property provide suitable habitat for the federally threatened Mexican
    spotted owl and the State-threatened boreal owl and pine marten. The
    property also provides important habitat for peregrine falcon, bald
    eagle, northern goshawk, and kingfisher. Since it is a large forested
    property, it is capable of supporting populations of territorial
    wildlife species with large home ranges such as black bear, mountain
    lion, bobcat, turkey, and birds of prey. The property is within an area
    classified as a major wildlife dispersal corridor by the Southern
    Rockies Ecosystem Project, which strives to maintain a network of
    undeveloped habitats and migratory pathways in the region. The wet
    meadows and beaver ponds on the property are suitable reintroduction
    sites for the extirpated boreal toad. This State-endangered amphibian
    may still exist as an undiscovered remnant population on the property.
    Recognizing these critical habitat lands, the landowner has been
    working with the New Mexico Department Game and Fish to protect the
    boreal toad habitat.
        Due to its spectacular views and abundant fishing and hunting
    opportunities, the Vallecitos High Country property is highly
    threatened by the development of seasonal homes. Protection of this
    property will expand New Mexico's protection of high-quality watersheds
    and forests by complementing a completed FLP easement on the Vallecitos
    Mountain Refuge property along the Rio Vallecitos only 2 miles
    downstream. It will also protect the scenic integrity of the area, as
    the property is visible from a new segment of the Continental Divide
    Trail and is part of the viewshed from the Rio Vallecitos Canyon.
        In fiscal year 2008, $1.133 million in FLP funds were secured to
    help protect 2,200 acres of the forested 11,655-acre Vallecitos High
    Country property. In fiscal year 2010, $1.65 million is needed for the
    second phase to place a conservation easement on an additional 3,100
    acres. These Federal funds will be matched by a 25 percent land value
    donation from the landowner. Partners in this project are the New
    Mexico Department of Game and Fish, New Mexico Forestry Division, the
    Carson National Forest, Forest Trust, Rio Chama Watershed Group,
    Southern Rockies Ecosystem Project, and Vallecitos Mountain Refuge.
        Madam Chairman and distinguished subcommittee members, I want to
    thank you for this opportunity to testify on behalf of these important
    national protection efforts in New Mexico, and I appreciate your
    consideration of these funding requests.
                                     ______

       Prepared Statement of the National Recreation and Park Association

        Thank you Chairman Feinstein, Ranking Member Alexander, and other
    members of the subcommittee for this opportunity to submit written
    testimony on the fiscal year 2010 appropriations bill.
        The National Recreation and Park Association (NRPA) is a national,
    nonprofit organization with a mission of advancing parks, recreation,
    and environmental conservation efforts that enhance the quality of life
    for all people. There are more than 6,500 parks and recreation agencies
    throughout the country, a majority of which are members of NRPA.
    Through our network of more than 21,000 citizen and professional
    members, we represent cities, counties, and townships' park and
    recreation departments, regional park authorities across the Nation,
    and local citizens concerned with ensuring convenient access to parks
    and recreation opportunities in their communities.
        As your subcommittee works to craft the fiscal year 2010
    appropriations bill, we request that you include $125 million for the
    Land and Water Conservation Fund's (LWCF) State assistance program; $50
    million to specifically fund urban parks through programs such as the
    Urban Park and Recreation Recovery Program (UPARR) and to include $1.1
    million for program administration.
        Funding provided through LWCF and UPARR provide necessary community
    resources for indoor and outdoor recreation opportunities and stimulate
    local economies, promote job creation, and provide community health
    resources and environmental stewardship. Park and recreation agencies
    are instrumental in helping to address and solve national issues such
    as climate change, obesity, reduction of crime, and energy and land
    conservation. Partnership programs such as LWCF and UPARR are living
    testaments to how local communities impact national issues.
        Park and recreation agencies provide the places and opportunities
    for increased physical activity. While local and State park and
    recreation systems provide public places for close-to-home recreation
    and physical activity, they are also vital to the local as well as
    national economy. These systems stimulate local economies and create
    jobs, generate visitor tax dollars for local economies, and employ
    full-time and part-time workers. Studies have shown that for every $1
    million invested in parks and recreation infrastructure, 20 jobs are
    created.

                         FUNDING LWCF STATE ASSISTANCE

        LWCF State assistance is a matching grant program that requires
    State and local governments to provide 50 percent in non-Federal funds
    for the acquisition, development, and redevelopment of parks and
    recreation resources. As a result of LWCF State assistance funding,
    more than 41,000 projects have been created in local communities. Since
    its inception in 1965, the program has provided more than $4 billion in
    matching funds to States and local communities in 98 percent of
    American counties. The States, cities, counties, and towns that apply
    for and accept Federal funding from the LWCF State assistance grant
    program agree to match the Federal investment on a dollar-for-dollar
    basis, and often match significantly more than the Federal share.
        Congress created the LWCF State assistance program ``. . . to
    strengthen the health and vitality of the citizens of the United
    States,'' and undoubtedly these projects are playing a critical role in
    battling our Nation's obesity epidemic. Several medical studies have
    shown that there is a strong correlation between proximity to
    recreational facilities and parks and physical activity. According to
    the Centers of Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), which estimates 65
    percent of adults and 16 percent of children are overweight or obese,
    even small improvements in the lifestyles of Americans would yield
    marked health improvements. In fact, CDC notes that the creation of or
    enhanced access to places for physical activity led to a 25.6 percent
    increase in the percentage of people exercising on 3 or more days per
    week. Investing in programs such as the LWCF State assistance program
    would provide a significant return on investment through the reduction
    in healthcare costs.
        The LWCF State assistance program not only meets important national
    goals and delivers tangible benefits to the American public by
    improving health, providing recreation opportunities to all Americans,
    and improving communities through economic development, it also
    significantly contributes to protecting our environment and promoting
    environmental stewardship. In fact, Governor Joe Machin of West
    Virginia notes, ``The Land and Water Conservation Fund grant program is
    one of the best ways we can be involved in the enrichment of West
    Virginia's communities for the future.'' It is obvious that LWCF funds
    are vital to many States and literally determine whether a local,
    regional, or State park is acquired or recreation facilities are
    developed for public use. The need for recreational resources has
    exponentially increased, but agencies are unable to meet the rising
    need. In 2008, States reported to the National Park Service (NPS) an
    unmet need of local parks and recreation resources totaling more than
    $27 billion in eligible LWCF projects.
        The following examples, provided by the NPS, paint a picture of a
    Federal program, diverse in application and addressing national issues
    on the local level.
    Focal Points of Close-to-Home Access to Health and the Outdoors in
            Urban Areas
        In Coeur d'Alene, Idaho, Tubbs Hill Park received critical LWCF
    funding to help acquire and preserve a breathtaking urban forest.
    Today, this 135-acre forest in the middle of the city has a 2.2-mile
    loop trail, spectacular scenic vistas of Lake Coeur d'Alene and
    unparalleled access to close to home recreation in the heart of Coeur
    d'Alene. This park is a hub for community exercise and offered as an
    ideal healthy resource within the city. In this urban park, you
    commonly see osprey, common, and hooded mergansers, bald eagles, as
    well as pied-billed, eared, and western grebes.
    Economic Development and Community Benefits of Parks and Access to
            Recreation
        In Rapid City, South Dakota, a community park was built in a part
    of the community that did not have a public park. With the help of a
    LWCF grant and a matching grant from Rapid City, several developers
    donated money to build this community playground. Since the
    announcement of the park and playground project, three major housing
    developments have emerged in the surrounding neighborhood thereby
    generating additional tax revenue.
    Environmental Stewardship and Conservation Projects Leverage Regional
            Impacts
        In Ashburnham, Massachussetts, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts
    used $450,000 in LWCF funds to leverage an additional $675,000 to
    conserve 460 acres of forest lands along the New Hampshire border. The
    land provides public access for long-distance hiking, links
    conservation lands, protects the water quality of the Millers River,
    and preserves archaeologically sensitive sites once used by the
    ``Harvard Shakers.''

                              FUNDING URBAN PARKS

        According to the 2000 U.S. Census, 79 percent of the U.S.
    population lives in urban areas. Our urban centers are imperative to
    America's economic prosperity. Urban parks and recreation centers
    provide close-to-home recreational opportunities for the vast majority
    of America's citizens and are instrumental in helping our Nation
    achieve important national goals of improving public health, increasing
    daily physical activity, reconnecting children with nature, reducing
    crime, and providing safe, healthy alternatives for at-risk youth.
        Historically, UPARR, authorized in 1978, has been the only Federal
    program that provides direct Federal assistance to urban localities for
    the rehabilitation of critically needed recreation infrastructure.
    UPARR requires local matching funds and is administered by the NPS of
    the Department of the Interior to provide funding for the
    rehabilitation of deteriorating parks and recreation facilities in
    cities and urban counties. Since its inception, UPARR has provided more
    than $270 million in matching grants to nearly 400 cities to
    rehabilitate and improve their parks and recreational facilities that
    face pressing needs and have fallen in to disrepair due to lack of
    investment. However, this program has not been funded since fiscal year
    2002.
        As the largest public provider of after school programs, parks and
    recreation agencies significantly improve community safety. According
    to the Juvenile Justice Bulletin, juveniles are at the highest risk of
    being victims of violence between 2 p.m. and 6 p.m., and the peak hour
    for juvenile crime is from 3 p.m. to 4 p.m.--the first hour that most
    students are dismissed from school. Parks and recreation agencies not
    only provide a safe haven for children in urban areas, they also work
    with local educational agencies to provide tutoring services to
    children before and after school.
        Now more than ever we need to ensure safe places for our children
    and families to recreate. NRPA seeks a new commitment from Congress and
    the administration to address the critical needs of our Nation's
    children and urban communities by providing a renewed Federal
    investment in our cities for the repair and rehabilitation of urban
    parks and recreation resources. We request that Congress find a way to
    address the needs and challenges facing urban communities by funding
    programs that benefit urban parks.
        The following examples highlights the unmet need for urban park
    funding in East Oakland and North Minneapolis and the services that
    could be provided if funding were available:
    Urban Parks Leading to Safe Spaces for Communities
        Tassafaronga Recreation Center is located in an area of industrial
    East Oakland, California that is plagued with high incidences of crime
    and socioeconomic blight, heightened by a recent housing redevelopment
    project that will displace hundreds of families over the next 3 years.
    The center serves all ages in the community, offering year-round adult
    fitness programs, teen leadership workshops and other youth and adult
    recreation programs year round. The facility is in dire need of
    rehabilitation--both exterior and interior. In addition to providing
    greater opportunities for physical activity, the center serves as a
    community resource and a safe space for children and families. With
    UPARR funding, Oakland Parks and Recreation would upgrade the entire
    facility and existing equipment, address and correct irrigation
    problems, and make other improvements to better serve the community.
    Community Health Benefits Through Urban Park Funding
        Creekview Recreation Center in North Minneapolis, Minnesota does
    not have the capacity to meet growing demand for space, facilities, and
    equipment for in-door recreation. Given current trends in childhood
    inactivity and obesity, the park agency is focused on ensuring that
    children can be physically active, particularly during long periods of
    cold weather. With investment through UPARR, the park agency would
    expand and modernize the center to include new space for exercise
    classes and would install fitness and other equipment. Completing this
    modernization would improve opportunities for citizens in North
    Minneapolis to be physically active and healthy.
        Unfortunately, in recent years funding for LWCF State assistance
    and UPARR has significantly diminished, leaving communities with lists
    of projects and needed repairs they are unable to complete because they
    do not have funding. LWCF State assistance and UPARR funding for these
    projects would allow construction to begin almost immediately, thereby
    putting local residents to work, helping communities to protect our
    environment while ensuring they provide safe recreational facilities
    for children and adults alike.
        Madam Chairman and members of the subcommittee, parks, and
    recreation agencies are not merely community amenities; they are
    essential services which are necessary for the economic and
    environmental vitality as well as physical wellness of communities
    throughout this country. By providing funding for LWCF and UPARR, which
    have proven themselves invaluable to addressing national issues, you
    would be investing in the health and well-being of communities across
    this Nation from the standpoint of economic recovery, environmental
    protection, as well as providing safe and affordable places for
    recreation. Please include $125 million in funding for LWCF State
    assistance and $50 million in funding for UPARR in your interior
    appropriations bill in the 111th Congress.
        Thank you for this opportunity to present testimony.
                                     ______

        Prepared Statement of the Friends of the Prairie Learning Center

        I am appealing to you today to increase funding for National
    Wildlife Refuges. My own experiences with the Neal Smith National
    Wildlife Refuge have been varied and enriching, and I fervently wish
    for these same experiences to be available for my children, my
    grandchildren, and future generations.
        My personal journey with the refuge system began as my husband and
    I volunteered to help with prairie remnant seed collection 16 years
    ago. Over time, with the inspiring guidance of the refuge biology
    staff, we gained knowledge and experience that gave us both the ability
    to change careers. Facing corporate down-sizing in our respective jobs
    (credit/financial and information systems) we found ourselves at
    crossroads and decided to test the waters of new careers in
    conservation. Without the educational opportunities provided by our
    refuge, from hands-on stewardship days, to seminars and workshops, and
    the encouragement of the staff, we would not have been able to take
    advantage of the opportunities presented to us.
        The Neal Smith National Wildlife Refuge and its Prairie Learning
    Center have the potential to provide many educational opportunities for
    a variety of folks of all ages:
      --School groups (K-12) from communities all across Iowa attend Big
            Bluestem programs at the Prairie Learning Center. For most, it
            is their first experience with prairie and the natural history
            of the State where they live. Many times, the students will end
            up bringing their parents and grandparents out to visit the
            refuge as well.
      --College and university students come to our refuge to conduct
            research on a variety of subjects, anything from carbon
            sequestration to micorhizae to global warming.
      --Both the public services and the biology staff provide valuable
            information and inspiration as they interact with students and
            other visitors, on a daily basis and during special events.
        The Friends of the Prairie Learning Center/Neal Smith National
    Wildlife Refuge funds about six internships throughout the year. These
    interns help conduct tours, interact with school and community groups,
    provide on-going land stewardship, and conduct research pivotal to
    future restoration and reconstruction plans. If there were enough staff
    at the refuge to provide appropriate supervision, it would be possible
    to increase internship opportunities for these students just beginning
    their conservation careers.
        With the current budget, refuge staff positions are not being
    filled, creating a void in the ability to continue the education and
    inspiration that the students and residents of Iowa (and many other
    States, I am sure) so desperately need. For all of the reasons I've
    listed above, please consider increasing the funding for the National
    Wildlife Refuge system, and in particular, the Neal Smith National
    Wildlife Refuge and Prairie Learning Center. Thank you.
                                     ______

             Prepared Statement of the National Wildlife Federation

        On behalf of the National Wildlife Federation, (NWF) the Nation's
    largest conservation advocacy and education organization, and our more
    than 4 million members and supporters, we thank you for the opportunity
    to provide fiscal year 2010 funding recommendations for the Department
    of the Interior (DOI) and other agencies under the purview of this
    subcommittee.
        NWF's mission is to inspire Americans to protect wildlife for
    future generations. To achieve this mission the organization is focused
    on confronting global warming, safeguarding and restoring wildlife, and
    connecting people with nature. Global warming now constitutes the
    single greatest threat to the survival of today's most cherished
    wildlife species; we are at a critical juncture for sustaining the
    natural systems on which humans and wildlife depend. Congress must take
    bold steps to address both the underlying causes of climate change,
    through reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, and adaptation to the
    now-inevitable impacts of global warming on the Nation's wildlife and
    natural habitats.
        We commend the subcommittee for its efforts to strengthen the
    scientific basis for addressing climate change impacts on wildlife, and
    for directing the Secretary of the Interior to develop a national
    climate change adaptation strategy. We are strongly supportive of the
    $133 million in new funds included in the President's DOI budget to
    help Federal and State land managers assess and respond to the impacts
    of climate change on wildlife. We are particularly pleased with the
    inclusion of $40 million of these funds for wildlife adaptation by the
    States.
        We are also strongly supportive of the $70 million requested in the
    President's fiscal year 2010 budget to connect children and families to
    the great outdoors through DOI's 21st Century Youth Conservation Corps
    initiative. This investment is critical at a time when research tells
    us that children today spend half as much time outside as they did just
    20 years ago. Targeting $30 million for educating young hunters and
    anglers, as well as $40 million in funding for Youth Careers in Nature,
    the initiative will bolster environmental education, recreation, and
    service programs throughout DOI, and engage thousands of youth in the
    outdoors.

                         U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE

    State and Tribal Wildlife Grants
        The State and Tribal Wildlife Grants program is the Nation's core
    program for preventing wildlife from becoming endangered in every
    State. It provides State wildlife agencies and their partners with a
    broad suite of proactive conservation tools to allow for meaningful and
    cost-effective species conservation. At the heart of this program is
    implementation of federally approved wildlife action plans. With global
    warming posing an increasing threat to wildlife and their habitats,
    these action plans serve as critical tools for safeguarding wildlife.
    NWF is working with many States to help them better integrate climate
    change considerations into these plans. We strongly support the
    President's request of $115 million for the State and Tribal Grants
    Program, which includes $40 million in new funding to enable States to
    better address climate change in their wildlife action plans.
    Endangered Species Program
        The Endangered Species Act (ESA) is a safety net for wildlife,
    plants, and fish that are on the brink of extinction. While the act has
    been extraordinarily successful in preventing the extinction of plants
    and animals, funding for its implementation has eroded significantly
    over the past few years. To adequately implement the endangered species
    program, funding must gradually increase for the four main accounts to
    at least $305.8 million by 2013. We appreciate the increases to the
    endangered species accounts included in the fiscal year 2009
    appropriations and urge the subcommittee to appropriate at least $217
    million in fiscal year 2010 toward the Endangered Species Program ($59
    million more than fiscal year 2009 enacted) as follows:
      --Listing Program.--This program requires $32 million for FWS to
            address both new species and the backlog of species awaiting
            action on proposed listings and critical habitat designations.
      --Recovery Program.--Despite the fact that Congress repeatedly States
            that recovery is the most important element of the ESA,
            recovery funding has remained almost stagnant in recent years.
            For an effective recovery program, FWS needs $95 million.
      --Consultation Program.--We are grateful to the subcommittee for
            supporting meaningful consultation under the ESA, and providing
            a congressional basis for reversing the unwise consultation
            rules promulgated in the final hours of the previous
            administration. To ensure an efficient and effective
            consultation program, we recommend funding of $75 million (an
            increase of $11.5 million from fiscal year 2009 enacted).
      --Candidate Conservation.--This program enables candidate and other
            at-risk species to receive conservation attention so that they
            will not require formal listing under the act. To address this
            critical need we recommend funding of $15 million (an increase
            of $4.3 million more than fiscal year 2009 enacted).
    Cooperative Endangered Species Conservation Fund
        This fund offers grants to States for participation in a wide array
    of voluntary conservation projects for candidate, proposed, and listed
    species. These funds may in turn be awarded to private landowners and
    groups for conservation projects. Section 6 grants include: Recovery
    Land Acquisition Grants; Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) Land
    Acquisition Grants; HCP Planning Assistance Grants; and Grants to
    States. We would like to see this program receive $110 million (an
    increase of $30 million more than fiscal year 2009 enacted).
    Landowner Incentive Program and Private Stewardship Program
        We support reinstatement of two important programs focused on
    conservation on private lands. The Landowner Incentive Program (LIP)
    provides States with grants to protect and restore habitats on private
    lands to benefit federally listed, proposed, candidate, and other at-
    risk species. NWF recommends LIP funding of $23.7 million. The Private
    Stewardship Program provides grants and other assistance on a
    competitive basis to individuals and groups engaged in local, private,
    and voluntary conservation efforts that benefit federally listed,
    proposed, candidate, and other at-risk species. We recommend funding of
    $7.3 million.
    National Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS) Operations and Maintenance
        NWRS is crucial for conserving the Nation's wildlife, but has been
    hobbled for many years by inadequate budgets. Added to existing
    stressors, climate change holds profound implications for management of
    these refuges, and FWS will need to evaluate how the system should be
    managed, and perhaps expanded, to adapt to these changes. The fiscal
    year 2009 appropriation provided a much needed increase in the NWRS
    operations and maintenance budget, but still falls short of what is
    required to adequately manage the system. National Wildlife Federation
    supports the Cooperative Alliance for Refuge Enhancement (CARE)
    recommendation of $765 million by fiscal year 2013, and recommends an
    fiscal year 2010 funding level of $514 million (an increase of $51
    million more than fiscal year 2009 enacted).

                             U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

    National Climate Change and Wildlife Science Center
        The National Climate Change and Wildlife Science Center is an
    important new initiative designed to improve understanding of the
    impacts of global warming on wildlife and ecosystems, and help land
    managers better design and implement adaptation responses. We
    appreciate the subcommittee's leadership in funding the establishment
    of this Center, and recommend support the President's request of $15
    million for this center.

                           BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

    National Landscape Conservation System
        The National Landscape Conservation System (NLCS) is an American
    treasure that consists of 26 million acres of some of the last best
    places in the American West. Since its creation in June 2000, however,
    NLCS has been chronically underfunded and starved for adequate
    resources to meet its core responsibilities and manage the growing
    number of visitors. We are heartened by authorizing legislation for
    this NLCS contained in the recently passed Omnibus Public Lands
    Management Act of 2009. To ensure adequate management of NLCS, we
    recommend a budget of $75 million

                              U.S. FOREST SERVICE

    Forest Inventory and Analysis
        The Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA) program is the Nation's
    only comprehensive forest inventory system that provides credible
    forest inventory data across all ownerships. FIA data will play an
    increasingly important role in carbon accounting systems and ensuring
    the sustainability of biomass energy development. We recommend a budget
    of $77.9 million (an increase of $17 million from fiscal year 2009
    enacted).
    Forest Legacy Program
        The Forest Legacy Program targets the protection of working forest
    landscapes, and has a perennial backlog of worthy projects. The program
    has been especially important in States where there are few Federal
    land holdings and timber companies are in the process of consolidating
    and selling their lands. We support the President's request of $91
    million for this important program.
    Community Forest and Open Space
        The Community Forest and Open Space Program provides new
    authorities for the Forest Service to partner with local communities,
    Indian tribes, and nonprofit organizations to prevent at-risk forest
    parcels from being converted to nonforest uses. We recommend that this
    important new program be funded.

                    LAND AND WATER CONSERVATION FUND (LWCF)

        The LWCF is the Federal Government's primary tool for funding
    acquisition of valuable wildlife habitat and open space. After years of
    drastic cuts in the LWCF we are pleased to see that the President's
    budget puts LWCF back on the road to full funding by 2014. NWF strongly
    supports the $420 million requested for fiscal year 2010.

                     ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY (EPA)

    Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Inventory and Comprehensive Climate Strategy
        EPA has recently proposed rules for a national greenhouse gas
    emissions registry, which is an essential component of any system
    designed to implement a comprehensive climate strategy. The President's
    budget request includes $19 million for EPA's work on the GHG emission
    inventory and related activities. NWF supports full funding of this
    important effort.
    Energy Star
        The Energy Star program helps businesses, consumers, and State and
    local governments save energy and money. By promoting opportunities for
    energy efficiency, the program is helping transform the Nation's energy
    economy and reduce global warming pollution. NWF recommends funding of
    $100 million (an increase of $50 million from fiscal year 2009
    enacted).
    Great Lakes Restoration Initiative
        The President's budget request includes a new $475 million
    initiative to address regional issues in the Great Lakes identified by
    Federal, State, and local participants in the Great Lakes Regional
    Collaboration. Funding these critical restoration needs will help
    mitigate the impacts of global warming in the Great Lakes, and we urge
    the subcommittee to fully fund this initiative.
    Environmental Education
        EPA's Office of Environmental Education implements highly
    successful, nationwide environmental education programs, which are
    especially critical as we seek to prepare Americans for green jobs and
    find innovative solutions to global climate change. We are grateful for
    the subcommittee's support of environmental education and recommend a
    funding level of $14 million (an increase of $5 million more than both
    fiscal year 2009 enacted and the President's fiscal year 2010 request).
                                     ______

         Prepared Statement of the National Wildlife Refuge Association

        Madam Chair and members of the subcommittee: On behalf of the
    National Wildlife Refuge Association (NWRA) and its membership
    comprised of current and former refuge professionals, Friends
    organization affiliates and concerned citizens, thank you for your
    strong support for the National Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS) including
    the $28.7 million increase for fiscal year 2009 and approximately $200
    million for refuges in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of
    2009. These funding increases will keep the downsizing plans that had
    reduced refuge staff by more than 300 positions where they should be:
    on the shelf. We further thank you for the opportunity to offer
    comments on the fiscal year 2010 Interior, Environment, and Related
    Agencies appropriations bill. We respectfully request the subcommittee
    support:
      --An overall funding level of $514 million for the operations and
            maintenance (O&M) budget of the NWRS, managed by the U.S. Fish
            and Wildlife Service (FWS);
      --An allocation of $5 million for Volunteer Community Partnerships
            for the NWRS;
      --An allocation of $25 million for Climate Change Planning for
            refuges;
      --An allocation of $15 million for work to control and eradicate
            invasive species on and near refuge lands, of which $1 million
            would continue the highly successful Volunteers and Invasives
            Program and $5 million would conduct large-scale invasive
            projects;
      --An allocation of $4 million for the new Pacific Marine Monuments to
            conduct needs assessments, operate a research vessel, and
            remove two ship wrecks;
      --An overall funding level of $100 million for the NWRS construction
            budget including $12 million for Visitor Facilities
            Enhancements (VFE) and $5 million for a research vessel
            retrofit for the Pacific Islands refuges;
      --An allocation of $75 million for the FWS' Partners for Fish and
            Wildlife Program, increasing the FWS' ability to create
            partnerships and identify, prioritize and implement land and
            water conservation opportunities beyond refuge boundaries;
      --An allocation of $100 million in the FWS land acquisition budget
            through the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) to acquire
            vital refuge habitat from willing sellers;
      --A funding level 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;
      --Prohibition of funds for activities that would advance a road
            through Izembek NWR in Alaska.

             NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE FUNDING--O&M AND CONSTRUCTION

        The NWRA is the chair of the Cooperative Alliance for Refuge
    Enhancement (CARE), a diverse coalition of 22 sporting, conservation,
    and scientific organizations representing more than 14 million
    Americans. NWRS needs at least $765 million, and likely more, in annual
    operations and maintenance funding by 2013 to properly administer its
    150 million acres as mandated in the Refuge Improvement Act. To reach
    this reasonable goal, we respectfully request that you provide $514
    million in fiscal year 2010 for NWRS O&M.
        After years of flat budgets, Congress in recent years has
    demonstrated a commitment to fund our national wildlife refuges. The
    increases in fiscal year 2008 and fiscal year 2009 allowed for the
    suspension of workforce downsizing plans that outlined an eventual 20
    percent reduction in overall staffing levels. But with more than 10
    percent of staff already eliminated since 2004 and a current O&M
    backlog of more than $3.5 billion, additional increases that build upon
    the last 2 years are essential.
        Within the allocation for refuge O&M, we recommend $15 million for
    inflationary costs; $25 million for inventory and monitoring to help
    refuges cope with climate change; $5 million for Volunteer Community
    Partnerships as authorized under the NWR Volunteer and Community
    Partnerships Act; $5 million for large-scale invasive species projects;
    $1 million to continue the Volunteer Invasives Program and $4 million
    assess and manage the new monuments in the Pacific, including the
    removal of ship wrecks currently damaging fragile coral reefs.
        We ask the subcommittee to expand funding for NWRS's construction
    budget to $100 million. The FWS has more than $1 billion worth of
    construction needs, including the replacement of quickly deteriorating
    structures that are not energy efficient and are becoming more
    expensive to maintain. Construction funds also support large-scale
    habitat restoration projects such as the Salt Pond restoration efforts
    at the Don Edwards San Francisco Bay NWR or wetland restoration at the
    Nisqually NWR in Washington. Funds for new visitor/administration
    centers will be a net benefit with regards to both efficiencies and
    economic impact to local communities. Refuges with a broad range of
    outdoor and indoor programs often create more revenue, jobs in service
    industries, and income for local communities. Recent studies indicate
    that out-of-town refuge visitors are increasingly accounting for most
    of the revenue and taxes created for local communities. Importantly,
    these centers often provide opportunities for refuge Friends to
    generate increased revenues through bookstore operations. These private
    funds, in turn, leverage Federal dollars for mission-critical projects.
    Finally, new centers are required to be green infrastructure models,
    demonstrating efficient ways to recycle materials and water, green
    construction techniques, and opportunities for employing alternative
    energy sources.
        Within an allocation of $100 million, we recommend $5 million for
    the retrofit of a research vessel that will assist the FWS in
    management of the new Pacific monuments; $5 million for the greening of
    existing refuge infrastructure and $12 million for visitor facility
    enhancements, which will create better experiences for visitors and
    thereby create support for NWRS.

                  ASSESSING THE NEEDS OF NWRS--CLIMATE CHANGE

        NWRS is badly lagging in developing strategies to address climate
    change. With many Government scientists and biologists now talking
    openly about their conclusions regarding effects of a changing climate
    on habitat and wildlife, they are playing a frantic game of catch up.
    The NWRS is in dire need of dedicated dollars to inventory and monitor
    the impacts of climate change and to craft a plan to aid species in
    adapting. We recommend $25 million for inventory, monitoring, and
    planning. Many innovative modeling tools are now available to aid
    refuge staff but without funding, they are simply unable to take full
    advantage. Refuges are perhaps our best natural laboratories to assess
    impacts to wildlife as a result of global climate change and to
    demonstrate effective adaptation strategies; a small investment could
    yield valuable insights that will guide wildlife management and land-
    use planning well into the future.

                   INVASIVE SPECIES--CONTROL AND ERADICATION

        The NWRS is succumbing to a relentless onslaught of invasive
    species with more than 2.3 million acres of refuge lands infested with
    invasive plants and 4,387 invasive animal infestations. Funding is
    needed to halt their progress and in some cases remove them entirely.
    In fiscal year 2008, refuges spent more than $15.3 million dollars on
    invasive species management, a 144 percent increase more than fiscal
    year 2004. A 2008 GAO report found that the number one management
    action that had increased in cost was the management of invasive
    plants. And while volunteers can help, with funding over the past 4
    years enabling 4,660 volunteers to contribute more than 73,000 hours on
    291,000 acres of refuge invasives projects, there must be aggressive,
    dedicated funding to bolster volunteer efforts. We urge the
    subcommittee to continue its strong support of the Volunteers and
    Invasives Program by again appropriating $1 million and we support an
    allocation of $5 million for large-scale invasives control projects
    such as the Spartina grass eradication effort at Willapa Bay NWR. Many
    invasives projects must be large in scale to be effective but lack of
    funding has prevented such projects from moving forward.

                       STRATEGIC GROWTH AND PARTNERSHIPS

        While providing adequate funding to operate and maintain the Refuge
    System is of vital importance, most refuges are too small in size to
    fully achieve their conservation objectives. Their integrity depends on
    the health of surrounding lands and waters; and in turn, the health of
    refuge lands and waters has an enormous impact on surrounding
    communities. Consequently, there is a growing need to provide funding
    to ensure that lands and waters outside refuge boundaries are
    conserved. NWRA encourages a beyond the boundaries approach, which
    identifies and prioritizes crucial additions to the Nation's
    conservation estate while improving connectivity between refuges and
    other conservation lands.
        Accordingly, for fiscal year 2010 we respectfully ask that the
    subcommittee appropriate the authorized $75 million for the FWS'
    Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program. The Partners program is a
    powerful tool for working with private landowners to collaboratively
    conserve refuge landscapes while leveraging Federal dollars. A $75
    million investment in the Partners program will conservatively net $300
    million worth of additional conservation. On average, for every $1
    appropriated, an additional $4 are leveraged; in some cases the return
    is more than $10.
        To strategically grow NWRS, NWRA strongly supports President Obama
    in encouraging Congress to fully fund the Land and Water Conservation
    Fund (LWCF) to its authorized annual level of $900 million in the next
    5 years. In fiscal year 2010 we urge the subcommittee to allocate $100
    million for the FWS to secure high-priority water rights and high-
    priority lands and conservation easements. 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.
        Currently, there are roughly 8.3 million acres remaining to be
    acquired within approved refuge boundaries. At the previous
    administration's requested rate of refuge land acquisition for fiscal
    year 2009, it would take more than 16 centuries to acquire these lands.
    $100 million for refuge land acquisition may seem high, but consider
    that if Congress appropriated 8 times that amount or about $827 million
    annually, it would still take a full 20 years before the Refuge System
    would have acquired all the lands currently in acquisition boundaries.
        Within this request, the NWRA encourages the subcommittee to
    provide funding for the following projects which have willing sellers,
    are immediately available for purchase and provide increased
    connectivity between important public and private lands which will
    ultimately increase species ability to adapt: $1.5 million, Crystal
    River NWR (Florida); $3 million, Silvio O. Conte NFWR (Massachusetts,
    Connecticut, New Hampshire, and Vermont); $2 million, Blackwater NWR
    (Maryland); $2 million, Nestucca Bay NWR (Oregon); $2.7 million, Cache
    River NWR (Arkansas); $4 million, Upper Ouachita NWR (Louisiana); $7.4
    million, James Campbell NWR (Hawaii); $5 million, Rocky Mt. Front
    Conservation Area (Montana); $3.5 million, Rachel Carson NWR (Maine);
    $2 million, Sevilleta NWR (New Mexico); $2.8 million, Wallkill River
    NWR (New Jersey); $1 million, James River NWR (Virginia); $1 million,
    Supawna Meadows NWR (New Jersey); $1.5 million, Back Bay NWR
    (Virginia); and $1.5 million, Patoka NWR (Indiana).
        The NWRA also urges the subcommittee to appropriate $85 million for
    the State and Tribal Wildlife Grants Program in fiscal year 2010 to
    implement State Wildlife Action Plans, and support projects to keep
    common species common and develop partnerships. These science-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 NFWF
    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.

                         IZEMBEK NWR, ALASKAN PENINSULA

        The NWRA is strongly opposed to a provision included in the 2009
    Public Lands Omnibus which could result in a road through the Izembek
    NWR, AK should Secretary Salazar determine it is in the public
    interest. Proponents from King Cove (population 800) argue the road is
    needed for medical evacuations to reach Cold Bay (pop 80). Congress
    already met these needs by appropriating $37.5 million in 1998 to
    upgrade King Cove's medical clinic and airstrip and purchase a state-
    of-the-art hovercraft, which has met every medical evacuation need
    since it became operational in February 2007. We urge the subcommittee
    to prohibit funds for activities that would advance a road.
        In conclusion, the NWRA believes the National Wildlife Refuge
    System can meet its important conservation objectives only with strong
    and consistent funding leveraged by the valuable work of refuge
    volunteers. We extend our appreciation to the subcommittee for its
    ongoing commitment to NWRS.
                                     ______

               Prepared Statement of the Performing Arts Alliance

        Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the subcommittee, I am
    grateful for this opportunity to submit testimony on behalf of the
    Performing Arts Alliance and its member organizations--American Music
    Center, Association of Performing Arts Presenters, Chorus America,
    Dance/USA, League of American Orchestras, National Alliance for Musical
    Theatre, OPERA America, and Theatre Communications Group. The
    Performing Arts Alliance is a national network of more than 4,100
    members comprising the professional, nonprofit performing arts and
    presenting fields. For more than 30 years, the Performing Arts Alliance
    has advocated for national policies that recognize, enhance, and foster
    the contributions the performing arts make to America.
        We urge the subcommittee to designate a total of $200 million to
    the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA). This testimony is intended
    to highlight the importance of the Federal investment in the arts to
    sustaining a vibrant cultural community. With more funding, the NEA's
    core programs could better bring the best in the arts to all Americans:
      --Additional funds would allow the size of individual grants to
            increase, after having declined steadily since the NEA's budget
            was cut by 40 percent in fiscal year 1996.
      --Inadequate funding has caused many high-quality grant applications
            to go unfunded.
        The NEA increases opportunities for the American public to enjoy
    and benefit from the performing arts.
        Since the establishment of the NEA in 1965, access to the
    performing arts has improved in communities large and small across the
    country. The NEA has helped to foster the development of the many
    regional theatres, opera companies, dance companies, orchestras, and
    performing arts centers that Americans now enjoy. Despite diminished
    resources, the NEA awards more than 1,700 grants annually to nonprofit
    arts organizations for projects that encourage artistic creativity,
    provide lifelong learning opportunities, and engage audiences in the
    best the arts have to offer. This modest public investment in the
    Nation's cultural life has resulted in both new and classic works of
    art reaching all 50 States.
        With more funding, the NEA could do more.
        The NEA has never recovered from a 40 percent budget cut in fiscal
    year 1996, resulting in the underfunding of its programs. We are
    appreciative of the increased support this subcommittee provided for
    the NEA last year and are already seeing benefits of increased access
    to public performing art organizations and artists across the country.
    The live arts bring communities together, encourage dialogue, and
    provide innovation and education opportunities to generations of
    Americans.

                    THE NONPROFIT PERFORMING ARTS COMMUNITY

        The following member profiles of the Performing Arts Alliance,
    which include national service organizations representing new music,
    arts presenting, chorus, dance, musical theatre, opera, orchestra, and
    theatre fields, exemplify the economic, educational, and quality of
    life benefits that performing arts organizations bring to American
    communities.

                                   NEW MUSIC

        The American Music Center (AMC) is dedicated to building a national
    community of artists, organizations, and audiences, creating,
    performing, and enjoying new American music. Since its founding in 1939
    by composers Marion Bauer, Aaron Copland, Howard Hanson, Harrison Kerr,
    Otto Luening, and Quincy Porter, AMC has been a leader in providing
    field-wide advocacy, support, and connection. AMC advocates for the
    community through its media programming, supports the community by
    making grants to composers and ensembles each year, and by offering
    professional development services to artists. AMC connects the
    community with an array of information services designed to facilitate
    performances, including a vast, searchable database of 45,000 works by
    American composers, publications compiling opportunities in new music
    and other information useful to industry professionals, and benefits
    and services for nearly 2,500 members in all 50 States and around the
    world.

                                ARTS PRESENTERS

        Performing arts presenters bring professional performing artists
    from all over the world into the communities they serve. They include
    organizations such as performing arts centers in major urban cities,
    academic institutions, artists, artist managers, agents, local arts
    agencies, and outdoor festivals and fairs. Arts presenters facilitate
    the interaction between artists and audiences, support the creation and
    touring of new works, and are civically engaged in their communities.
    The Association of Performing Arts Presenters (Arts Presenters), a
    national service and advocacy organization, represents an industry of
    more than 7,000 nonprofit and for-profit organizations, with members
    hailing from all 50 States and 28 countries on six continents across
    the globe. Performing Arts Presenters' members bring performances to
    more than 2 million audience-goers each week and spend in excess of
    $2.5 billion annually. Their membership includes a range of
    organizations with multi-million dollar budgets to individuals who are
    artists or performing arts professionals, representing a diversity of
    fields, which include all forms of dance, music, theatre, family
    programming, puppetry, circus, magic, attractions, and performance art.

                                     CHORUS

        Chorus America's mission is to build a dynamic and inclusive choral
    community so that more people are transformed by the beauty and power
    of choral singing. Chorus America strengthens choral organizations and
    provides their leaders with information, research, leadership
    development, professional training, and advocacy to help them deliver
    the best possible contributions to their communities and to the choral
    art. The more than 1,600 choruses, individuals, and businesses that are
    members of Chorus America speak with a strong and unified voice to
    increase recognition of choral singing as an essential part of society.

                                     DANCE

        In 1965, there were approximately 35 nonprofit professional dance
    companies. Today, there are more than 600. America's dance companies
    perform a wide range of styles and genres. These include both classical
    and contemporary ballet, both classical and contemporary modern, as
    well as jazz, tap, cross-disciplinary fusions and traditional to modern
    work rooted in other cultures. When the NEA instituted its Dance on
    Tour program in the 1970's, great dance became accessible to every
    community in America. NEA programs today, like the National College
    Choreography Initiative, continue to ensure that the best of American
    dance is for all of America, and a showpiece for the rest of the world
    as well. Based on a 2006 survey, Dance/USA estimates that the 81
    largest and most visible nonprofit dance companies in the United States
    do the following:
      --Employed more than 6,000 people;
      --Performed for total home audiences of nearly 2.9 million people;
      --Paid approximately $237.5 million in wages and benefits;
      --Had more than 24,300 volunteers, including more than 2,700 members
            of Boards of Trustees;
      --Received $16.7 million, from State, local, and government
            contributions.

                                MUSICAL THEATRE

        National Alliance for Musical Theatre (NAMT) is the national
    service organization dedicated exclusively to musical theatre and
    serving some of the leading musical theatre producers in the world.
    Last season, NAMT members cumulatively staged more than 27,000
    performances attended by 16 million people, and had revenues totaling
    more than $500 million. NAMT has presented its Festival of New Musicals
    annually since 1989, bringing together theatre producers and writers,
    with the goal of furthering the development and production of new
    musicals. NAMT's festival has showcased more than 300 writers and 200
    new musicals, which have had thousands of subsequent productions
    worldwide.

                                     OPERA

        OPERA America members are found in communities all across the
    country--a total of 133 companies in 43 States. American opera
    companies are well-known for their innovative and exemplary education
    and outreach programs, many of which are funded in part with NEA
    grants. Virtually all U.S. opera companies run such programs in their
    communities. Opera companies help fill the void left by discontinued
    arts education in many public school systems and can help young people
    communicate the realities of their lives via disciplined artistic
    expression. The audience for education and community programs served by
    United States and Canadian companies during the 2005-2006 season
    totaled more than 2 million people. All together, the opera companies
    of America contribute more than $1.5 billion to the U.S. economy each
    year and provide more than 20,000 jobs each year.

                                   ORCHESTRA

        In its more than 40-year history, the NEA has provided invaluable
    leadership and support for musicians, orchestras, and the communities
    they serve through direct grants; support to State arts agencies, and
    national leadership initiatives. Supported by a network of musicians,
    volunteers, administrators, and community leaders, America's adult,
    youth, and college orchestras total more than 1,800, with annual
    budgets ranging from less than $12,000 to more than $83 million, and
    exist in every State and territory, in cities and rural areas alike.
    They employ (with or without pay) more than 8,000 administrative staff
    and attract more than 400,000 volunteers and trustees.
        In addition to concerts, orchestras offer more than 40 different
    kinds of programs for their communities, including:
      --in-depth, multi-year residencies;
      --long-term partnerships with schools;
      --after-school and summer camps;
      --programs in hospitals and libraries;
      --instrumental instruction; and
      --educational classes for seniors.
        The NEA's fiscal year 2008 grants to organizations included 122
    grants to orchestras and the communities they serve, supporting arts
    education for children and adults, expanding public access to
    performances, preserving great classical works, and fostering the
    creative endeavors of contemporary classical musicians, composers, and
    conductors.

                                    THEATRE

        In 1961, nonprofit theatre in America consisted of only 16 theatre
    companies. Today, thanks in large part to the pivotal role played by
    the NEA, the number of theatre companies is estimated to be more than
    1,900. Almost every Pulitzer Prize winning play since 1976 originated
    at an NEA-funded theatre.
        Theatre Communications Group (TCG), the national organization for
    the American nonprofit theatre, reports that the estimated 1,910
    theatres in the United States employ more than 109,000 workers--actors,
    directors, playwrights, designers, administrators, and technicians--and
    constitute a more than $1.7 billion industry. Collectively, these
    theatres are estimated to have offered 197,000 performances that
    attracted 31 million patrons. TCG offers grants to theatres and theatre
    artists, conducts research on the health of the nonprofit theatre
    field, convenes various meetings around the country to bring theatre
    professionals together, serves as the U.S. Center of the International
    Theatre Institute to promote international cultural exchange, produces
    a wide array of publications about and for the theatre field, and
    serves as the primary national advocate for the nonprofit professional
    theatre field.
        Based on recent surveys of 196 nonprofit theatres, TCG reports the
    following:
      --More than 1,180 outreach and educational programs are in existence
            today.
      --More than 2.5 million people--including a large number of at-risk
            children--are served by these programs. This network of
            educational and outreach programs all across the country,
            ensures access to all Americans and helps develop new
            generations of audiences.
      --These programs include touring productions, artists-in-the-schools,
            teacher training, workshops and lectures in local community
            centers and libraries, programs for at-risk youth, and lifelong
            learning opportunities.
                                   conclusion
        Performing arts organizations are a vital component of community
    life, allowing citizens to appreciate our Nation's culture and heritage
    through excellent artistic programming. The arts illuminate the human
    condition, our history, contemporary issues, and our future. The NEA is
    an investment that realizes significant returns on the Federal dollars
    invested, both measurable and intangible. We urge you to designate no
    less than $200 million to the NEA. Thank you for your consideration of
    our request.
                                     ______

         Prepared Statement of the Pelican Island Preservation Society

        The Pelican Island Preservation Society is an all volunteer group
    with more than 350 members whose 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 be
    increased to $514 million in fiscal year 2010.
        I wish to thank the subcommittee for your support over the past 2
    fiscal years in recommending increases in funding for the NWRS. Those
    increases have helped stabilize a critical funding deficit which
    resulted in major losses of personnel and significant loss of
    capability to manage refuges. While the increases have provided some
    relief, major funding problems still exist and sizeable annual
    increases in O&M funding must be forthcoming if the system is ever to
    even approach its full potential.
        Inadequate funding has historically severely hampered the ability
    of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) to effectively manage
    refuges. During my 50 years of exposure to the refuge system I have
    seen many highs and lows in O&M funding levels, but even during the
    ``highs'' the amounts appropriated were totally inadequate to do the
    job properly. The current backlog of approximately $3.5 billion in
    operations and maintenance needs is a direct result of many decades of
    neglect in the budgetary arena. This backlog must be addressed in an
    aggressive manner.
        On our local level, inadequate funding has significantly affected
    management programs. One central staff currently manages three
    refuges--Pelican Island, Archie Carr, and Lake Wales Ridge. In 2003,
    the staff reached its record high level of six permanent full-time
    employees plus temporaries. As a result of the funding crunch, the
    staff was reduced to two. More recent funding increases have allowed
    increasing the staff to three permanent full-time and two term
    employees. Five employees to manage three refuges, two of which are
    urban in nature, simply doesn't provide the manpower needed to do an
    acceptable job of refuge management. Of major concern is the lack of a
    law enforcement officer to address violations of refuge regulations.
        The role refuges can play in helping to alleviate current economic
    problems should not be overlooked. There are major economic factors
    associated with the management of refuges. The refuge system attracts
    41 million visitors annually who generate more than $1.7 billion for
    local economies, including 27,000 jobs and $185 million in tax
    revenues. Further, according to the 2007 report, Banking on Nature, on
    the average refuges return $4 of economic activity for each $1
    appropriated for their operation. Continued underfunding of refuges
    will result in negative impacts on local economies--something to
    consider during the tough economic times facing our country.
        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 invasive
    species.
        I urge the subcommittee to support an allocation of $100 million in
    the FWS budget for land acquisition through the Land and Water
    Conservation Fund (LWCF). The acquisition of important habitat for
    endangered species and other fish and wildlife has been severely
    reduced in recent years due to very low allocations and this situation
    must corrected.
        The inequitable distribution of resource management dollars among
    the four Federal land managing agencies remains to be a serious
    concern. On a per-acre basis, funding to manage units of the refuge
    system is significantly lower than that allocated to manage national
    forests, national parks, and BLM lands. For example, when including the
    recently added 54 million acres of national monuments, the NWRS
    receives slightly more than $3 per acre, by far the lowest of the four
    agencies. I am not suggesting that the funding level should be the same
    far all, as the missions vary; however, the current disparity defies
    reason. I suggest that the subcommittee and the Congress should provide
    some reasonable level of equity as it contemplates future allocations.
        In summary, the NWRS is facing a severe funding deficit which must
    be addressed. We ask that the subcommittee support increased O&M
    funding for the NWRS to $514 million in fiscal year 2010. Further, we
    ask that that the subcommittee support the goal of reaching an O&M
    funding level of $765 million by fiscal year 2013. And finally, we urge
    the subcommittee to support an allocation of $100 million from the LWCF
    for refuge land acquisition in fiscal year 2010.
                                     ______

      Prepared Statement of the Partnership for the National Trails System

        Madam Chairwoman and members of the subcommittee: The Partnership
    for the National Trails System (NTS) appreciates your support over the
    past 15 years, through operations funding and dedicated Challenge Cost
    Share funds, for the national scenic and historic trails administered
    by the National Park Service (NPS). We also appreciate your increased
    allocation of funds to support the trails administered and managed by
    the Forest Service (USFS) and for the trails in the Bureau of Land
    Management's (BLM) National Landscape Conservation System (NLCS). To
    continue the progress that you have fostered, the Partnership requests
    that you provide annual operations funding for each of the 30 national
    scenic and historic trails for fiscal year 2010 through these
    appropriations:
      --NPS.--$15.063 million for administration of 23 trails and for
            coordination of the long-distance trails program by the
            Washington office. Construction: $300,000 for the Overmountain
            Victory and $200,000 for the Pacific Crest Trails. Feasibility
            Studies and Projects: $200,000 for the Overmountain Victory and
            $230,000 for the North Country Trails.
      --USDA USFS.--$10.011 million to administer six trails and $1.1
            million to manage parts of 16 trails administered by the NPS or
            BLM; Construction: $1 million for the Iditarod Trail and
            $325,000 for the North Country Trail.
      --BLM.--to coordinate its NTS Program: $250,000; to administer these
            three trails: Iditarod Trail: $670,000, the Camino Real de
            Tierra Adentro Trail: $230,000, the Old Spanish Trail: $350,000
            and to manage portions of 10 trails administered by the NPS or
            the USFS: $3.088 million; $3,140,000 for operating five
            National Historic Trail interpretive centers; Construction:
            $350,000 for the Continental Divide and $300,000 for the
            Pacific Crest Trails.
      --We ask that you appropriate $4.5 million for the NPS 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 NTS Challenge Cost Share Program.
      --We ask that you add $500,000 to the BLM'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 NPS Conservation
            and Outdoor Recreation office to support the second year of a
            5-year interagency project to develop a consistent systemwide
            NTS Geographic Information System (GIS).
        We ask that you appropriate from the Land and Water Conservation
    Fund (LWCF) for land acquisition:
      --To the USFS.--$10.75 million for the Pacific Crest Trail; $6.357
            million for the Florida Trail; and $15.02 million for the
            Appalachian Trail;
      --To the BLM.--$3 million for the Camino Real de Tierra Adentro Trail
            in New Mexico; $1 million for the Lewis & Clark Trail in
            Montana; $4.25 million for the Pacific Crest Trail in Oregon;
            and $150,000 for the Continental Divide Trail in New Mexico;
      --To the NPS.--$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 seven States for the North Country Trail; $1.375 million for
            the Appalachian Trail; and $1.5 million for the Overmountain
            Victory Trail.
    NPS
        We request $1.253 million to fund the second year of a 5-year
    interagency effort to develop a consistent GIS for all 30 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 funding will be shared with the BLM
    and the USFS. We support the administration's requested $957,000 for
    the Connect Trails to Parks project to enhance the public's
    understanding of the NTS and its relationship to the NPS.
        The $15.063 million we request for NPS operations includes
    increases for some of the trails to continue the progress and new
    initiatives made possible by the additional funding provided by
    Congress in fiscal year 2001, fiscal year 2004, fiscal year 2005,
    fiscal year 2006, fiscal year 2008, and fiscal year 2009. Our request
    includes $150,000 of ``start-up'' funding for each of the new trails
    authorized by Congress in 2008 and 2009: the Star Spangled Banner and
    Washington-Rochambeau National Historic Trails and the New England
    National Scenic Trail.
        We request an increase of $596,000 to expand NPS 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 $679,000 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 $308,000 for the Ala
    Kahakai Trail will enable the NPS 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. Our requested increase of $315,000
    for the Captain John Smith Chesapeake Trail will provide interpretive,
    access and recreation planning and project development assistance to
    State, community, and nonprofit trail partners and hasten completion of
    the Comprehensive Management Plan for the Trail.
        We request an increase of $115,000 for the Appalachian Trail to
    expand the highly successful ``Trail to Every Classroom'' program of
    the Appalachian Trail Conservancy. The $969,000 we request for the
    4,200-mile North Country Trail will enable the NPS to provide 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 $1,111,000 we request for the Ice Age
    Trail includes a $265,000 increase to enable the NPS to develop and
    begin to implement an Interpretive Plan, to complete trail route
    planning, and to support stewardship by Ice Age Park & Trail Foundation
    staff and volunteers of lands acquired for the trail.
        Feasibility and Planning Studies.--We request $200,000 for a
    feasibility study of the location for a headquarters and visitor center
    for the Overmountain Victory Trail and $230,000 for a GIS-based natural
    resource inventory and community economic impact studies for the North
    Country Trail.
        Construction.--We request that you appropriate for trail and
    historic site construction projects $300,000 for the Overmountain
    Victory 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 NPS for fiscal year 2010 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 NTS Challenge Cost Share program with $1.5 million funding.
    USDA USFS
        As you have done for several years, we ask that you provide
    additional operations funding to the USFS for administering three
    national scenic trails and one national historic trail, and managing
    parts of 16 other trails. We ask you to appropriate $9.011 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 within an over-all appropriation for Capital
    Improvements and Maintenance for Trails of $136.4 million. Full-time
    managers have been assigned for each of these trails by the USFS.
    Recognizing the on-the-ground management responsibility the USFS 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
    $1.1 million specifically for these trails. We request $500,000 of
    ``start-up'' funding for each of the new trails authorized by Congress
    in 2009: the Arizona and Pacific Northwest National Scenic Trails,
    which the USFS will administer. We also request $1 million for the
    Chugach National Forest to begin to develop the Southern Trek of the
    Iditarod Trail and $325,000 to do NEPA planning for the North Country
    Trail in the Chippewa and Superior National Forests.
        Work is underway, supported by funds you provided over the past 8
    years, to close several major gaps in the Florida Trail. In 2008,
    Florida Trail Association (FTA) volunteers built or reconstructed 65
    miles of Trail, 11 bridges, and 508 feet of boardwalk. The
    Partnership's request of $9.011 million above includes $1.75 million to
    enable the USFS and FTA to build 5 miles of new trail and to control
    invasive species, do ecosystem restoration, and otherwise manage 3,418
    acres of new FTA land.
        The Partnership's request of $9.011 million above also includes
    $2.1 million to enable the USFS and the Continental Divide Trail
    Alliance to build or reconstruct 156 more miles of the Continental
    Divide Trail. This will continue new CDT construction funded each year
    since fiscal year 1998.
    BLM
        While the BLM 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 NPS and USFS. The BLM recognized the significance
    of these trails by including them in the NLCS and, for the first time,
    in fiscal year 2002, by providing funding for each of them. The
    Partnership applauds these decisions of the BLM and encourages its
    staff to budget specific funding for each of these trails.
        We ask you to provide at least $75 million as new permanent base
    funding for the NLCS and that you appropriate as new permanent base
    funding $250,000 for NTS Program Coordination, $670,000 for the
    Iditarod Trail, $230,000 for El Camino Real de Tierra Adentro Trail,
    $350,000 for the Old Spanish Trail, and $3,088,000 for management of
    the portions of the 10 other trails under the care of the BLM. We
    request $350,000 for construction of new sections of the Continental
    Divide Trail, $300,000 for maintenance of the Pacific Crest Trail; and
    $3,140,000 to operate five historic trails interpretive centers.
        We ask you to add $500,000 to the Challenge Cost Share program and
    direct the money for the NTS 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 NLCS, we urge you to request
    expenditure and accomplishment reports for each of the NLCS units for
    fiscal year 2009 and to direct the BLM to include unit-level
    allocations by major sub-activities for each of the scenic and historic
    trails, and wild and scenic rivers--as the BLM has done for the
    monuments and conservation areas--within a new activity account for the
    NLCS in fiscal year 2010. Existing accounts for Wilderness Areas and
    Wilderness Study Areas should also be included in this new NLCS
    activity account. The BLM'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.
    LWCF
        The Partnership requests that you fully appropriate the $900
    million annual authorized appropriation from the LWCF and that you make
    the specific appropriations for national scenic and historic trails
    detailed at the beginning of this statement and below.
        USFS.--The $10.75 million we request for the Pacific Crest Trail
    (PCT) will continue to support the work and acquisition underway by the
    USFS Lands Team and the NPS National Trail Land Resources Program
    Center, protecting 12 miles of PCT in Washington and taking 34 miles
    off of roads in southern California. The $6.357 million requested for
    the Florida Trail will continue another successful collaboration
    between these two agencies to protect 16 critical segments involving
    another 4 miles of the trail and the $15.020 million requested will
    protect sections of the Appalachian Trail in the Cherokee and Nantahala
    National Forests.
        BLM.--The $4.25 million requested for the Cascade Siskiyou National
    Monument will also preserve sections of the Pacific Crest Trail in
    Oregon, the $1 million requested for the Chain-of-Lakes in Montana will
    preserve a stretch of the Lewis & Clark Trail, and the $3 million
    requested for La Cienega ACEC in New Mexico will preserve a significant
    site along El Camino Real de Tierra Adentro National Historic Trail.
    The $150,000 requested will purchase easements for the Continental
    Divide Trail in New Mexico.
        NPS.--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 2000-2006 and fiscal year 2008 LWCF funding with $20.5
    million to help conserve the resources of the Ice Age National Scenic
    Trail by purchasing 42 parcels totaling 7,259 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 LWCF 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 7 States along its route to close gaps in the North Country Trail
    and $1.375 million for the NPS to acquire one parcel in New Hampshire
    for the Appalachian Trail. The $1.5 million requested for the
    Overmountain Victory Trail will protect key links and sites in North
    Carolina, Tennessee, and Virginia.
    Private Sector Support for the NTS
        Public-spirited partnerships between private citizens and public
    agencies have been a hallmark of the NTS since its inception. These
    partnerships create the enduring strength of the NTS 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 private financial support for public
    projects, often 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 2008 the trail organizations fostered 771,933
    hours--an increase of 6.5 percent more than 2007--of documented
    volunteer labor valued at $15,631,643 to help sustain the national
    scenic and historic trails. The organizations also raised private
    sector contributions of $9,108,338 to benefit the trails.
                                     ______

                   Prepared Statement of the Porcupine School

        On behalf of Porcupine School, thank you for the opportunity to
    submit views on the fiscal year 2010 Bureau of Indian Education (BIE)
    funding request that is contained in the Interior, Environment, and
    Related Agencies appropriations. The Porcupine School is a located
    within the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation in South Dakota. Our school
    has operated as a BIE grant school since the 1980s, and serves more
    than 180 students in kindergarten through eighth grade.
        The Porcupine School students, parents, faculty, and administration
    are all greatly appreciative of the funding Congress provided that
    enabled us to recently replace our aged school with new construction.
    Nonetheless, we are disappointed that despite a new administration, the
    fiscal year 2010 budget proposal does not seek to address much of the
    chronic underfunding that places a great strain our ability to properly
    staff and operate our schools. Our testimony focuses on three of the
    vitally important programs that greatly impact the quality of education
    we are able to provide our students:
      --Administrative Cost Grants;
      --Facilities Operations and Maintenance; and
      --Indian School Equalization Program.
    Administrative Cost Grants
        The Administrative Cost Grants (ACG) is provided to tribally
    operated schools for the administrative costs incurred in the operation
    of school programs, i.e., fiscal management, overhead services, health
    insurance, workmen's compensation insurance, pensions, personnel
    services, etc. The level of need for each school is determined by the
    statutorily mandated formula for calculation of ACGs. However, since
    fiscal year 2003 the annual appropriated amount has been flat funded,
    resulting in a steady erosion in the amount of ACGs that is allocated
    to each tribally operated school. For example, in school year 2007-
    2008, the BIE provided only 65.75 percent of ACG need. Then in school
    year 2008-2009 the rate fell to an even lower 62.36 percent. Because
    the fiscal year 2010 budget request proposes level funding again at
    $43.3 million, we fear the ACG level of need funded will fall even
    further, perhaps below 60 percent.
        Despite whether ACG is funded at 100 percent or 60 percent, the
    administration of a school, compliance with Federal requirements,
    accountability must be fulfilled. In order to do so, we, like other
    grant and contract schools, have had to make up any ACG shortfalls by
    instituting cost-cutting measures, layoffs, and even dipping into other
    available resources, such as the classroom and transportation funds. At
    Porcupine School we have are fortunate to have included a school nurse
    office into the design of our new school building--but we have no funds
    to hire a nurse.
        We cannot fathom why the administration has not sought an increase
    in ACGs when it has plainly accepted, and appears to support, the need
    to adequately fund the indirect costs for BIA and Indian Health Service
    (IHS) contract support costs (CSC). This is evidenced by the fact that
    the administration seeks a $5.5 million increase in order to pay BIA
    contract support costs at 77.4 percent, and requests an additional $2
    million for the Indian Self-Determination Fund to pay CSC of new
    contractors. For IHS contract support costs, the administration seeks
    an astounding $107 million increase.
        We urge that Congress address the chronic ACG shortfall and
    appropriate funds at a level that would provide the tribally operated
    schools 100 percent of need, which has been estimated to be $58.6
    million.
    Facilities Operations
        As stated above, the Porcupine School facility has been newly
    constructed and we anticipate the updated electrical, heating, and
    other infrastructure systems will help with facility operations run
    more efficiently and with cost effectiveness. Nonetheless, we are
    chagrined the BIE does not seek more than an additional $2 million to
    address the consistent shortfall in facilities operations funds. After
    providing millions of Federal dollars to build our new school, we would
    have expected the BIE to want to protect the Federal Government's
    investment in this facility by supplying sufficient funds to prudently
    operate it and assure that the students who occupy it receive the
    benefit Congress intended. These funds are used to help cover expenses
    such as utilities, communications, maintenance of grounds, garbage
    collection, custodial supplies and services, and a host of other
    operations costs.
        In its budget justification, the BIE states the requested increase
    ``will partially offset the 29.7 percent increase in school utility
    costs'' that have occurred since 2005. What BIE fails to disclose is
    the amount of the shortfall that schools must make up from elsewhere in
    their budgets. In the current school year, Porcupine School has
    received only 43 percent of the facilities operations amount it is due.
    How can we hope to operate effectively if we must make critical
    sacrifices that directly impact facility operations, such as having to
    let go some janitors and the security guard--although the need for
    these positions and the associated work remain?
        We thank Congress for the additional funds in fiscal year 2009 and
    via the American Economic Recovery and Reinvestment Act that will help
    more BIE-funded schools address the long-standing backlog of repairs.
    We urge Congress to take the next step and provide a level of funding
    that allows us to maintain those investments and begin to address even
    preventive maintenance. Timely and adequate distribution of funds is
    vital to ensuring our schools are properly staffed, maintained, and
    operational.
    Indian School Equalization Program (ISEP)
        The ISEP formula funds are the lifeblood of our school budgets.
    These funds are utilized for school professional and support staff
    salaries, classroom materials, supplies and other costs associated with
    the curriculum/education side of the school operations.
        The majority of our ISEP is dedicated to salaries, yet we cannot
    compare to the salaries offered by the public schools and even the BIE-
    operated schools. This puts us at a distinct disadvantage in our
    ability to attract the most qualified teachers, much less those who
    would be willing to relocated to our rural, isolated Indian
    reservation. Even the recruitment costs are higher due to our locale.
    As we have noted, when there are shortfalls in other areas of the
    school budget, e.g., ACGs, facilities operations, student
    transportation, etc., we often have to divert from the education
    program account to cover those costs.
        The Porcupine School supports the administration's fiscal year 2010
    request for a $10 million increase for ISEP, although it translates to
    only $236.51/student--if every $1 of the increase is directed to the
    schools and none ``held'' at the BIE administration level. What
    Porcupine School recommends is that Congress provide at least an
    additional $500 per student.
    Conclusion
        We look forward to working with you on the fiscal year 2010 budget
    for the BIE.
                                     ______

              Prepared Statement of the Pacific Salmon Commission

        Mr. Chairman, and honorable members of the subcommittee, my name is
    Jeff Koenings and I serve as an Alternate Commissioner on the Pacific
    Salmon Commission (PSC). 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 $2,530,000
            more than the fiscal year 2009 omnibus funding bill. This
            funding level represents restoration of funding to the fiscal
            year 2008 level plus adjustments to meet increased obligations
            under the 2009-2018 Pacific Salmon Treaty Agreement. The
            funding for tribal participation in the U.S./Canada Salmon
            Treaty is a line item under the Rights Protection
            Implementation, Wildlife and Parks, Other Recurring Programs
            Area.
        Under U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) 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 (PSMFC) Regional Mark
            Processing Center (RMPC).
        This base funding for the FWS will pay for the critically important
    on-going work. The funding for PSMFC's RMPC 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 subcommittee. 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 PSC is recommending a substantial
    adjustment to the funding for the work carried out by the 24 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 a 45 percent reduction in
    fiscal year 2009 funding for the Treaty program. Tribal programs are
    essential for the United States to meet its international obligations.
        We are strongly recommending maintaining base funding of $445,000
    for the FWS 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 PSMFC. FWS will contract with the
    PSFMC to provide this service.
        Mr. Chairman, the United States and Canada established the PSC,
    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 PSC 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 nontribal 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 2008, the United States and Canada successfully
    concluded lengthy negotiations to improve this management, including
    the adjustments to the coastwide abundance-based management regime for
    Chinook salmon and a framework for abundance based management for
    southern Coho populations. The agreement is intended to last for
    through 2018. The Fraser River sockeye and pink chapter to the Pacific
    Salmon Treaty expires in 2010 and negotiators are diligently working to
    complete a revised agreement for management of those fisheries.
        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 2008 Chinook agreement continues these commitments.
    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 24 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 toward 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 subcommittee. I want to thank the subcommittee
    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 subcommittee members may have regarding the U.S. section of the PSC
    budget.
      SUMMARY OF TRIBAL AND FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE PROGRAMS UNDER THE
                       U.S.-CANADA PACIFIC SALMON TREATY

                                               DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
                                                 [Dollars in thousands]
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        Fiscal year     Fiscal year
                                                                        2009 actual        2010          Increase
                                                                       appropriation  recommendation
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Bureau of Indian Affairs, Wildlife and Parks, Rights                       2,270           4,800           2,530
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                               DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
                                                 [Dollars in thousands]
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        Fiscal year     Fiscal year
                                                                        2009 actual        2009          Increase
                                                                       appropriation  recommendation
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Anadromous Fisheries............             695             695  ..............
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                     ______

                 Prepared Statement of the Passamaquoddy Tribe

        Madame Chairwoman and distinguished committee members: My name is
    Richard Phillips-Doyle and I am the elected Sakom/Chief of the
    Passamaquoddy Tribe located on the Pleasant Point reservation in Perry,
    Maine. I would like to thank you for the opportunity to provide
    testimony to the Appropriations Subcommittee on the Interior,
    Environment, and Related Agencies. I will be requesting appropriations
    from the Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) for
    an annual appropriation of $2,410,739.
        Pleasant Point reservation is located in rural Washington County
    Maine and is situated along the shores of Passamaquoddy Bay. Washington
    County is approximately 2,500 square miles and has a year-round
    population of just more than 32,000 people (32,499). Historically,
    Washington County has been one of the most economically depressed
    counties in the State of Maine as well as the rest of the country.
        The Passamaquoddy have lived on the shores of Passamaquoddy Bay for
    more than 10,000 years and have maintained a reservation at its present
    location since before Maine became a State and was still part of
    Massachusetts. The reservation at Pleasant Point is comprised of 527
    acres with an additional 132,000 acres that is both fee and Federal
    trust lands. As of January 1, 2009 the current on-reservation
    population is 685 individuals (367 females and 318 males).
        The tribe is currently the largest employer in the immediate area
    and employs 88 people (19 of which are non-tribal members). This figure
    is down from 113 employees and represents a 22.2 percent decrease in
    the tribe's labor force since January 1 of this year. Presently the
    tribal unemployment rate is 65 percent with the majority of those
    employed individuals working for tribal government. For comparison
    purposes the unemployment rate for Washington County, Maine is 13.6
    percent and 8.1 percent for the entire State (as of March 2009).
        Due to a short fall in funding of $900,590 the tribe has had to lay
    off a number of its employees (26 individuals) since January 1 of this
    year. This shortage of funds, as you can imagine, has had a detrimental
    affect on essential tribal programs and services. Although practically
    every program and/or department has been adversely affected, the
    following programs and departments have sustained the brunt of these
    funding shortfalls:
      --Law enforcement (Including radio dispatch services);
      --Fire protection;
      --Public works;
      --Tribal game wardens;
      --Tribal recreation and youth;
      --Education and adult vocational/technical; and
      --Waste water treatment.
        To reiterate, the Passamaquoddy Tribe at Pleasant Point is
    requesting additional funding in the amount of $900,590 on top of its
    base funding of $1,510,149 for a total of $2,410,739 for fiscal year
    2010.
                                     ______

    Prepared Statement of the Public Trust Environmental Legal Institute of
                                 Florida, Inc.

        Madam Chairman and honorable members of the subcommittee: I want to
    thank you for the opportunity to present this testimony in support of
    protecting land at the Timucuan Ecological and Historic Preserve (EHP)
    near Jacksonville, Florida. There is an opportunity for the National
    Park Service (NPS) to expand the park to include properties near Thomas
    Creek. The first phase of the Seaton Creek tract (approximately 157
    acres) can be acquired by the NPS with an appropriation of $3 million
    from the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF).
        The Public Trust Environmental Legal Institute of Florida is a
    501(c)(3) nonprofit environmental organization. Commonly known as the
    ``Public Trust,'' our primary focus is the zealous protection of the
    city of Jacksonville's Preservation Project and other Federal- and
    State-protected lands and waters. We pursue legal means, including
    litigation if necessary, to protect and preserve the public lands and
    waters. Additionally, we support the education of political leaders,
    Government officials and citizens by participating in speaking
    engagements and writing articles and letters. The Public Trust also
    promotes the use and enjoyment of land and waters within the public
    trust. The Timucuan Preserve is a keystone to Northeast Florida's
    public lands and waters and thus its protection and hopeful expansion
    is directly tied to our mission.
        I also respectfully request a substantial increase in overall
    funding for the LWCF, specifically urging the subcommittee to provide
    $325 million for the Federal LWCF in the fiscal year 2010 Interior,
    Environment, and Related Agencies appropriations bill. I applaud the
    LWCF funding increases provided by this subcommittee in fiscal year
    2009. And, we are most thankful that the Obama administration budget
    recognizes the importance of these programs by proposing significant
    increases for fiscal year 2010 and setting a goal to achieve full
    funding of the LWCF in the next 5 years.
        The LWCF is our Nation's premier program to acquire and protect
    lands in national parks, national wildlife refuges, national forests,
    Bureau of Land Management units, and other Federal land systems. This
    program faces an extensive and growing backlog of land acquisition
    needs across the Nation. Public lands provide innumerable social and
    economic benefits including a healthy lifestyle, protection of
    watersheds and drinking water supplies, wildfire reduction and
    prevention, and assistance to wildlife and fisheries as they adapt to
    climate change. We urge you to renew this wise investment in America's
    natural heritage and take steps toward full and consistent funding of
    these vital programs.
        Located about 10 miles northeast of downtown Jacksonville, Florida,
    the Timucuan EHP is a unique national park site. Created by Congress in
    1988, the park is cooperatively managed by the NPS, the State of
    Florida, the city of Jacksonville, and hundreds of private landowners
    within the preserve to protect a treasured coastal ecosystem and
    centuries of history.
        Timucuan EHP is named for the Timucua, a pre-Columbian people who
    lived on the coasts and river mouths of northeastern Florida. Intimate
    with the ocean shore and its resources, the most notable archeological
    remnants left by the Timucua are mounds of oyster and clam shells. They
    also carved into tree trunks to make canoes in order to navigate the
    miles of watery passageways in the marshes and estuaries. When French
    settlers first arrived at the mouth of the St. Johns River in 1562, the
    Timucua offered assistance in building the Fort Caroline settlement.
    The Spanish, however, were not far behind, establishing a settlement 30
    miles to the south at St. Augustine in 1565. Not content with sharing
    Florida with the French, the Spanish quickly descended on Fort Caroline
    that same year and destroyed it, solidifying their control of the
    peninsula for most of the next 250 years. Meanwhile, like most of the
    other coastal Native Americans, the Timucua people suffered greatly
    from European diseases to which they had no immunity, and the culture
    eventually disappeared in the early 18th century.
        Timucuan EHP extends more than 46,000 acres at the mouths of the
    St. Johns and Nassau rivers. Major sites within the preserve are Fort
    Caroline National Memorial; the Theodore Roosevelt Area, a marsh with
    boardwalk trails and wildlife observation points; and the Kingsley
    Plantation, which offers the interpretation of a 19th-century slave
    plantation. The Thomas Creek area of the preserve is believed to be the
    site of a 1777 battle known as the southernmost encounter between the
    Americans and British during the Revolutionary War. Only a portion of
    the battlefield is protected. The park also offers visitors
    opportunities for water recreation including boating and fishing.
        In the original 1988 legislation, Congress authorized the
    acquisition of historical sites spanning more than 300 years from Fort
    Caroline to the Civil War. An expansion bill passed in 2004 authorized
    the park to accept a parcel containing a pristine coastal dune at
    American Beach, the first African American beach resort in Florida. The
    NPS now has the opportunity to include within the boundaries of
    Timucuan EHP an additional 1,772 acres of land south of Thomas Creek.
        This property has significant ecological resources consistent with
    those of the Timucuan preserve. The area is about 70 percent uplands
    and 30 percent wetlands, with the wetlands including salt marsh and
    bottomland forests. The landscape provides habitat for many notable
    species including bald eagle, wood duck, hooded merganser, deer,
    turkey, and quail. Bobcats have been sighted in the area, which is also
    thought to have habitat suitable for wood storks, gopher tortoises,
    flatwoods salamanders, and eastern indigo snakes, all Federal or State-
    listed threatened or endangered species.
        Because of its links to the Nassau River watershed, the State of
    Florida has listed this area as a priority for acquisition and
    conservation through the Florida Forever Program. The project area,
    known as the Northeast Florida Timberlands and Watershed Reserve,
    covers forested watershed land in Nassau, Duval, and Clay counties. The
    reserve was categorized in September 2008 by the State as an ``A'' list
    priority acquisition area and as 1 of 21 projects listed as highest
    priority.
        The Timucuan Preserve's expansion area would link and buffer
    several Federal and State-owned sites. Conservation of the tracts would
    link Timucuan EHP with a city-owned preserve to the west. About a mile
    to the west is the 526-acre Jacksonville National Cemetery. Authorized
    by Congress in 2003, the cemetery opened in January 2009. A road may be
    constructed through a portion of the expansion area to improve access
    to the cemetery. Lastly, Jacksonville International Airport lies just
    to the south, and the expansion area may serve as an undeveloped buffer
    to the airport and to the Florida Air National Guard facilities.
        This key location also introduces significant development threats
    to the 1,772-acre expansion area. The airport is a large economic
    generator in the region, and lands around it are expected to see high
    rates of growth in upcoming years. While the construction of the road
    would serve the purpose of improving access to the national cemetery,
    it would also increase the desirability of development in a location
    close to Interstate 95. In fact, the property was recently zoned for
    commercial and residential development uses and full entitlements were
    granted by Duval County. It was approved for a master Regional Activity
    Center adjacent to the I-95 commercial corridor just north of the
    Jacksonville International Airport. If it is not protected in the near
    future, it could still be developed once the economy improves.
        Available for acquisition in fiscal year 2010 is the first phase of
    the 262-acre Seaton Creek parcel, which is located in the easternmost
    portion of the expansion area. The first phase will be approximately
    157 acres. The parcel is crossed by Boat Swamp, Seaton, and Houston
    creeks. Seaton and Houston creeks have the special State designation as
    ``Outstanding Florida Waters'' because of their connection to Timucuan
    EHP. During a recent archeological survey conducted on the tract, a
    Revolutionary War-era military coat button was found. Protection of the
    property would ensure complete examination of the site for other
    artifacts from the Thomas Creek battle. Much of this property is
    included in the State's Pumpkin Hill Creek Florida Forever acquisition
    priority area, which seeks to protect one of the largest natural
    uplands in Duval County, maintain the water quality of the St. Johns
    and Nassau rivers, and preserve marshland habitat. Like the Northeast
    Florida Timberlands and Watershed Reserve, the Pumpkin Hill Creek area
    is categorized by the State as an ``A'' list priority.
        Additional parcels in the expansion area will be made available for
    acquisition by the State of Florida and the city of Jacksonville, as
    these lands are also contiguous with lands owned by these governments.
    Protection of the entire expansion area will be a cooperative effort of
    State, local, and Federal entities. As soon as the expansion of
    Timucuan EHP is approved, an appropriation of $3 million from the Land
    and Water Conservation Fund can begin the NPS acquisition of the Seaton
    Creek parcel, which will provide additional recreational opportunities
    for park visitors and protect key natural and cultural resources.
        Thank you, Madam Chairman, for the opportunity to present this
    testimony on this important land conservation project in northeastern
    Florida.
                                     ______

              Prepared Statement of the Puyallup Tribe of Indians

        Mr. Chairman, my name is Herman Dillon, Sr., Puyallup Tribal
    Chairman. We thank the subcommittee 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 the Interior--Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA).--
    The Puyallup Tribe 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 4,004 Puyallup tribal members and the
    members from approximately 355 federally recognized tribes who utilize
    our services are included in the fiscal year 2010 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 more than 355 tribes and Alaskan
    villages. The Puyallup Nation Law Enforcement Division currently has a
    Chief of Police, 26 commissioned officers, and 2 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. 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 detainee's has been compromised due to the condition of the
    temporary detention facilities. These conditions have been verified by
    a recent inspection by the BIA. with a recommendation that no further
    funds be allocated to try and bring the facility up to any standard. 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''.
      --Request the subcommittee to support the increased funding to the
            BIA public safety and justice law enforcement over the fiscal
            year 2009 enacted budget and further request that the BIA
            transfer Law Enforcement back into tribal priority allocations
            (TPA);
      --Support from the subcommittee on the tribes request to the
            Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, and Science, and Related
            Agencies for funding in the amount of $5.25 million to
            construct the ``detention'' portion of the Justice Center;
      --Support from the subcommittee to fund to the tribal courts budget
            in the fiscal year 2010 budget at no less than $25 million and
            request that the subcommittee issue directive language to BIA
            to include increased funding for the tribal courts fiscal year
            2011 budget.
        Fisheries and 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, nonanadromous 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 subcommittee 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 1980s and is currently faced by
            Endangered Species Act listings on numerous species. We concur
            with the Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission (NIFC) request
            to increase base management funding in the amount of $12
            million. We further support the existing BIA hatchery
            maintenance and rehabilitation be funded at $1.5 million and
            the hatchery reform implementation be funded at $3.34 million
            to meet basic infrastructure maintenance costs for tribal
            hatcheries;
      --Steelhead numbers throughout the south Puget Sound region have
            diminished markedly over the past 20 years. Generally, harvest
            management restrictions in the form of fishing closures, wild
            fish release regulations, and curtailed seasons and/or bag
            limits have been enacted to protect wild stock. To avoid
            possible extinction the Puyallup Tribe proposes to construct a
            steelhead enhancement facility to be located on a 13-acre
            property owned by the tribe on Wilkeson Creek in eastern Pierce
            County. The program will be capped at rearing 150,000 smolts on
            a combination of surface and pumped well water. The steelhead
            will be reared for approximately 15 molts. This project will
            facilitate the Puyallup Tribe and other resource agencies
            involved to help stave of extinction of wild winter steelhead
            in the Puyallup Watershed. We request Committee support to
            appropriate $1.426 million for the Wilkeson Creek Property
            Steelhead Hatchery Project;
      --Washington Timber-Fish-Wildlife Program--United States/Canada
            Pacific Salmon Treaty.--The TFW and the United States/Canada
            Pacific Salmon Treaty programs has allowed for the expansion of
            tribal participation in the State forest practice rules and
            regulations and participate in intertribal organizations to
            address specific treaties and/or legal cases which relate to
            fishing rights, harvest, and management. We request
            subcommittee support to restore base funding of $1.74 million
            for TFW and $2.2 million for United States/Canada Pacific
            Salmon Treaty 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 limited amount per program. The
            Puyallup Tribe concurs with the NIFC request to fund $5 million
            for tribal wildlife management--treaty hunting rights fiscal
            year 2010 budget;
        Operation of Indian Programs and Contract Support Costs.--The
    fiscal year 2010 budget needs increased funding for the BIA--Operation
    of Indian Programs. Within the Operations of Indian Programs is the
    TPA. The TPA budget functions include the majority of funding used to
    support on-going services at the ``local tribal'' level, including; law
    enforcement, natural resources management, child welfare, housing,
    tribal courts, and other tribal governmental services. These functions
    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 have not
    been adequate to keep pace with inflation. At a minimum, we request
    your support and endorsement in the following;
      --Support by the subcommittee to fund Operation of Indian Programs
            fiscal year 2010 request at the President's suggested fiscal
            year 2010 level of $2.2 billion and fund contract support costs
            at 100 percent level;
      --Tribal communities have some of the greatest needs in the areas of
            child abuse and neglect and mental health services. Addressing
            the current unmet needs in providing services to our most
            vulnerable and victims of abuse should be a priority of all
            people. The Puyallup Tribe proposes the development of a Child
            Advocacy Center and Domestic Abuse Center designed to provide
            services for children, youth, and families in need of child
            welfare, mental health and juvenile justice services. We
            request Committee support to increase funding for Indian child
            welfare (TPA) by $45 million; Increase urban Indian child
            welfare programs by $10 million; and Increase child welfare
            assistance, BIA by $50 million.
        Education.--Under DOI, BIA's budget has historically been
    inadequate to meet the needs of Native Americans, resulting in unmet
    educational needs that have multiplied over the past decade. The
    Puyallup Tribe operates the pre-K to 12 Chief Leschi Schools which
    includes a verified 2008-2009 school student enrollment of 910+
    students, including ECEAP and the FACE program. The enrollment figures
    represents near capacity with all classrooms being utilized on a daily
    basis. With an increasing number of ``pre-kindergarten'' enrollment,
    Chief Leschi Schools will exceed design capacity in the near future. We
    request subcommittee support in the following:
      --We concur with the NIEA request to increase Indian school
            construction funding by $134.56 million from the enacted fiscal
            year 2009 level of $128 million;
      --We concur with the NIEA request to increase school transportation
            in the amount of $25 million and adjust annually to keep pace
            with inflationary costs and increased cost of fuel.
        DHHS Indian Health Service (IHS).--Funding for the IHS fails to
    meet the needs of health services for Native Americans. The Puyallup
    Tribe has been operating their healthcare 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. The contract care allocation to PTHA has been significantly
    inadequate to meet the needs since 2004 when the Puyallup Tribe
    subsidized contract health with a $2.8 million contribution; in 2005
    PTHA shifted to a priority one status. By 2008 the tribal subsidy
    reached a staggering $6 million. Given that the PTHA service population
    in only comprised of 17 percent Puyallup Tribal members tribal budget
    priorities in 2009 indicate the Tribe is no longer able to make
    subsidies to the PTHA. Contract Health dollars are expected to run out
    by mid-2009. We request the following subcommittee support for the
    fiscal year 2010 budget;
      --Fund PTHA Contract Health Care Fund an additional $6 million to
            match fiscal year 2008 tribal expenditures. Fund the IHS
            contract health services budget at the President's requested
            levels and to cover the 7 percent estimated inflation rate for
            fiscal year 2010.
        Adequate funding for the continued operations and delivery of
    quality care is essential. PTHA, like most IHS and tribal facilities,
    are annually asked to do more with less. PTHA has reached these limits
    and are no longer able to keep pace with these raising demands. This
    continued philosophy has put our clinic in a funding crisis. It is
    estimated that it will take an increase of $428 million just to
    maintain current IHS service levels in 2010. We request congressional
    support for the fiscal year 2010 IHS budget in the following areas:
      --Fund IHS at the President's requested $454 million increase
            required to maintain current service levels including medical
            inflation, payroll increase, and population growth;
      --Restore $711 million in lost funding during the Bush administration
            by providing adequate funding increases in fiscal years 2010
            and 2011;
      --Exempt IHS budget from rescissions. IHS health programs are subject
            to the same rates of medical inflation as the Veterans
            Administration and are deserving of the same consideration;
      --The Indian Health Care Improvement Act (IHCIA) (Public Law 94-437)
            provides funding for the IHS 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 of
            Representatives has pledged to pass a companion bill last
            session. The Puyallup Tribe of Indians supports all efforts by
            Congress and the administration to pass the IHCIA.
        Transportation.--The Indian Reservation Roads (IRR) provides
    essential funding to support the transportation infrastructure directly
    effecting tribal economies, education, systems, healthcare, and social
    service programs. Many of the 104,000 miles of IRR are unimproved and
    unsafe for tribal communities to travel to hospitals, stores, schools,
    and employment centers. We request subcommittee support in the
    following IRR transportation areas:
      --At a minimum, provide $800 million for the IRR program;
      --At a minimum, provide $75 million for the IRR Bridge Program;
      --At a minimum, provide $150 million for the BIA Road Maintenance
            Program; and
      --Ensure that any changes to the IRR via reauthorization is conducted
            in open and fair consultation and rule making procedures.
                                     ______

                Prepared Statement of the Quinault Indian Nation
            ``The Great Spirit bestowed life to all of us . . . including
            the animals, birds, fish, insects and plants. Our collective
            Native warnings and predictions were ignored in the rush to
            capitalize and exploit the bountiful resources of the land.
            Countless irreplaceable species are preserved now in museums or
            documents in textbooks. As the consequences of unmanaged
            exploitation and pollution reach irreversible proportions, the
            United States heeded our centuries old appeals for
            environmental protection. We only hope it's not too late and
            that Mother Nature's wounds can still be healed. We will
            continue to serve as the environmental conscience to the nation
            and the world.''
                                    Joseph B. DeLaCruz,
                                                     President,
                                     Quinault Indian Nation, 1972-1993.
        Thank you for the opportunity to appear before this subcommittee
    and provide oral testimony on the fiscal year 2010 budgets for the
    Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Indian Health Service (IHS). On behalf
    of the Quinault Nation, we make the following requests and
    recommendations:
    Tribal-specific Priority Requests
        $61 million for Blueback Restoration and $1.2 million for
    Methamphetamine Strategy.
    Local/regional Requests and Recommendations
        Affiliated Tribes of Northwest Indians; Northwest Portland Area
    Indian Health Board; and the Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission.
    National Requests and Recommendations
        Provide $25 million general increase to the Bureau of Indian
    Affairs (BIA) Tribal Priority Allocation (TPA) for inflationary and
    fixed costs; provide $57 million increase for BIA Contract Support Cost
    (CSC), including direct CSC; Provide $470 million for IHS mandatory,
    inflation, and population growth increase to maintain existing
    healthcare services; $152 million increase for Contract Health Services
    (CHS); $143 million increase for IHS to fully fund CSC, including
    direct CSC; Increase $5 million to the IHS Office of Tribal Self-
    Governance; Do not access unfair/disproportionate rescissions on fiscal
    year 2010 funding for the BIA and IHS and other indian program funds
    within the Department of the Interior; Support all requests and
    recommendations of the National Congress of American Indians and
    National Indian Health Board.
    Tribal-specific Requests Justification
      --$64 million Blueback restoration ($7 million annually from 2010-
            2018)
        The Blueback Restoration Program 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. 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. The program plan
    calls for formation of public and private coalitions and partnerships
    to implement restoration actions.
        The Quinault River Blueback (Sockeye Salmon) Restoration Program
    will help to restore the natural beauty and productivity of the
    Quinault River Basin to historic levels, thus making it a more
    attractive tourism destination. 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 program
    will also benefit local residents and businesses by reducing the
    likelihood of flooding and property loss and increasing local economies
    both in the near- and long-term future. Implementation of the
    restoration program will help avoid the burdensome and restrictive
    consequences of having the Quinault sockeye listed as threatened or
    endangered under provisions of the Endangered Species Act (ESA).
        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.
        This is a long-term project expected to take up to 20 years to
    complete structure placement and enhancement, including the engineering
    and material procurement, with full implementation occurring in the
    decades following as natural processes rebuild the habitat to historic
    conditions. Through successful efforts of this program, it will protect
    and restore the livelihoods of 100 commercial fishermen and 25 sport
    fishing guides in Grays Harbor and Jefferson Counties and the Quinault
    Indian Reservation.
        The program will also contribute partial support for approximately
    20 jobs in the fish processing industry in western Washington, thus
    improve the economic status of the families living in the communities
    within the Quinault Indian Reservation. The program will provide
    employment for 10-30 laborers and equipment operators in Grays Harbor
    and Jefferson counties during the construction phases of individual
    projects.
        This project will reverse adverse environmental impacts by
    restoring habitats and ecosystems of the Quinault River and Lake
    Quinault while at the same time stabilizing the river channel in
    efforts to protect infrastructure and property loss.
        The construction phase of this plan was implemented in the Fall of
    2008 with the construction of 12 engineered log jams. This pilot
    project provided data and experience with which to evaluate the
    process, need and cost to implement the full plan of eventually
    constructing an estimated 452 log jams in the upper Quinault River to
    help the natural processes restore salmon spawning habitat to historic
    conditions. Pre-project monitoring and data acquisition culminated this
    past year with 7 years of effort.
        This funding will allow for the continued implementation of the
    construction phase of the plan through specific location engineering,
    material procurement, structure construction and enhancement (tree
    planting), specific location nutrient application and continued
    planning, monitoring and data acquisition.
        With full funding as needed on an annual basis, the basic
    construction phase of this project is expected to be completed at the
    end of fiscal year 2018. Fertilization, data acquisition and monitoring
    will continue for many years.
      --$1.2 million methamphetamine strategic plan
        Methamphetamine use within the Quinault Indian Nation is a serious
    concern and a significant public health and social challenge. Since its
    introduction to the community, the government of the Quinault Indian
    Nation has taken a proactive approach to dealing with crystal
    methamphetamine.
        It affects a number of different groups; however, it is most
    prevalent among youth and young adults.
        The Quinault Indian Nation's Methamphetamine Strategic Plan is part
    of a broader more comprehensive alcohol and drug strategy being
    developed that recognizes the need to plan for the future. The Nation
    has encouraged collaborative relationships among Government
    departments, health authorities, professionals, community members and
    families to create conditions that prevent drug use, treat drug users,
    educate the public, and hold offenders accountable and control access
    to ingredients and supply while helping to ensure safer communities.
    Currently, many actions are occurring throughout the Nation under the
    Government's umbrella plan to prevent and control drug abuse.
        It has been largely recognized that an essential factor in the
    success of this strategy's principles requires precursor elements
    necessary for a strong community mobilization project to combat
    methamphetamine. Crystal methamphetamine and other forms of
    methamphetamine, which are classified as stimulants, are made with
    over-the-counter, easily available ingredients by individuals in their
    homes or by organized crime groups. These factors combine to make
    methamphetamine a relatively cheap drug with high potential for abuse
    and harmful effects on our population. Methamphetamine use, if not
    prevented, will have harmful health, social, and economic consequences.
        Problematic substance use requires a coordinated and integrated
    response from all sectors. The Nation frequently conducts outreach in
    collaboration with the justice system, police, health, social services,
    school districts, community organizations and others seeking to
    improve, integrate, and strengthen the overall health and services to
    individuals. Current work within the leadership of the Quinault Indian
    Nation further illustrates the steps we have taken to launch our
    strategy in order to take back our communities and minimize the
    significant risks related to methamphetamine production and use by
    targeting enforcement, outreach, prevention, stabilization, and harm
    reduction services to high-risk populations.
        There is also the recognized need to plan for the future, to fill
    any gaps and to ensure that crystal meth is dealt with in a thoughtful,
    realistic manner. Within the Quinault Indian Nation's jurisdictional
    boundaries, there is a need to collaborate on initiatives to address
    crystal meth use across all sectors, including government, regional
    health authorities, local school districts, community organizations,
    and other partners. The work we do now to strengthen and coordinate
    existing initiatives will aid in reducing the harm associated with all
    illicit drug use, including crystal meth.
        Most importantly, we have actively sought the guidance and wisdom
    of our elders and with the participation of our youth, community,
    churches, and school districts we have undertaken a multidisciplinary
    approach and strategy, emphasizing prevention, enforcement, treatment,
    and aftercare. Unfortunately, the best plans prove valuable only when
    the funding is available to execute and implement the strategy. We have
    found that at every level and in every discipline, funding to support
    our strategy is appallingly inadequate.
    Rescission of Funding for Indian Programs
        The Quinault Indian Nation requests that the subcommittee includes
    language in the appropriations bill that will direct the Department of
    the Interior not to impose unfair rescissions on Indian program funds.
    If a mandatory rescission is applied to all funding for Federal
    programs across the board, we ask that Indian programs not be required
    to absorb a disproportionate loss of funds.
        Again, thank you for this opportunity on behalf of the people of
    the Quinault Indian Nation.
                                     ______

       Prepared Statement of Robert Benavides, Governor, Pueblo of Isleta

                                  INTRODUCTION

        I am Robert Benavides, Governor of the Pueblo of Isleta. Isleta is
    centrally located in the Rio Grande Valley, 13 miles south of
    Albuquerque with a land area of 211,002 acres (more than 323 square
    miles) and is considered one of the larger Pueblos in New Mexico.
    Currently, there are approximately 4,000 tribal members living in the
    Pueblo of Isleta. The median age of the Pueblo is 31.1 years with the
    median family income below $30,000. Thus, we have a young population,
    many of whom are in or on the verge of poverty, which is why the Pueblo
    is focused on developing solid programs, infrastructure and
    institutions that will be able to meet the needs of our members and
    community well into the future.
        The Pueblo of Isleta is hopeful that the administration's first
    budget will recognize the growing and significant needs of Indian
    country. With the exception of certain law enforcement programs,
    funding for tribal programs in the last two decades has remained
    essentially flat, and in many instances, has actually gone down because
    of across-the-board rescissions in programs such as education,
    healthcare, social services and natural resources. According to the
    budget outline that we have seen, the President's budget is calling for
    a $400 million increase in Indian Health Service funding, and a $100
    million increase in Bureau of Indian Affairs law enforcement and
    education funding. This is appreciated, but more remains to be done.

                                 INFRASTRUCTURE

        Water Infrastructure.--We are very encouraged by the President's
    proposal to increase the level of funding for both the Clean Water and
    Safe Drinking Water Revolving Loan Fund. At the Pueblo of Isleta, we
    are in desperate need of replacing 15,500 linear feet of asbestos-
    concrete water mains that provide water to the 400 households in our
    main Village. We cannot imagine anywhere else in America where it would
    be tolerated that children and elders would have to drink water from
    asbestos-lined water mains. In addition, in the last decade the Pueblo
    has repaired more than 200 leaks and breaks in the antiquated lines.
    Thus, replacing these lines will result in a significant reduction in
    water use. We would urge Congress to support the President's funding
    request and to consider increasing the 1.5 percent tribal set-aside for
    these programs.
        Tribal Administration Complex.--In the area of community
    development there is a need for tribes to have access to resources that
    can be utilized to build governmental buildings. For too many tribes,
    including Isleta, our programs are operated in ramshackle buildings--
    many of which present health hazards such as mold and asbestos for our
    employees and the people we serve. The Pueblo would like to build a
    Tribal Administration Complex that would house our police department,
    fire department, tribal courts, and tribal program and administrative
    offices. Currently, these departments are spread out over four
    different geographic locations, and in buildings that range from
    deteriorating modular trailers to single-walled, cinder block,
    warehouse-type structures.

                       LAW ENFORCEMENT AND PUBLIC SAFETY

        As a former police officer, public safety and justice needs remain
    a pre-eminent concern for me. The Pueblo is sandwiched in between
    rapidly growing areas, two of which have particularly high crime
    rates--Albuquerque's South Valley to our north, and the so-called
    Meadow Lakes subdivision to our south. While Meadow Lakes may sound
    nice, it is poverty-stricken and crime-ridden. We also have an
    interstate and major State roads crossing through our reservation. The
    majority of crimes occurring on the Pueblo include sexual assault,
    rape, and criminal sexual contact and penetration; aggravated battery
    and aggravated assault; domestic violence; and DWI. However, despite
    our significant needs, we currently have only 26 uniformed officers, 23
    of whom are also State Police-certified. Already, the Pueblo funds 80
    percent of the cost of our Police/Public Safety Department. Although
    the Pueblo has a significant need for a tribal prosecutor, a tribal
    victim's advocate, and additional equipment and technical support, it
    does not have adequate funding available to meet those needs. Thus,
    while we greatly appreciate the increases provided last year, there
    remains a significant shortfall.
        Recent reports have focused on the high rate of alcohol-related
    crimes on reservations in New Mexico. One recent report shows these
    rates to be four times higher than the national average. This study
    further indicates that alcohol plays a significant role in cases
    involving abuse or neglect of a child. Thus, it is clear that not only
    must we address the criminal behavior but we also must address the
    substance abuse behavior of our citizens. Unless we do this, we cannot
    secure a safe and healthy environment for our children to live and
    grow.
        We would like to thank the subcommittee for its focus in fiscal
    year 2009 on addressing violence against women in Indian country. As
    you well know, Indian women are victims of violence at rates that are
    disproportionately higher than those of the rest of the population.
    Tribes not only need the resources to identify and prosecute the
    offenders, but to help the victims as well. In particular, we need
    programs to provide housing and counseling to victims and their
    children, so that when a woman and her children leave an abusive
    household they have some place to go.

                            NATURAL RESOURCE PROGRAM

        Forestry.--It is time for the Federal Government to reinvest in the
    protection and preservation of federally protected trust resources,
    whether it is tribal land, timber, or water. In the last two decades
    the Federal Government has not dedicated any new financial resources to
    ensuring that these basic trust resources are enhanced and protected
    for the future.
        The Pueblo of Isleta operates its Forestry Management Program
    through a 93-638 contract with the BIA. From time to time, the Pueblo
    is awarded funding for particular forestry projects, but on average it
    receives only about $100,000 per year in BIA funding for its forestry.
    The promise of self-determination is no more evident anywhere than in
    this program. After three major fires last year (Big Springs, Trigo,
    and Ojo Peak) that moved, one after the other, from the south toward
    the Pueblo (the last one stopped literally on our border), the Pueblo
    spent approximately $262,000 of its own money for a project to treat
    320 acres for fire protection. The tribe used a 13-person fuels crew to
    complete the work and bought its own hand tools, uniforms, and fuel for
    the project. At the end of the project the crew treated 420 acres at an
    average cost of $350/per acre, versus the BIA average of $1,500/per
    acre. We are doing a similar project in the Bosque forest. We have the
    resources to complete 580 acres, but need additional funds to complete
    the work on the remaining 1,400 acres.
        Thus, while we did more with less money than the BIA would have
    done, there remains a significant need. As this subcommittee well
    knows, investing in proper forest management is not simply good
    economic sense in terms of protecting the forest resources, but it is
    also necessary as matter of public safety. If these forests are not
    properly managed we will continue to have forest fires that endanger
    people's lives and homes.
        Range Lands.--Our range lands have gradually recovered from the
    effects of prolonged overgrazing which occurred many decades ago. Much
    of this overgrazing was caused by trespassing livestock, a serious
    problem that was not resolved until the mid-1930s when the Pueblo, with
    its own money, was able to fence our reservation. While ranching is
    still an important subsistence activity for a significant number of our
    members, effective utilizing of our range is limited by the lack of
    stock water development. We have plans to construct and/or improve 40
    range wells at an estimated cost of $1.5 million.
        Agricultural Lands.--Isleta has always been a farming community
    with fields and irrigation facilities dating back centuries prior to
    the coming of the Spanish. However, upstream development, timber
    harvesting, and overgrazing caused major changes to the hydrology and
    geology of the Rio Grande, resulting in large portions of our
    agricultural lands become waterlogged, some irreparably. Over the past
    15-20 years we have been working to drain some of these lands, but
    approximately 1,000 acres are still in need of remediation, which the
    Bureau of Reclamation has estimated will cost in excess of $10 million.

                             ISLETA SETTLEMENT FUND

        I would like to take the opportunity to thank the subcommittee for
    your support of the Pueblo of Isleta Settlement Fund. The $2.4 million
    in the President's fiscal year 2010 budget is the last installment of
    the United States' commitment to the Pueblo in settlement of our
    natural resources damages claim. This funding, which the Pueblo is
    required to match, is committed to restoring and protecting the
    Pueblo's agricultural, range and timber lands, as well as cultural
    resources.

                             INDIAN HEALTH SERVICE

        Health Services.--Addressing the healthcare needs of Indian people
    is a critical element to building a vital and thriving community in
    Indian country. In New Mexico, Indian people rank the highest in nine
    negative health indicators, including access to prenatal care, rates of
    diabetes-related death, youth suicide, and motor vehicle and accidental
    deaths. In order to respond to this, Congress must invest real dollars
    in health services programs, including preventative and mental
    healthcare. The Pueblo has certainly done its part to try to address
    our community's pressing healthcare needs. Specifically, several years
    ago the Pueblo spent $5.46 million of its own money to build a health
    clinic, and we are in the process of constructing a mental health
    services addition at a cost of $1.3 million ($550,000 of which is being
    covered from State funds) in an effort to address substance abuse and
    other behavioral problems within our community.
        Contract Support Costs (CSC ).--As noted above, the Pueblo of
    Isleta has invested significant resources to build a state-of-the-art
    healthcare clinic that provides ambulatory treatment, dental care,
    preventative care, and a pharmacy. We operate all of these programs
    through a Public Law 93-638 agreement with the United States, and the
    United States has not fulfilled its obligation to provide us with 100
    percent of the necessary contract support costs for these programs.
    These are costs that the Pueblo must incur; they fund basic
    administrative costs, such as auditors, payroll, and insurance.
        Today, we receive 73 percent of the contract support cost dollars
    that are due us, which means we must annually reduce our direct program
    dollars by $500,000 because of this shortfall. If this is not corrected
    in fiscal year 2010, our ongoing IHS contract support shortfall will
    approach $2 million for the last 4 years alone. This means that fewer
    children see the dentist, fewer people are screened for cancer, and
    fewer diabetics receive the care that they need. If the subcommittee
    makes the commitment to fully fund contract support costs in fiscal
    year 2010, this would provide virtually every tribally operated health
    program in the country with a significant increase of funds that will
    go directly to health services for their people.
        Contract Health Care.--Finally, I join with all of my fellow tribal
    leaders from across the country and urge the subcommittee to increase
    funding for contract healthcare. Notwithstanding the services provided
    directly at our clinic, we still have a significant need to refer
    patients to outside providers. While our clinic is able to address
    medical priorities (those emergencies threatening members' lives or
    limbs) and some preventative care issues, all other issues must be
    referred to outside providers. ) An increase in CSC funding would
    increase the number of patients our clinic could see and the more
    preventative services it could offer. At present, medical inflationary
    costs are rising much faster than contract healthcare appropriations
    are, thus, additional funding for these resources is a critical need.
                                     ______

           Prepared Statement of the Ramah Navajo School Board, Inc.

        Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee: My name is Martha
    Garcia, and I am the president of the Board of Trustees of the Ramah
    Navajo School Board, Inc. (RNSB), which governs the K-12 Pine Hill
    School and more than 30 other community programs on the Ramah Navajo
    Reservation in Cibola County at Pine Hill, New Mexico. My testimony is
    on the need to appropriate adequate funding to address the
    infrastructure needs of our Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA)/Bureau of
    Indian Education (BIE) school. The Ramah Navajo School Board is
    requesting that a total of $9,384,755 be included in the fiscal year
    2010 budget from the BIA (Department of the Interior) and the Head
    Start Bureau (Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)) for the
    following project needs for our community.
        Introduction.--The Ramah Navajo reservation covers approximately
    300 square miles in a rural, isolated, high desert country in
    northwestern New Mexico where there are few paved roads, no business
    center, and the nearest towns are more than 60 miles away. Ignored for
    most of its history by Federal, State, and the Navajo Nation, the
    community has had to fend for itself beginning in the 1960s, when its
    efforts to bring in its own community-controlled school and other
    services led to the ``Indian Self-Determination and Education
    Assistance Act of 1975.
        The RNSB school at Pine Hill currently enrolls 310 students. The
    Pine Hill Health Center handles more than 30,000 visits annually for
    medical, dental, and behavioral healthcare. RNSB is a unique school
    board because it not only operates a K-12 BIA grant school, but it runs
    more than 30 other programs for the Ramah Navajo community, including
    among others a health clinic, social services, four preschool
    programs--Head Start, FACE, Early Intervention, and Day Care--
    behavioral health services, a wellness center, a Workforce Investment
    Act program, adult education, a GED program, a school farm,
    fairgrounds, and a radio station. RNSB thus provides most major
    services for the community. RNSB has an annual operating budget of
    about $17,500,000 of which roughly 80 percent is used for personnel
    costs. RNSB has substantial needs for infrastructure improvements, as
    detailed below.
        Pine Hill School (K-12)--Repairs, Renovations, and Upgrade of BIA/
    BIE School Facilities, Infrastructure, and Equipment.--$4,517,755.
    (Department of the Interior, BIA/BIE and Department of Health and Human
    Services, ACF/Head Start Bureau).
        Central Administration Office Building.--The RNSB central
    administration buildings need a complete renovation and upgrade of all
    of its systems, including weatherization, interior and exterior
    painting, recarpeting, electrical upgrade, and air conditioning. These
    buildings have environmental health and safety issues, including
    leaking pipes, mice (with possible exposure to Hantavirus), and fire
    safety issues. It has been broken into on several occasions and needs
    upgrades to the safety vault in the business office, along with
    upgrading of the security alarm system. RNSB has been unable to obtain
    private or State funding to replace this building, so we ask that
    Congress appropriate funds for the renovation of this BIA building to
    allow it to serve the school and community for another 10 to 20 years.
    Such funding would provide upgrades to the computer system to meet the
    latest auditor's recommendation and provide a centralized
    communications and technology center for the Pine Hill School and
    central administration to support the 30-plus programs in a single
    building. This renovation would include a ``Tech Center'' addition to
    serve as the hub for all of RNSB's computer, Internet, email, fax, and
    phone systems; would house technical support, repair, and maintenance
    for desktop and laptop computers, printers, scanners, and related
    computer technology hardware and software; and would include classrooms
    for technology training for students, staff, and community members. The
    estimated total cost for these renovations is $2,640,000.
        Temporary Facilities During Repairs and Renovations.--While the
    foregoing repairs and renovations are in progress, the Pine Hill School
    (K-12) and RNSB central administration will need temporary offices and
    facilities in which to conduct its activities. The estimated cost for
    such temporary facilities is $120,000.
        Security Fence.--RNSB also needs a security fence to be constructed
    around its campus, including school, central administration, Pine Hill
    Health Center, staff housing, etc. The estimated cost is $100,000.
        Road and Water Line Repairs.--The entire campus road system needs
    to be repaired and repaved due to water line breaks and other utility
    breakdowns located under the roads. The estimated cost is $1,227,755.
        Dorm Construction Reimbursement.--When the old Ramah Navajo
    Dormitory 25 miles away in the village of Ramah, was condemned and
    closed, Congress funded the construction of a new dormitory near the
    Pine Hill School for students in grades 1 through 12. RNSB administered
    the design-build contract for the construction of the dormitory.
    However, as construction was nearing completion in January 2006, RNSB
    discovered that essential work needed to meet all building codes were
    missing from the plans. Most notably, the planned fire suppression
    system did not meet fire code requirements. This change not only
    required additional equipment, but also changes in the water supply
    system so that the water pressure required for the upgraded system
    could be maintained. RNSB was forced to pay for this from its own
    scarce private funds and other changes necessary before the dorm could
    be completed and occupied. Although no official position has been
    expressed, RNSB believes that the BIE is sympathetic to reimbursing
    RNSB for these expenditures if Congress appropriates the funds or
    directs the BIE to make this payment from its budget. $500,000.
        Head Start.--An inspection by the HHS/Head Start Bureau in 2000
    found that the Ramah Navajo Head Start buildings need safety upgrades
    to remedy code violations. These repairs will cost $30,000.
        Therefore, the total request in this area is $2,640,000 for central
    administration office buildings, plus $120,000 for temporary
    facilities, plus $100,000 for security fencing, plus $1,127,755 for
    road and utility repairs and replacements, plus $500,000 for
    reimbursement to RNSB for the dorm cost overrun, plus $30,000 for Head
    Start safety repairs.
        Pine Hill Water System--$1,550,000. (Department of the Interior,
    BIA/BIE).--The Pine Hill Water System was constructed in the early
    1970s to serve the then-new BIA Pine Hill School and some housing
    trailers for the school staff. Over the past 37 years, RNSB has added
    numerous other buildings and facilities for the school and other
    programs, including 60-plus staff housing units, the comprehensive
    Health Center, four preschool programs, Behavioral Health Services,
    and, most recently, the new dormitory. The water and sewer system now
    also serves non-RNSB facilities, such as the Pine Hill Market, and
    provides clean water to nearby community housing projects.
        At this time, RNSB's west sewer lagoon does not comply with
    applicable EPA law and regulations. RNSB needs to replace its Well No.
    1, which is its principal source of water for RNSB's campus. The 3,600-
    foot deep well is encased to a depth of 1,100 feet, but the casing has
    ruptured at a depth of 830 feet. So far the water has tested as safe,
    but the well is only a quarter-mile from our sewage lagoon, so prompt
    replacement of the ruptured casing is essential. Also, the repair and
    upgrade of the water treatment system is essential for health and
    safety of campus students, teachers, and residents. The cost estimate
    for the entire project is $1,550,000.
        Early Childhood Education Center--$3,317,000. (Department of the
    Interior, BIA).--RNSB wishes to consolidate its four preschool programs
    into one ``Early Childhood Education Center'' of approximately 10,000
    sq. ft. to consolidate Head Start, Early Intervention, Family and Child
    Education (FACE) and the Child Care Center. The requested appropriation
    will cover the entire project: planning, architectural design, building
    construction, inspections, and landscaping.
        The Board of Trustees for the RNSB would like to express its
    appreciation for your support for American Indian programs in general
    and the Ramah Navajo community in particular. We hope that this
    statement will help you better understand infrastructure needs of our
    community. We would be happy to provide you with further information on
    any of the foregoing projects.
                                     ______

             Prepared Statement of the Rivers and Trails Coalition

        Madam Chairman and members of the subcommittee, the Rivers & Trails
    Coalition, composed of local, regional, statewide, and national
    organizations representing hundreds of thousands of Americans
    nationwide committed to conservation and recreation, respectfully asks
    that you fund the National Park Service (NPS) Rivers, Trails and
    Conservation Assistance (RTCA) Program at $12 million in fiscal year
    2010.
        Through its RTCA Program, the NPS implements its natural resource
    conservation and outdoor recreation mission in communities across
    America. RTC formed many years ago to support this valuable field-based
    technical assistance program that yields enormous conservation and
    recreation benefits to communities by fostering partnerships between
    Federal, State, and local interests. The resulting cooperation of
    local, State, and Federal partners restores rivers and wildlife
    habitat, develops trails and greenway networks, preserves open space,
    and revitalizes communities--all contributing to improved quality of
    life and close-to-home recreation.
    Community Capacity Building
        Our coalition of outdoor recreation and parks organizations has
    seen firsthand the benefits that come from projects bridging the gap
    between neighborhoods and the outstanding outdoors opportunities in
    their backyards. We see the RTCA Program as a vital program that
    encourages people to invest in their own community, makes possible
    healthy and active lifestyles for all Americans, and most importantly,
    preserves our outdoor resources for the next generation to explore.
        The RTCA Program provides assistance to develop locally led
    conservation and outdoor recreation projects across the country. With
    guidance from the RTCA Program, citizen groups achieve their community-
    set goals, completing projects that range from constructing footpaths
    to preserving rivers to rehabilitating open spaces. The RTCA Program
    staff provides on-the-ground assistance solely at the request and
    invitation of communities in coordinating projects, facilitating public
    meetings, serving as a liaison and convener of government and nonprofit
    groups, assessing and mapping resources, developing promotional
    materials and events, and identifying sources of funding. The RTCA
    Program helps to empower communities to achieve their goals by
    collaborating on development of their own strategic plans for realizing
    a grassroots level conservation or recreation project. Current demand
    across the Nation for RTCA services greatly exceeds the program's
    capacity.
    Measures of Success
        The benefits of the RTCA Program are felt across the country, from
    creating a bike path in Massachusetts to reclaiming a vacant lot in
    California for footpaths and gardens. The program assists more than 250
    community partners per year, with projects in all 50 States. Each year
    these projects conserve more than 700 miles of river, create more than
    1,000 miles of trail, and protect more than 30,000 acres of open space.
    In 2008 alone, the RTCA Program helped to protect 1,656 miles of local
    rivers, create 3,208 miles of land trails, and preserve 45,485 acres of
    parks and open space.
        The RTCA Program plays a critical role in creating a nationwide,
    seamless network of parks and open spaces, supporting conservation
    partnerships, promoting volunteerism, and encouraging physical
    activity. In addition to regional trail systems and greenway
    development, and open space and river corridor protection, projects
    include transportation alternatives, Brownfields redevelopment, youth
    conservation projects, and floodplain planning, among numerous other
    conservation and recreation initiatives.
        One of the core strengths of the RTCA Program is in leveraging
    Federal funding by generating investment and human capital on a local
    level to support their projects. Grant funding from the NPS is not
    supplied; rather, NPS contributes RTCA Program staff hours to help
    project partners leverage funding through public-private partnerships.
    It is a cost-effective way for the NPS to reach out to neighboring
    communities, fostering a healthy, active and engaged citizenry.
        In 2008, a NPS survey found that 100 percent of organizations
    declared that the RTCA Program helped them achieve their project goals.
    Ninety-three percent of these partner organizations said that
    participation with the RTCA Program helped them develop their ability
    to succeed at future projects--this means that an initial investment
    made through the RTCA Program will continue to have lasting benefits
    over time by empowering participants and giving them the skills
    necessary to improve their community.
        RTC recognizes the RTCA Program's contribution to outdoors
    recreation and conservation, and the valuable work its staff does
    assisting people who desire to invest in their communities. To allow
    this program to continue such vital work engaging public participation
    and preserving our natural and cultural heritage, we request a budget
    allocation of $12 million to the RTCA Program.
    Fulfilling the RTCA Program Mission
        Despite the RTCA Program's demonstrable successes each year,
    Program funding has remained relatively stagnant during the last decade
    and has lagged well behind the rate of inflation. The program's real
    budget has declined significantly and resulted in substantial staff
    reductions. Cuts have also reduced staff participation in on-the-ground
    projects diminishing essential services of this field-based program.
    Historically, the RTCA Program receives less than one-third of 1
    percent of the total funding for the NPS, yet it succeeds in leveraging
    this investment many times over in local, State and partnership direct
    funding and in-kind matches. Each year, the modest amount of NPS
    funding for staff time has helped leverage millions of dollars from
    other sources for its projects. Highly effective and cost efficient,
    the RTCA Program is an excellent value for the American taxpayer and
    merits increased funding to accomplish its mission as a community-based
    NPS technical assistance and outreach program.
        The NPS is proposing a fiscal year budget of $8,872,000 and 69
    full-time employees (FTE) for the RTCA Program, a net program change of
    $664,000 and 2 FTE from the 2009 enacted level. The Coalition heartily
    endorses this increase, but it is still well below the amount required
    to restore this program to its former status. Members of the Coalition
    believe that the RTCA Program budget should be increased in fiscal year
    2010 to $12 million to remedy the program's steady erosion, compensate
    for losses due to inflation, and enable the program to respond
    effectively and efficiently to growing needs and opportunities in
    communities throughout the country.
        The requested funding level by the Coalition would allow this
    extremely beneficial program to continue current projects without
    interruption, restore recent cuts, put staff closer to the people they
    serve, and meet the outstanding requests from communities around the
    Nation. We strongly believe the NPS and Congress should strengthen
    efforts such as the RTCA Program that support communities and
    volunteers through partnerships and capacity-building, enabling local
    stakeholders to better manage and conserve their recreational and
    natural resources from the bottom-up.
        We urge the subcommittee to fund the RTCA Program at $12 million in
    the fiscal year 2010 Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies
    appropriations bill to remedy the program's continued erosion,
    compensate for losses due to inflation, and enable the program to
    respond to growing needs and opportunities in communities throughout
    the country.
        Respectfully submitted by the RTC comprised of the following
    organizations:
      --American Canoe Association
      --American Hiking Society
      --American Horse Council
      --American Outdoors
      --American Recreation Coalition
      --American Rivers
      --American Society of Landscape Architects
      --American Trails
      --American Volkssport Association
      --American Whitewater
      --Appalachian Mountain Club
      --Association of State Floodplain Managers
      --Bay Circuit Alliance
      --Bicycle Federation of America
      --Bikes Belong Coalition
      --Conservation District of Southern Nevada
      --East Coast Greenway Alliance
      --International Mountain Bicycling Association
      --Izaak Walton League of America
      --Jacksonville Woodlands Association
      --Land Legacy
      --Land Trust Alliance
      --League of American Bicyclists
      --Mississippi River Trail, Inc.
      --National Association of Service & Conservation Corps
      --National Audubon Society
      --National Parks Conservation Association
      --National Recreation and Park Association
      --National Wildlife Federation
      --New York-New Jersey Trail Conference
      --New York Parks and Conservation Association
      --North American Water Trails
      --Northern Forest Canoe Trail
      --Ohio & Erie Canal Corridor Coalition
      --Outdoor Alliance
      --Outdoor Industry Association
      --Outside Las Vegas Foundation
      --Parks & Trails New York
      --Partnership for the National Trails System
      --Pennsylvania Organization for Watersheds and Rivers
      --Rails to Trails Conservancy
      --River Network
      --Scenic America
      --South Carolina Dept. of Parks, Recreation, and Tourism
      --Sporting Goods Manufacturers Association
      --Student Conservation Association
      --The Accokeek Foundation
      --Trout Unlimited
      --Walk Boston
      --Washington Area Bicyclist Association
      --Washington Trails Association
      --Washington Water Trails Association
      --Winter Wildlands Alliance
      --YMCA of the USA
                                     ______

                 Prepared Statement of the Squaxin Island Tribe

        On behalf of the tribal leadership and members of the Squaxin
    Island Tribe, I am submitting our funding requests and recommendations
    for the fiscal year 2010 budgets for the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA)
    and the Indian Health Service (IHS).
    Tribal Specific Requests
        $750,000 for Northwest Indian Treatment Center Residential Program
    in IHS; $850,000 for public health and safety of the Squaxin Island
    Community in the BIA; and fulfill Puget Sound regional shellfish
    settlement commitment in the BIA.
    Regional Requests and Recommendations
        Northwest Portland Area Indian Health Board; Affiliated Tribes of
    Northwest Indians; and the Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission.

           SELF-GOVERNANCE AND NATIONAL REQUESTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

    IHS
        $143.3 million increase to fully fund Contract Support Cost (CSC);
    $470 million for mandatory inflation and population growth to maintain
    current health services; $152 million increase for Contract Health
    Services (CHS); $15.1 million for staffing of new/replaced facilities;
    Increase $5 million to the IHS Office of Tribal Self-Governance; and
    restore fiscal year 2005 and fiscal year 2009 rescissions.
    BIA
        $57 million increase to fully fund CSC; $25 million increase for
    Tribal Priority Allocations (TPA)--general increase for core programs;
    $50 million increase for 100 percent full funding of direct and
    indirect contract support costs; and restore base funding for rights
    protection to at least the 2004 level.
        Tribal Government--Self-governance.--Restore $2.5 million in
    General Assistance that was cut in 2009; maintain $13.6 million in
    Housing Improvement Program (HIP) in BIA-TPA account and $21.4 million
    in Johnson O'Malley (JOM) Assistance Grants
      --Increase BIA law enforcement by 10 percent and increase funding for
            tribal courts by 10 percent
        Support the requests and recommendations of the National Congress
    of American Indians and National Indian Health Board.
    Squaxin Island Tribe Background
        The Squaxin Island Tribe, a signatory of the 1854 Medicine Creek
    Treaty, is located in Kamilche, Washington in southeast 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 subcommittee includes
    language in the appropriations bill that will direct the BIA and the
    IHS 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

        $750,000--Northwest Indian Treatment Center Residential Program.--
    The Squaxin Island Tribe operates the Northwest Indian Treatment Center
    (NWITC) located in Elma, Washington (6th Congressional District). NWITC
    is a residential chemical dependency treatment facility nationally
    recognized as a ``Center of Excellence.'' NWITC benefits Native
    Americans from tribes located in Oregon, Washington, and Idaho. The
    facility is clinically designed to serve American Indians who have
    chronic relapse patterns related to unresolved grief and trauma. The
    ratio of patients to counselor is low to allow sufficient support for
    this process. Addiction treatment is supplemented with mental health
    assessments, mental health groups, and medication management when
    indicated. The content of treatment includes many cultural and
    spiritual activities to help patients re-anchor in their traditions and
    reclaim their identity.
        NWITC was established in 1994. It is accredited by CARF, an
    international accrediting organization for behavioral health programs.
    It is also certified and licensed by the Washington State Department of
    Health. NWITC residential program serves the tribes of Washington,
    Oregon, and Idaho and sometimes tribes from the Southwest. Its advisory
    board includes tribes who refer frequently.
        In 2006, a new Counseling and Cultural Center building was
    constructed using both HUD Indian Community Block Grant and Tribal
    funds. This new building replaces two rented modular buildings that
    were in extremely poor condition. The residential portion of the
    facility houses 24 patients in a circa-1900 single family residence
    which was converted in the 1930s into a retirement home.
        Treatment has changed over the years in response to meth addiction
    and its effects on the brain and the individual's capacity to recover.
    Now NWITC provides evaluations for psychotropic medication, mental
    health counseling, and treatment oriented to unresolved trauma in
    addition to other traditional forms of treatment. There has also been
    an expansion of cultural components of treatment. These elements have
    been required to maintain effectiveness but they also increase the cost
    of treatment.
        NWITC has not had an adequate increase in its base IHS budget since
    the original congressional set-aside in 1993 except increases that have
    averaged 1.5 percent per year. An increase of $750,000 would restore
    lost purchasing power and the need to add mental health and psychiatric
    components to treatment. This increase would allow NWITC to continue
    its effective treatment of Native Americans.
        $750,000 for the Squaxin Island Department of Public Health and
    Safety.--To hire six 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, there is a 42 percent unmet need of law enforcement
    officers in Indian Country. And, the Community Oriented Policing
    Services 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.
        Five Million To Fulfill Puget Sound Regional Shellfish Settlement
    Commitment.--The BIA indian land and water claim settlements account.
    The Federal Government is committed under terms of recently enacted
    legislation to fully fund the Puget Sound regional shellfish
    settlement. To complete the Federal obligation $5 million remains to be
    paid in both fiscal year 2010 and fiscal year 2011. We request the
    subcommittee to fulfill that obligation.
    Squaxin Island Tribe Supports Regional Requests and Recommendations
      --Northwest Portland Area Indian Health Board
      --Affiliated Tribes of Northwest Indians
      --Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission

    SQUAXIN ISLAND TRIBE SUPPORTS SELF-GOVERNANCE AND NATIONAL REQUESTS AND
                                RECOMMENDATIONS
    IHS
      --$143.3 million increase to fully fund CSC
      --$470 million for mandatory inflation and population growth to
            maintain current health services
      --$152 million increase for CHS
      --$15.1 million for staffing of new/replaced facilities
      --Increase $5 million to the IHS Office of Tribal Self-Governance
      --Restore fiscal year 2005 and fiscal year 2009 rescissions
    BIA
      --$57 million increase to fully fund Contract Support Cost
      --$25 million increase for TPA--general increase for core programs
      --$50 million increase for 100 percent full funding of direct and
            indirect contract support costs
      --Restore base funding for rights protection to at least the 2004
            level
      --Tribal Government--Self-governance.--Restore $2.5 million in
            general assistance that was cut in 2009; maintain $13.6 million
            in HIP in BIA-TPA account and $21.4 million in JOM Assistance
            Grants
      --Increase BIA law enforcement by 10 percent and increase funding for
            tribal courts by 10 percent
        Support the requests and recommendations of the National Congress
    of American Indians and National Indian Health Board.
        On behalf of the Squaxin Island Tribal Council and Tribal members
    thank you for this opportunity.
                                     ______

          Prepared Statement of the Sevilleta National Wildlife Refuge

        Dear Madam Chairman and members of the subcommittee: I would like
    to thank you for the opportunity to present testimony in support of an
    appropriation of $2 million from the Land and Water Conservation Fund
    (LWCF) to acquire land in proximity to the Sevilleta National Wildlife
    Refuge (NWR) in New Mexico. This appropriation will allow the U.S. Fish
    and Wildlife Service (FWS) to acquire the 250-acre first phase of the
    Indian Hill Farms property.
        Before I begin describing this project, I would like to discuss the
    importance of the LWCF to Sevilleta NWR and to national wildlife
    refuges around the country. The LWCF is the premier Federal land
    protection program and enables refuges to protect vital wildlife
    habitat, water resources, and recreational lands and improve public
    access and land management by consolidating holdings and acquiring
    inholdings. I respectfully urge a substantial increase in overall
    funding for the LWCF), specifically urging the subcommittee to provide
    $325 million for the Federal LWCF in the fiscal year 2010 Interior,
    Environment, and Related Agencies appropriations bill.
        Covering an area of approximately 360 square miles and located just
    40 miles south of Albuquerque, the largest city in the State, the
    Sevilleta NWR serves as a vast protected landscape in the heart of New
    Mexico. The refuge supports four major ecological habitats,
    encompassing two mountain ranges and containing approximately 4 miles
    of the Rio Grande River. Much of the refuge is managed to enhance
    riparian habitat and compensate for marsh loss along the Rio Grande
    basin. Parts of the refuge are flooded from November to February in
    order to provide habitat for migrating shorebirds and waterfowl
    including herons, ducks, geese, and sandhill cranes. The refuge is also
    managed to combat non-native species such as the invasive salt cedar.
    This nuisance species is being cleared and replaced with native willow
    and cottonwood to restore the natural bosque/riparian habitat native to
    the area.
        Sevilleta NWR (and the acquisition project planned by FWS) is of
    particular interest to New Mexico Department of Game and Fish due to
    our nearby ownership of four Waterfowl Management Areas along the Rio
    Grande River which make up the Ladd S. Gordon Waterfowl Complex. This
    Complex provides critical wintering habitat for migrating waterfowl and
    is managed by New Mexico Game and Fish as a series of working farms,
    bosques and pond complexes. The southernmost part of this complex is
    the 3,500-acre La Joya Waterfowl Management Area which is adjacent to
    Sevilleta NWR and within 10 miles of the planned acquisition project.
        Available for acquisition in fiscal year 2010 is the first phase of
    the 1,250-acre Indian Hill Farms property, which lies adjacent to 3
    miles of the Rio Grande as well as current refuge lands. Indian Hill
    Farms comprises more than 600 acres of irrigated farmland which could
    provide excellent opportunities to work with surrounding communities to
    create wildlife habitat, including moist soils, wetlands, and restored
    river bosque. Opportunities also exist to restore a portion of the
    property to provide additional prime habitat for the endangered
    Southwestern willow flycatcher.
        Given its location along the Rio Grande, acquisition of the Indian
    Hill Farms property could provide the refuge system a tremendous
    opportunity for habitat enhancement for a number of different wildlife
    uses, including endangered species habitat, wintering waterbird
    habitat, migratory landbird use, as well as raptor and resident big
    game habitat. Its location between two major wintering waterfowl areas,
    our Ladd S. Gordon Complex to the north and Bosque del Apache NWR to
    the south, makes this a key acquisition to enhance waterfowl
    populations in the Middle Rio Grande area. It will be an important
    acquisition to further the objectives of the New Mexico Comprehensive
    Wildlife Conservation Strategy which was developed through a
    cooperative effort with numerous stakeholder groups.
        The acquisition should also offer significant research
    opportunities at the University of New Mexico's (UNM) Long-Term
    Ecological Research program which is hosted at Sevilleta NWR and funded
    through the National Science Foundation. Such new research could
    include studying the planned conversion of farmland to wildlife habitat
    should Indian Hill Farms be acquired by the refuge.
        An appropriation of $2 million in fiscal year 2010 will ensure that
    the first phase of the Indian Hill Farms property is protected in
    perpetuity. The addition of this priority parcel to the Sevilleta NWR
    will allow for the creation and restoration of important wildlife
    habitat types along the Rio Grande River, increase public access to
    refuge lands, and increase unique research opportunities for local
    scientists.
        Thank you again, Madam Chairman, for the opportunity to present
    this testimony in support of the acquisition effort at Sevilleta NWR in
    New Mexico.
                                     ______

             Prepared Statement of The Conservation System Alliance

        The Conservation System Alliance (CSA) is a coalition of more than
    80 conservation, historic preservation, faith-based, recreation,
    business, education and place-based friends groups representing
    millions of Americans nationwide. CSA aims to protect, restore and
    expand the National Landscape Conservation System (NCLS) 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).
        Mr. Chairman, CSA would like to thank you for the opportunity to
    provide recommendations and comments on the fiscal year 2010 Department
    of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies appropriations bill.
    On behalf of our millions of members, we provide below our request for
    full budget clarity and at least a $75 million funding level in fiscal
    year 2010 for BLM's NCLS. NCLS is now slated for permanent
    establishment in law and as such, deserves budgetary attention within
    the Department of the Interior (DOI) that parallels that of other
    systems of lands and waters under their stewardship.
        NCLS is comprised of the most spectacular lands and waters under
    the stewardship of the BLM, like national monuments, wild and scenic
    rivers, national scenic and historic trails, and wilderness areas that
    have been designated for protection by Congress or the President.
    Created in 2000, NCLS provides economic benefits to neighboring
    communities across the West through unparalleled opportunities for
    solitude, adventure and recreation such as hunting, fishing, hiking,
    and wildlife watching. These lands and waters also offer opportunities
    for science, education and archaeological research. Yet with an obscure
    funding system and bare-bones funding for management and land
    stewardship, the BLM is unable to keep its most extraordinary 27
    million acres healthy, wild, and open.
        Adequate funding for NCLS 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 NCLS 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, NCLS 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. 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 NCLS lands and
    waters poses considerable threats to the integrity of these
    historically and biologically extraordinary landscapes; inadequate
    attention to its funding also neglects opportunities for job creation
    and the fostering of sustainable rural economies.

                  NCLS BUDGET ACCOUNTABILITY AND TRANSPARENCY

        CSA commends BLM for providing new subactivities for Monuments and
    National Conservation Areas in the fiscal year 2009 budget and for
    giving NCLS increased attention in budget documents, important first
    steps toward giving NCLS needed budgetary attention and clarity.
    However, we are disappointed that BLM failed to provide line item
    program elements for NCLS's other units in the fiscal year 2010
    President's budget. We ask that NCLS be given full budget transparency,
    as appropriate for any permanently established public lands system.
        NCLS, now authorized in law, deserves a full place in BLM's budget
    structure. We respectfully urge the subcommittee to support a complete
    budget activity for the NCLS that includes subactivities for all NCLS's
    units. The wilderness subactivity should be moved from Recreation into
    the new activity alongside the new Monument and NCA subactivity, and
    Congress should support the creation of national trails and wild and
    scenic rivers subactivities that should also reside there. This would
    allow one clearly identifiable budget category for all designations
    within BLM's permanently established NCLS of lands and waters.
        Budget clarity for all NCLS units is needed to ensure that all NCLS
    managers can adequately plan and accurately track expenditures and to
    ensure accountability to Congress and the American public. Congress,
    the BLM and the public will be able to more readily identify NCLS's
    expenditures and to more easily pursue opportunities for in-kind
    donations to match Federal expenditures. Maximization of efficiencies
    will ensure more wise use of taxpayer dollars.

    FISCAL YEAR 2010 OPERATIONS, MAINTENANCE AND PLANNING BUDGET NEEDS FOR
                                      NCLS

        CSA greatly appreciates the much-needed congressional increases for
    NCLS in the Interior provision of the fiscal year 2009 Omnibus
    appropriations bill. These increases over the previous President's
    bare-bones budget will allow dedicated staff to address some of their
    many project backlogs. Further, we wholly appreciate BLM commitments in
    the stimulus package and look forward to seeing application of some of
    those funds to needed landscape restoration in NCLS units and other
    deserving BLM lands. However, Congress and the new administration must
    continue to increase NCLS's budget in order to more adequately address
    project backlogs and ensure protection of the nationally significant
    resources under the BLM's care. A significant NCLS increase is critical
    to meet mandates in establishing legislation and proclamations, and to
    legitimately implement associated resource management plans. We greatly
    appreciate the new designations under the recent Omnibus Public Land
    Management Act and hope that additional funding will be provided for
    NCLS in fiscal year 2010 so that Congress can initiate the many new
    management plans under that Act, more adequately implement newly
    completed and ongoing management plans, and otherwise ensure adequate
    stewardship.
        NCLS warrants funding of at least $75 million in fiscal year 2010--
    a modest increase over historic funding levels when accounting for the
    growth of NCLS, growth in visitation, increased threats due to booming
    populations in surrounding communities, inflation, significant
    uncontrollable costs such as insurance increases, and the
    aforementioned new designations. While we much appreciate that the
    President's budget maintains last year's congressional increases, the
    request for approximately $61 million is insufficient to prevent
    additional damage to NCLS's resources and to provide for management of
    the new designations.
        We urge support for the President's Climate Initiative and greatly
    appreciate the request for $7.3 million out of that initiative to be
    directed toward NCLS. This funding is for a specific initiative and
    through a separate account from NCLS's normal base budget, so we
    request that this initiative be supported above and beyond the $75
    million in base funding we are respectfully requesting.
        We also respectfully ask the subcommittee to give serious
    consideration to any member requests for increasing programmatic
    funding or land acquisition funding for NCLS units in the fiscal year
    20010 appropriations bill. These increases should be allocated in
    addition to, not in lieu of, funding already budgeted for each NCLSunit
    in the BLM's fiscal year 2010 budget.

                NCLS LAND AND WATER CONSERVATION FUND PRIORITIES

        The previous President nearly zeroed out funding for BLM land
    acquisition projects under LWCF. CSA greatly appreciates the new
    administration's indication that this important fund will be increased
    to fully authorized levels and hopes that the administration and
    Congress can work together to implement this vision. Over the last
    several years, funding for Federal land acquisition has been abysmally
    low, particularly for BLM. BLM land comprises 42 percent of all Federal
    lands administered by the primary Federal land management agencies.
    Yet, since 2000, BLM conservation lands have consistently received less
    than 12 percent of land acquisition funding for those agencies, with
    less than 6 percent the last 2 years.
        As with the other land management agencies, BLM has a conservation
    mandate, and many of its cultural and natural treasures with important
    land acquisition needs are in the NCLS. In order to protect the
    integrity of these national treasures, the DOI must invest more
    adequately in land acquisition for NCLS, including taking full
    advantage of funds authorized under the Federal Land Transaction
    Facilitation Act (FLTFA).
        We greatly appreciate that the President's budget includes $8.6
    million in funding for NCLS LWCF projects and request support for these
    projects. Additionally, we know of $20 million in additional land
    acquisition opportunities in fiscal year 2010 within NCLS that are
    ready for Federal purchase. We ask that the subcommittee ensure
    additional funding for these important projects that are ready for
    purchase.

         JOB CREATION AND ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITIES FROM NCLS INVESTMENTS

        NCLS supports the economies of surrounding communities through
    attracting short-term visitation and a long-term skilled labor force
    drawn to these communities by protected environmental amenities. A 2006
    study by the Outdoor Industry Foundation determined that the active
    outdoor recreation economy contributes $730 billion annually to the
    U.S. economy, touching more than 8 percent of America's personal
    consumption expenditures. NCLS lands and waters are critical components
    of the network of public lands systems that nurture and sustain these
    economic activities. A 2005 Sonoran Institute study, The National
    Landscape Conservation System's Contribution to Healthy Local
    Economies, determined that protected NCLS units are an important part
    of a successful combination of factors that make rural economies
    vibrant.
        NCLS units have many ``shovel-ready'' projects that cannot all be
    addressed by the recent stimulus package, projects such as restoration
    of riparian habitat, removing traces of decommissioned roads, pulling
    invasive weeds and restoring native flora to provide wildlife habitat
    and combat fire danger. Annual increases as part of the budget and
    appropriations process will ensure that these projects, strategically
    pursued, will provide needed jobs for surrounding communities while
    protecting nationally significant resources under BLM's care.
                                     ______

                  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 2010 appropriations. My name is Thomas J. Cassidy, Jr. and
    I am Director of Federal Programs at the Conservancy.
        The Nature Conservancy is an international, nonprofit 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.
        Climate Change.--The Conservancy appreciates the subcommittee's
    leadership in highlighting the need for increased investments in
    climate change science, particularly 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 also welcome the
    President's commitment to address this global environmental challenge,
    including his request for an increase in the Department of the
    Interior's (DOI) climate funding by $130 million.
        Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF).--Thank you for your
    leadership in restoring critically important funding for LWCF and other
    key programs. We are gratified by the President's commitment to fully
    fund LWCF and look forward to working with Secretary Salazar and the
    subcommittee to secure the funding to protect the Nation's treasured
    landscapes.
        We recommend a funding level of $325 million for the Federal side
    of LWCF. This year, the Conservancy is specifically recommending 29
    biologically rich land acquisition projects totaling $83 million.
    Priorities include Cherry Valley National Wildlife Refuge (NWR), the
    Nation's newest refuge, and continuing large-scale projects in New
    England's Silvio O. Conte National Fish and Wildlife Refuge, Montana's
    Blackfoot River watershed and several Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS)
    grasslands projects. Although we are gratified that the President's
    request is larger than fiscal year 2009 enacted, we are concerned by
    the sharp decrease in funding for U.S. Forest Service (USFS) LWCF
    projects and urge the subcommittee to provide funding necessary to
    support the agency's land acquisition needs, including in Wisconsin's
    Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forest, Oregon's Hells Canyon NRA and
    South Carolina's Francis Marion National Forest.
        Forest Legacy.--The President's request of $91 million would be a
    historic level of funding for this increasing popular and effective
    program. For fiscal year 2010, 84 projects were submitted by States to
    the USFS with a total project value of over $363 million. 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 $125 million for this program,
    and are specifically proposing 13 projects totaling $42.5 million. We
    are particularly pleased that the number one ranked project, Arizona's
    San Pedro River Ecosystem, is a Conservancy project. We are also
    gratified that our 127,000-acre Northern Cumberlands project received
    the largest funding request. It is the largest conservation deal in
    Tennessee since the creation of Great Smoky Mountains National Park.
    The State has provided $82,000,000 toward this 127,000-acre project,
    while private equity investors and philanthropy have leveraged an
    additional $45,000,000. Other priority projects include New York's
    Follensby Lake and Virginia's Chowan River Headwaters.
        Wildland Fire Management.--We greatly appreciate the subcommittee's
    leadership in funding hazardous fuels reduction to address the root
    problem of unhealthy forests. Overgrown forests, coupled with continued
    residential growth in fire-prone areas and a lengthening fire season in
    a warmer climate, are contributing to the ever-increasing costs of
    wildlife suppression. The Nature Conservancy is disappointed that the
    President's budget decreases funding for the Hazardous Fuel Reduction
    program by 5 percent. This reduction comes as a surprise after the
    overwhelming field response to economic recovery funding, with four
    times as many fuels treatment projects submitted as could be funded.
    Our recommendation for hazardous fuel reduction funding is $361 million
    for the USFS and $223 million for the DOI.
        We have four additional funding recommendations for focused
    investments within Wildland Fire Management. First, we are disappointed
    that the President's budget did not provide funding for the recently
    enacted Forest Landscape Restoration Act. The program will enable 10
    large landscapes across the Nation to receive sustained funding for
    fuels treatments that implement a collaboratively developed and
    science-based ecological restoration plan. The selected projects will
    also create jobs, provide woody biomass for local business use, and
    reduce catastrophic wildfire risks in ecosystems where damaging
    wildfire is exacerbated by climate change. The Conservancy recommends
    $40 million to fully fund this new program. Second, we recommend $60.5
    million for national fire plan State fire assistance and $7.7 million
    for the DOI rural fire assistance. Third, we recommend rehabilitation
    and restoration funding of $12.6 million for the USFS and $22.3 million
    for the DOI agencies to control invasive species spread after wild
    fire. Finally, we support the President's recommended reserve fund for
    fire suppression or creation of a FLAME fund for mega-fires in
    conjunction with strong cost management and accountability.
        Forest Health Management.--America's forests face a growing number
    of nonnative pests and diseases. The Conservancy appreciates the
    subcommittee's leadership in consistently providing funding
    significantly more than the President's request. The Forest Health
    Management program should receive an increase to $140 million to
    effectively address economically and ecologically damaging pests,
    including the asian longhorned beetle, emerald ash borer, hemlock
    woolly adelgid, sudden oak death, a newly described disease threatening
    walnut trees in the West, and the gold-spotted oak borer that has
    killed at least 17,000 trees in southern California since 2000.
        Forest Service Research Program.--We recommend an increase of $3
    million more than enacted for the ``Invasives R&D'' line item within
    the USFS 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 nonnative forest
    pests and diseases.
        Endangered Species.--The Conservancy supports an increase for the
    FWS's Cooperative Endangered Species Conservation Fund (CESCF) to $125
    million. We applaud the President's $100 million request, including a
    large increase to the recovery land acquisition program. If the
    subcommittee provides additional funding to this program, we suggest it
    carefully consider the significant needs for HCP funding. 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 this program to secure
    key habitat for numerous threatened, endangered and at-risk species. We
    also support continued funding for the Upper Colorado River Endangered
    Fish Recovery Program, recovery funds for the San Juan River Basin
    Recovery Implementation Program, and 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, plus the administration's request of $40 million to develop
    and implement climate adaptation strategies. Strong Federal investments
    are 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 a $5 million
    competitive grant program as a subset of the State Wildlife Grant
    Program.
        National Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS).--The Conservancy applauds
    the subcommittees' significant increases in last year's budget for
    operations and maintenance of NWRS, 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 NWRS. We also strongly
    support an increase in funding for new responsibilities of managing the
    pristine coral reef systems protected in the new Pacific Remote Islands
    Marine National Monument and Rose Atoll NWR.
        Migratory Bird Programs.--The Conservancy applauds the President's
    request of $52.6 million for the North American Wetlands Conservation
    Act and urge the subcommittee to provide at least that level of
    funding. The Conservancy also supports $19 million in funding for the
    Joint Ventures. We support increasing funding for the Migratory Bird
    Management Program with an emphasis on reversing declines in bird
    populations.
        Partnership Programs.--We recommend funding levels over fiscal year
    2009 for successful partnership programs, including the FWS Coastal
    Program ($18 million), Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program ($60
    million), and the National Fish Habitat Initiative ($10 million).
        International Programs.--The Conservancy, as part of an alliance of
    major international conservation groups, supports the International
    Conservation Budget, which calls for $15 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 $21 million for the FWS office of international
    affairs which includes Wildlife Without Borders; $6.5 million for the
    FWS' Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Fund; and $14 million for
    the U.S. Forest Service's International Programs.
        Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Resource Management.--The
    Conservancy supports robust funding for BLM resource management and
    planning activities. These funds are needed for landscape-scale
    assessments and planning initiatives to improve wildlife habitat, water
    quality, invasive species control, and more informed mitigation and
    siting decisions for traditional and renewable energy proposals. BLM
    and its partner agencies should be encouraged to use existing data sets
    so that funding can be focused on data gaps rather than creating
    duplicitous data sets.
        Omnibus Public Lands Management Bill.--The Conservancy strongly
    supported this historic legislation which protects some of the Nation's
    most scenic and ecologically important resources. We urge adequate
    funding to implement the legislation's many provisions, including the
    Owyhee Public Land Management and Washington County, Utah programs. We
    also request sufficient funding for the National Landscape Conservation
    System and $2 million for the Cooperative Watershed Management Program.
        United States Geological Survey: Water Resources.--We support
    increases over the fiscal year 2009 funding levels for the National
    Streamflow Information Program and the Cooperative Water Program. These
    programs provide scientific data needed by multiple public and private
    water managers and their partners. 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.
        Office of Insular Affairs.--We support at least $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,
    $25 million for the Great Lakes and $35 million for the Chesapeake Bay
    programs. We also support $30 million to support implementation of the
    Puget Sound Partnership's Action Agenda. Finally, we recommend $3
    million be directed to the Albemarle-Pamlico National Estuary Program
    to implement climate adaptation strategies on the low-lying lands of
    this nationally significant resource. Such funding would leverage $1.3
    million in private funding the Conservancy has already raised.
        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 subcommittee 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 fiscal year 2010 Interior, Environment, and
    Related Agencies appropriations bill.
                                     ______

                    Prepared Statement of the Town of Ophir

        Madam Chairman and honorable members of the subcommittee: Thank you
    Madam 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 Town Manager for the Town
    of Ophir, I am respectfully requesting the allocation of $2.75 million
    to the U.S. Forest Service's (USFS) fiscal year 2009 budget from the
    Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) for the Ophir Valley Project.
    These funds will be used to facilitate the USFS's continuing efforts to
    acquire 1,200 acres of privately owned in-holdings in the Ophir Valley
    to the collective benefit of both the current owners as well as all
    those who enjoy this unique area at present or may wish to do so in the
    future.
        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 just off the Federal 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 USFS
    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 more than 230
    acres of mining claims and investing more than $500,000 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 USFS 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 (1 of only 27 All American Roads in the National Scenic
    Byway program). The State's Great Outdoors Colorado Legacy Project
    program 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:
      --Protect public access to many thousands of acres of USFS lands for
            diverse recreational opportunities;
      --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;
      --improve USFS land management by consolidating ownership;
      --leverage Federal funding support with more than $10 million in
            State and local funding for regional recreation and land
            protection projects along the San Juan Scenic Byway;
      --protect the historic character of our 1881 mining camp-town; and,
      --protect the rugged alpine scenery of this pristine mountain valley.
        Upon completion, this comprehensive preservation effort will
    provide a reasonable, equitable, and enduring resolution to a multitude
    of land use and access conflicts associated with the extensive private
    ownership of inholdings within public lands in the area. Moreover, it
    will promote the effective and consistent land management practices of
    the USFS.
        Thank you for your support and leadership in conserving Colorado's
    land and water resources. LWCF 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 Trust for Public Land

        Chairwoman Mikulski and Ranking Member Shelby, thank you for the
    opportunity to submit testimony in support of funding for the Coastal
    and Estuarine Land Protection Program (CELCP) administered by the
    National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). My statement
    today urges you to provide funding through the CELCP to the coastal and
    lake States and the territories at the level of $60 million in fiscal
    year 2010. This funding is necessary to protect the ecologic,
    recreation, historic, and aesthetic values and the economic vitality of
    our coastal communities.
        The Trust for Public Land (TPL) is a national nonprofit land
    conservation organization that conserves land for people to enjoy as
    parks, community gardens, natural and scenic areas, historic sites,
    working landscapes, and other public assets. Since 1972, TPL has worked
    with willing landowners, community groups, and national, State, and
    local agencies to complete more than 4,000 land conservation projects
    that protect more than 2.5 million acres in 47 States and the
    territories. TPL has partnered with NOAA, private landowners, and State
    and local governments on over 50 CELCP-funded coastal land protection
    projects. Since 1988, TPL also has helped States and communities craft
    and pass over 463 ballot measures, generating almost $31 billion in new
    conservation-related funding. These conservation measures provide an
    important source of State and local matching funding for CELCP and
    other Federal land protection programs.
        TPL and other nongovernmental partners invest our energies,
    funding, and staff in the places where the threats to open spaces are
    most urgent. Not surprisingly, many of those public-private
    conservation partnerships have focused on our Nation's dwindling
    coastal open spaces. Even with the considerable focus on our most
    critical coastal ecosystems and shorelines, we continue to fall farther
    and farther behind in our efforts to help State and local government
    partners protect the coastal open spaces. In recent years, we have
    witnessed an unprecedented pace of resource-damaging development along
    our coastlines. The need for prompt conservation action in these
    sensitive and challenged areas is only increasing. The recent economic
    downturn may well provide a window of opportunity when public
    conservation agencies and partners can better compete and stretch
    limited acquisition dollars further, making this a wise time for
    strategic Federal investment in coastal conservation.
        Coastal protection provides many public benefits including
    buffering from storms and floods, filtering pollution and maintaining
    water quality, providing waterfront and coastal access for public
    recreation, supporting fish and shellfish populations important to
    commercial and recreational fisheries, preserving coastal habitats for
    nesting and foraging birds, and securing habitat for native wildlife
    including threatened and endangered species. The CELCP is the only
    Federal program dedicated exclusively to helping coastal communities
    protect their natural and recreational heritage. CELCP is essential
    Federal funding, that allows State and local governments, and their
    private conservation partners, to respond effectively to coastal
    conservation needs. The recent NOAA eligibility requirement that each
    coastal State develop a Coastal and Estuarine Land Conservation Plan
    helps ensure that both Federal and non-Federal dollars are being
    smartly targeted and wisely spent.
        The spiraling development pressures upon our Nation's coastal zone
    are obvious and well documented. Since 1970, coastal areas have
    experienced steady increases in population. According to NOAA, coastal
    counties constitute only 17 percent of the Nation's land areas, but
    account for 53 percent of its populations--a population density five
    times greater than noncoastal counties. According to the U.S.
    Commission on Ocean Policy, ``more than $1 trillion, or one-tenth of
    the Nation's annual gross domestic product, is generated within the
    relatively narrow strip of land immediately adjacent to the coast that
    we call the nearshore zone. When the economies throughout coastal
    watershed counties are considered, the contribution swells to more than
    $4.5 trillion, fully half of the Nation's gross domestic product,
    accounting for some 60 million jobs.'' The health of our coasts is
    inextricably linked with the economic health of the Nation.
        In 2002, Congress stepped in to respond to that need and enhance
    the Federal role within the Federal-State coastal conservation
    partnership by creating the CELCP to protect ``those coastal and
    estuarine areas with significant conservation, recreation, ecological,
    historical, or aesthetic values, or that are threatened by conversion
    from their natural or recreational states to other uses.'' Authorized
    at $60 million annually, funding for the program grew from an initial
    $15 provided in fiscal year 2002, to a high of $50 million in 2004,
    before declining each subsequent year to a low of $8 million in fiscal
    year 2008. Despite its uneven funding history, the CELCP has built an
    impressive track record. To date, the over funded over 150 conservation
    projects in 26 of the Nation's coastal States and territories helping
    to protect approximately 35,000 acres. This Federal funding has been
    leveraged by at least an equal amount of State, local, and private
    matching investments, demonstrating the broad support for the program,
    the importance of coastal protection, and the critical role of Federal
    funding to accelerate coastal protection. Inclusion of the Coastal and
    Estuarine Land Protection Act in the recently passed H.R. 146, the
    Omnibus Public Lands Management Act of 2009, formally codifies CELCP
    and recognizes the program's achievement and significance.
        In 2007, by directive from this subcommittee, NOAA instituted a
    competitive grants selection process for the CELCP. The CELCP team at
    NOAA has done an impressive job of managing this transition and
    creating a thorough competitive grants process. In the last 3 years,
    NOAA, in partnership with the States, has identified over $230 million
    of vetted and ranked projects. While we support the competitive nature
    of the program, full funding at $60 million annually is needed to meet
    the demand of increasingly high-quality projects being developed by
    States with other partners and submitted to NOAA. We were pleased to
    see the program funding increased to $15 million in fiscal year 2009,
    reversing a 5-year funding decline. However, this will only fund the
    first 8 or so of the 43 competitively ranked projects in fiscal year
    2009, meeting a fraction of the total project need of $63 million.
        The CELCP is the only Federal program dedicated exclusively to
    helping coastal communities protect their natural and recreational
    heritage. CELCP provides essential Federal funding that allows State
    and local governments, and their private conservation partners, to
    respond effectively to coastal conservation needs. Perhaps the best way
    to underscore the critical value of this program to the American people
    is to provide some examples of the projects seeking funding in fiscal
    year 2010:
    Lapakahi Marine Life Conservation District (MLCD), Hawaii County,
            Hawaii
        CELCP funding will protect the last privately held property
    fronting the Lapakahi MLCD on the North Kohala coast of the big island
    of Hawaii. This 17.05-acre tract includes 200 feet of shoreline and
    will connect a total of 1.75 miles of publicly held coastline and
    protect habitat for the threatened green sea turtle and the endangered
    Hawaiian monk seal. The requested $1.25 million from the Hawaii Legacy
    Land Conservation Fund Program will match CELCP funding in the amount
    of $1.25 million.
    Magnolia Hill Conservation Project, Massachusetts
        The City of Gloucester, The Trust for Public Land, The Trustees of
    Reservations, and Essex County Greenbelt Association are working to
    protect the 109-acre Magnolia Hill property in the coastal area of
    Essex County, Massachusetts. This upland habitat overlooking Gloucester
    Harbor represents an intact Oak-Hemlock-White Pine forest and wooded
    swamp supporting the State-listed Blue spotted Salamander and State-
    endangered Sweetbay Magnolia. The property drains into a 12-acre tidal
    coastal salt pond, Clark Pond, and connects 1,270 acres of contiguous
    protected coastal zone habitat. $3 million in CELCP funding will be
    matched by an equal amount of State, local, and private funds.
    Harsens Island Conservation Area, Lake St. Clair, Michigan
        The 547-acre Harsens Island Conservation Area lies at the heart of
    the St. Clair flats--the largest freshwater delta in the world. Located
    on both the Atlantic and Mississippi flyways, migratory waterfowl use
    of these coastal waters and wetlands has historically reached 3 million
    annually. Protection will enhance public access for recreation,
    eliminate the threat of development, and protect sensitive coastal
    habitat. $7 million in Michigan Natural Resources Trust Fund dollars
    will match a $3 million CELCP grant.
    Houghton Falls Nature Preserve, Lake Superior, Bayview Township,
            Wisconsin
        77 acres on the Bayfield Peninsula with 2,230 feet of Lake Superior
    shoreline will be protected as a Bayfield town park. This rare boreal
    forest habitat contains numerous species of concern including the Gray
    Wolf, Northern Flying Squirrel, Woodland Jumping Mouse, and Water
    Shrew. The property is an important stopover for Neotropical migratory
    birds, and a fish nursery for Lake superior whitefish and other
    species. A $1.423 million CELCP grant will be equally matched with
    funding from the Wisconsin Knowles-Nelson Stewardship Fund.
    Kiket Island Addition to Deception Pass State Park, Phase II, Skagit
            County, Washington
        A $3 million CELCP grant will purchase the final 40 acres of the
    Kiket Island project in northern Puget Sound to protect a total of 96
    acres of high-quality coastal habitat and more than 2 miles of
    shoreline threatened. Kiket Island is an intact, intertidal zone with
    all eight species of Puget Sound anadromous fish, including the
    endangered Chinook salmon and bull trout. The forested portion of Kiket
    Island provides excellent habitat for bird, including owls, and other
    native wildlife. A $3 million CELCP grant will be matched with $3.431
    million from Washington State parks.
    Ayers Creek-Holly Grove Swamp, Worcester County, Maryland
        To be protected are 431 acres along Ayers Creek within the waters
    of Newport Bay and the larger Maryland Coastal Bays area. The property,
    including one-half mile of tidally influenced shoreline, will be added
    to the State's Ilia Fehrer Nature Reserve. The forested wetlands are
    important habitat for 11 State- and/or federally listed species. $1
    million from Maryland Program Open Space and $250,000 from Worcester
    County Program Open Space Funds will match $1.25 million in CELCP
    funding.
    Keewaydin Island, Rookery Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve,
            Florida
        TPL is working in partnership with the State of Florida to protect
    5 crucial acres of beach front within and adjoining the Rookery Bay
    National Estuarine Research Reserve (RBNERR). The RBNERR protects the
    largest and most pristine subtropical mangrove estuary in the world,
    with over 150 species of wading, nesting and migratory birds, and
    numerous threatened and endangered species including the Atlantic
    loggerhead sea turtle, gopher tortoise, least tern, piping plover, and
    West Indian manatee. $1.5 million from the Florida Forever Program will
    match a $1.5 million CELCP grant.
    San Miguel Natural Reserve III, Puerto Rico
        Fiscal year 2010 CELCP funding will complete the final phase of
    this 601-acre coastal land protection effort at the San Miguel Natural
    Reserve on the northern coast of Puerto Rico. One of the last
    ecologically functional wetlands together with an undeveloped coastal
    shoreline, this area is home to 42 critical species, including nesting
    grounds for the federally listed Leatherback sea turtle. A $3 million
    CELCP grant, matched by a land value donation from the landowner, will
    protect the final 179 acres.
        These several examples are just a small representation of the
    breadth and depth of CELCP needs for the coming year across our
    Nation's coastal geographies and communities. In closing, TPL urges you
    to provide full funding of the CELCP at the authorized level of $60
    million in fiscal year 2010 for this critically important program. This
    level of Federal commitment is necessary to meet the demonstrated
    program need and to position NOAA to be fully responsive to the many
    State and local governments and private partners working together to
    protect our coastal heritage. Thank you.
                                     ______

                   Prepared Statement of The Wildlife Society

        The Wildlife Society appreciates the opportunity to provide
    comments on the fiscal year 2010 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 (FWS)

        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 support the
    President's request of $115 million for the State and Tribal Wildlife
    Grants program in fiscal year 2010. This funding level would enhance
    the ability of state fish and wildlife agencies and their partners to
    implement State Wildlife Action Plans and address the impacts of
    climate change on wildlife and their habitats.
        The State and Tribal Wildlife Grants Program is the only Federal
    program dedicated to implementation of State Wildlife Action Plans.
    Congress required State and territorial fish and wildlife agencies to
    develop and implement these plans to reverse the decline of at-risk
    fish and wildlife. The plans are being used across the country to
    prioritize and guide wildlife conservation work, helping to protect
    vital ecosystem services and recreational opportunities valued in the
    hundreds of billion of dollars.
        Addressing climate change is one of the most daunting tasks facing
    the conservation community. We support the addition of $40 million in
    climate change funding through the State Wildlife Grants program which
    provides States and tribes with the resources they need to plan and
    implement conservation actions needed to mitigate the impacts of
    climate change and help wildlife adapt. State fish and wildlife
    agencies are facing significant budget declines during the economic
    downturn making it increasingly difficult to secure matching funds. We
    ask that the subcommittee consider reducing the Federal:State match
    requirement for climate change activities to 90:10.
        The Wildlife Society is a member of the Cooperative Alliance for
    Refuge Enhancement (CARE), a diverse coalition of 23 wildlife,
    sporting, conservation, and scientific organizations representing more
    than 14 million members and supporters. A comprehensive analysis by
    CARE determined that the National Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS) needs
    $808 million in annual operations and maintenance funding by 2013 to
    properly administer its nearly 150 million acres, educational programs,
    and habitat restoration projects. Consecutive stagnant budgets have
    increased the operations and maintenance backlog to $3.5 billion, and
    forced plans for a 20 percent downsizing of the workforce. Refuge
    visitors often show up to find roads and visitor centers closed, trails
    and observation platforms 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 NWRS in fiscal year 2009, and we urge the Congress to build upon
    this important step in the fiscal year 2010 budget. We request that you
    provide $514 million in fiscal year 2010 for the operations and
    maintenance of the NWRS.
        The North American Wetlands Conservation Act is a cooperative,
    nonregulatory, 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 $10 million increase, and support full funding of
    $75 million by fiscal year 2012.
        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 $6.5 million in fiscal year 2010.
        The Wildlife Society supports adequate funding levels for all
    subactivities within the Endangered Species Program. 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 support
    the President's request of $164 million for this key program in fiscal
    year 2010.
        In fiscal year 2008 and 2009, funding for the Science Excellence
    Initiative was zeroed out in the administration's budget. Discontinuing
    funding for this office will prevent FWS from expanding its on-the-
    ground scientific capacity in adaptive resource management, structured
    decision analysis, and conservation genetics. Elimination of these
    programs will reduce FWS's capacities in key areas and prevent the
    expansion of these programs to other regions of FWS. The Wildlife
    Society strongly recommends that Congress fund the Science Excellence
    Initiative at $493,000 in fiscal year 2010.

                        BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT (BLM)

        BLM manages more land, and more wildlife habitat, than any other
    Federal agency, including half of the remaining habitat for the
    imperiled sage grouse and almost 15 million acres of prairie grasslands
    vital to many declining grassland-dependent species. The diverse
    habitats managed by BLM support more than 3,000 species of wildlife,
    more than 300 federally proposed or listed species, and more than 1,300
    sensitive plant species.
        However, the BLM has only one biologist per 591,000 acres of land
    and estimated costs for recovery of threatened and endangered species
    on BLM lands are $300 million annually over the next 5 years. Moreover,
    the status of the wide-ranging declining sage grouse is of great
    concern, and significant additional resources will be needed for its
    protection.
        In addition, the Wildlife and Fisheries Management (WFM) and the
    Threatened and Endangered Species Management (TESM) programs have been
    forced to pay for the compliance activities of BLM's energy, grazing,
    and other nonwildlife-related programs. Traditionally, funding for
    compliance work has come from benefiting programs; however in recent
    years, at least 30 percent of WFM and TESM resources have been
    routinely diverted to other programs, eroding their ability to conduct
    proactive species and habitat conservation activities and efforts to
    recover listed species. While this practice has undergone increased
    scrutiny in the last 2 years, nothing has emerged to suggest that the
    situation has been rectified.
        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 $55 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.
        Increased funding is needed for the TESM program to meet its
    conservation responsibilities in endangered species recovery plans.
    BLM's March 2001 report to Congress 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 inequity
    between resource needs and funding levels, we strongly encourage
    Congress to increase overall funding for this program to $33.5 million
    in fiscal year 2010

                         U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY (USGS)

        The Wildlife Society supports funding of $1.5 billion for USGS in
    fiscal year 2010. 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 human-caused hazards. More investment is needed to
    strengthen USGS partnerships, improve monitoring networks, produce
    high-quality digital geospatial data, and deliver the best possible
    science to address critical environmental and societal challenges.
        We support the increased funding proposed 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. 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 2010 budget for the CFWRUs should be
    increased to $19.5 million. This would restore necessary capacity in
    the CFWRU program and allow it to meet the Nation's research and
    training needs.
        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 2010, 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
    Climate Change and Wildlife Science Center in the fiscal year 2009
    omnibus, which provided $10 million for the Center. This center will
    play a pivotal role in addressing the impacts of climate change on fish
    and wildlife. The Wildlife Society supports the recommended funding
    level of $15 million in fiscal year 2010.

                           U.S. FOREST SERVICE (USFS)

        Our national forests and grasslands are essential to the
    conservation of our Nation's wildlife and habitat, with about 425
    threatened and endangered species, and another 3,250 at-risk species,
    calling them home. The fiscal year 2007 appropriation of $131.7 million
    for the Wildlife and Fisheries Habitat Management Program accomplished
    more than 4,700 projects and generated an additional $50.4 million in
    partner contributions. However, USFS has estimated that it could expend
    two times that amount or $260 million on projects with existing
    staffing. We urge Congress to increase funding for this program to at
    least $154 million in fiscal year 2010.
        Upward trends in fire suppression costs increasingly prevent the
    Forest Service, and other agencies, from implementing critical programs
    and fulfilling their missions. Congress must identify a new mechanism
    for funding emergency fire suppression activities. A partitioned
    wildfire suppression account to fund emergency fires should be created,
    so that emergency fire spending does not impact nonemergency agency
    budgets. In addition, the 10-year rolling average should be replaced
    with a more predictive statistical model that utilizes current weather,
    drought, and fuel load as well as fire history and other data to
    project the extent of wildland fire on the landscape and the funding
    needed to address it. The USFS and DOI must continue developing and
    implementing a rigorous set of measures for linking fire management to
    fire costs in order to more effectively achieve cost containment.
    Finally, investment of funds into the range of agency programs that
    have been impacted by increasing suppression costs must occur for
    agencies to accomplish their missions.
        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) represents more than 400,000 members
    and supporters across the United States who support our mission to
    protect wilderness and inspire Americans to care for our wild places.
    We thank the subcommittee for the opportunity to submit comments on the
    fiscal year 2010 Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related
    Agencies appropriations bill.
        Over the last 2 years, 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, but despite this
    progress, these and other indispensable conservation programs continue
    to suffer from years of underfunding.
        To make matters worse, the effects of climate change are already
    being felt on public lands nationwide. Protection of these lands help
    buffer flooding and wildfire, conserve water, support healthy fisheries
    and wildlife populations, limit sea-level rise and the spread of
    invasives, and aide in carbon storage.
        The President has sent a strong message to Congress by supporting a
    budget that assumes the passage of a cap-auction-and-trade climate
    protection program. The revenues generated from this program should be
    invested in the public welfare, including the protection of biodiverse
    ecosystems that protect our public health. It is too late to prevent
    climate disruption, because the pollution dumped into the air for the
    past 100 years will affect us for the next 100, guaranteeing an
    increase in severe climate events related to global warming.
        However, it is not too late to secure the public protection that
    comes from keeping our watersheds functioning and our air filtered by
    resilient natural landscapes. According to the U.S. Forest Service
    (USFS), we are losing 6,000 acres a day of forested and open space.
    These intact forest systems are a weapon against the ravages of global
    warming, and we should protect them the way an army protects the
    armory. To build resilient landscapes, we must keep them from being
    broken apart, fragmented, disconnected and degraded. Accordingly, we
    urge that you take bold, immediate action in making additional
    investments for fiscal year 2010. 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 (LWCF)

        Our 682 million acres of Federal land and waterways provide a
    critical opportunity to address the unprecedented challenges that
    climate change poses to our forests, fish and wildlife, and riparian
    resources. The strategic acquisition of key inholdings, buffer areas,
    and wildlife migration corridors within and adjacent to existing public
    lands enhances adaptation efforts and fosters intact landscapes. These
    natural areas also store carbon, buffer flooding, conserve water, and
    support healthy fisheries and wildlife populations. Hand-in-hand with
    mitigating the deleterious impacts of our environment from burning
    fossil fuels is the need to respond to climate change with a
    foresighted investment in land protection and natural resource
    adaptation across the Federal public lands. President Obama has
    indicated that LWCF should be fully funded by 2014, and his 2010 budget
    request includes $216.7 million for the Federal and State grants LWCF--
    a 21 percent increase more than fiscal year 2009. However, this
    accounts for only half of the funding expended under LWCF. We urge that
    the Federal and State grants program receive a higher percentage of
    LWCF dollars in the future as the program reaches its full funding
    level of $900 million. TWS' fiscal year 2010 recommendation for the
    LWCF is $450 million ($325 million for Federal and $125 million for
    stateside), an increase of $278.1 million more than fiscal year 2009
    enacted level of $171.9 million. We also support conserving land and
    natural resources in Connecticut, New Jersey, New York, and
    Pennsylvania through the Highlands Conservation Act.
        A sampling of TWS LWCF and forest legacy acquisition priorities for
    fiscal year 2010 follows:
      --Arizona.--Maumelle water excellence. Forest legacy request: $3.6
            million
      --California.--Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains National
            Monument. LWCF request: $1.5 million
      --Georgia.--Chattahoochee River NRA. LWCF request: $3.1 million
      --Maryland.--Blackwater National Wildlife Refuge. LWCF request: $2
            million
      --Montana.--Red Rocks Lake National Wildlife Refuge. LWCF request: $1
            million
      --North Carolina.--Pisgah National Forest; Uwarrie National Forest.
            LWCF request: $2 million
      --New Hampshire.--Lake Umbagog National Wildlife Refuge. LWCF
            request: $5 million
      --New Mexico.--Sevilleta National Wildlife Refuge. LWCF request: $2
            million
      --Oregon.--Cascade Siskiyou National Monument. LWCF request: $4
            million
      --South Carolina.--Congaree National Park. LWCF request: $2.7 million
      --Washington.--Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest. LWCF request:
            $1.7 million; Okanogan Wenatchee National Forest. LWCF request:
            $250,000
           forest legacy and community forest and open space program
        The Forest Legacy Program (FLP) helps to preserve working
    forestlands threatened by conversion/development. To date, this program
    has protected more than 1.7 million acres in 36 States and Puerto Rico.
    A total of $381 million of Federal funds have been matched by $484
    million in non-Federal funds and donations, making the Federal share
    only 44 percent of overall project costs. FLP funding has steadily
    diminished from a height of $69 million in fiscal year 2003, while
    demand for funding has steadily increased. For fiscal year 2010, the
    USFS received 84 project proposals from 44 States and territories to
    protect 288,530 acres with a total project value of more than $363
    million. The President's budget includes a much needed 37 percent
    increase in the FLP to $91.1 million. This is a strong commitment that
    brings FLP closer to its recommended and necessary level. TWS'
    recommendation for fiscal year 2010 is that the FLP be funded at $125
    million.
        The Forest Service (USFS) has begun its rulemaking process for the
    Community Forest and Open Space Program (CFOSP). The President's 2010
    budget has allocated $1 million to initiate the program, which will
    enable communities to conserve thousands of forested acres, thereby
    maintaining carbon sequestration and storage where otherwise
    development might have occurred. TWS' fiscal year 2010 recommendation
    for CFOSP is $75 million for this program's first year.

                        BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT (BLM)

        Over the past 8 years, BLM's budget has been severely unbalanced in
    its emphasis on oil and gas development, which has doubled while other
    program areas have been shortchanged. Despite these large increases,
    the Obama administration has requested a $10.8 million increase in
    BLM's oil and gas budget, from $79.5 million enacted in fiscal year
    2009, to $90.3 million requested. We strongly recommend that any
    increases in the BLM's oil and gas program budget be devoted to
    enhanced inspection, enforcement, monitoring and compliance activities.
    Promises made in past years by the BLM regarding the implementation of
    various measures to mitigate the increasingly adverse impacts of oil
    and gas development on our western public lands have largely been
    unmet, while the agency has devoted its efforts almost exclusively to
    expediting the issuance of leases and APDs, frequently on sensitive
    lands containing important wildlife habitat, cultural artifacts, and
    wilderness values. We recommend that Congress address this imbalance by
    appropriating a larger proportion of the BLM's budget for its
    environmental stewardship programs, rather than its oil and gas
    program.
        We recommend that a portion of the increase requested in the BLM's
    minerals programs be allocated to the National Academy of Sciences
    (NAS) for an evaluation of the current status of oil shale development
    technology. ``Research, Development and Demonstration'' (RD&D) oil
    shale leases issued by the Bush administration in 2005 have yielded no
    helpful results to date for policy-makers interested in whether or not
    the oil shale deposits of the Piceance Basin can be developed in a
    commercially viable and environmentally safe way. The last
    comprehensive evaluation of the status of oil shale technology was
    published by Congress' Office of Technology assessment in 1980. Those
    results were useful to policy-makers at the time, but are severely out
    of date. We recommend that Congress mandate sufficient funds from the
    BLM's oil and gas budget be used by the NAS to develop and publish an
    evaluation of oil shale technologies, including an evaluation of the
    environmental hazards posed by commercial oil sale development, and the
    impact on other natural resources from the potential development of oil
    shale to be completed by the close of fiscal year 2011. This evaluation
    would be designed to assist the Department of the Interior in
    determining the parameters of any future RD&D oil shale leases.
        Finally, it is our hope that the new administration will review and
    revise the policies governing the BLM's oil and gas leasing program to
    better ensure that sensitive lands and resources that have been put at
    risk by the previous administration's irresponsible development
    policies are better protected from the damage that irresponsible oil
    and as activities can wreak on the environment, and that the
    Administration will direct BLM to take into account the impacts of its
    management decisions on climate change.

              BLM'S NATIONAL LANDSCAPE CONSERVATION SYSTEM (NCLS)

        BLM's NCLS currently comprises some 27 million acres of
    congressionally and presidentially designated lands and waters, such as
    National Monuments and National Conservation Areas. Stewardship of
    NCLS's many units provides jobs for thousands of Americans while
    supporting vibrant and sustainable economies in surrounding
    communities. NCLS provides immeasurable public values in return for
    modest investments, including outstanding recreational opportunities,
    wildlife habitat, clean water, and open space near fast-growing cities.
    NCLS also provides a living laboratory where the challenges of climate
    change can be studied and landscape level habitat restoration can take
    place. Investments today will not only help maintain and enhance these
    critical landscapes but also provide for numerous volunteer and job
    opportunities that are needed today and cost effective in the long-
    term. NCLS's budget has suffered from neglect since its inception since
    2000. Recent congressional increases are helping address backlogs, but
    additional funding is critical to restore landscapes, protect resources
    from neglect and damage, and to fund initiation of NCLS's many new
    management plans and adequate implementation of existing plans. Recent
    changes to NCLS's budget have improved clarity in NCLS's budget, but
    NCLS still suffers from a lack of prominence in BLM's budget structure.
    TWS' fiscal year 2010 recommendation is full budget clarity for NCLS,
    funding of $75 million, a modest increase of $14.2 million more than
    the fiscal year 2009 enacted level, and support for the President's
    Climate Change Initiative and NCLS's share of those funds.

                           NATIONAL PARK SYSTEM (NPS)

        Our NPS is comprised of 391 units that represent our Nation's
    wondrous and diverse natural and cultural resources. Increased funding
    is essential to ensure that these historic and ecologically important
    sites provide invaluable visitor experiences and thrive as wild
    landscapes adapting to a changing climate. The American Recovery and
    Investment Act (ARRA) allocated $750 million to the National Park
    Service to protect these national icons, and the President's budget
    recommends an increase of $100 million for operations to protect this
    investment and help further reduce NPS's multi-billion dollar
    maintenance backlog. In addition, the President has requested $25
    million to help prepare the National Park Service for its centennial
    anniversary in 2016. These funds are critical to both the immediate
    needs and sustainable future of these public lands.

                     NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE SYSTEM (NWRS)

        NWRS, with its 549 refuges on nearly 150 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 brought funding to a level that is close to what
    the NWRS 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. NWRS needs $765 million in annual
    funds to adequately address its operations and maintenance needs of the
    NWRS. TWS' fiscal year 2010 recommendation for the NWRS is the same as
    last year's request of $514 million.

                                 WILDLAND FIRE

        TWS is pleased that congress is recognizing that past borrowing
    from other agency programs for wildland fire suppression has caused
    project cancellations, strained relationships with partners, and
    disruptions in management. Additionally, we are encouraged by the
    passage of the FLAME bill which is an important first step in
    addressing the increasing costs of suppression while helping to stave
    off large transfers from other agency programs. However, we are
    concerned that several adopted amendments change the underlying intent
    and purpose of the FLAME Act. The original goal of the act is to
    establish a framework for the administration's proposed contingency
    fund for emergency wildfires. The next steps include short and long-
    term solutions for suppression cost containment. President Obama's USFS
    budget proposes a $282 million contingency reserve fund for USFS and
    $75 million for BLM for wildfire suppression, which would help to
    reduce the need for emergency supplemental funding and more importantly
    alleviate the agencies' need to transfer and debilitate other critical
    agency programs.
        Additionally, TWS recommends appropriators retire the use of the
    10-year average in accounting for annual suppression costs and use a
    scientifically based predictive model, to include climate change as a
    factor, for suppression estimates. Additionally, appropriators are
    encouraged to provide funding to train firefighters to manage
    wildfires. A 1 percent increase in preparedness allocated to
    firefighter training would arm wildland firefighter with a full range
    of tactical response expertise from monitoring to aggressive attack,
    which will lead to healthier landscapes and reduce suppression costs in
    the future.

         NATIONAL FOREST SYSTEM AND CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT AND MAINTENANCE

        President Obama's USFS budget for fiscal year 2010 proposes a new
    initiative funded at $50 million to protect investments made by ARRA,
    implement travel planning that emphasizes road decommissioning, and
    address urgent facilities maintenance. The budget also provides
    increases to the FLP ($34 million) and $50 million allocated to the
    Legacy Roads and Trails Program highlight the administration's
    commitment to improving ecosystem health through land protection and
    reducing the forest road system. Unfortunately, many programs are posed
    to receive minor cuts or remain at the same low funding levels as in
    recent prior years. These programs include recreation and wilderness,
    fish and wildlife, state fire assistance which helps communities in
    fire prone areas to protect themselves.
        TWS recommends congress revise the USFS annual appropriations to
    reduce commodity production and increase funding for programs that will
    strengthen forests to mitigate the effects of climate change including:
    $77.9 million for Forest Inventory Analysis to effectively track
    changes in forest health due to climate stresses and changes in
    management; $377 million for recreation, wilderness and heritage
    (including $84.1 million for travel management planning); $197.4
    million for wildlife and fish habitat management; $325 million for road
    maintenance for maintenance of roads that have completed a roads
    analysis; and $100 million for Legacy Roads & Trails Remediation
    program for decommissioning projects that improve water quality and
    fish habitat. Finally, we urge congress to advise the agency to undergo
    a comprehensive review of Government Accounting Office and Office of
    Inspector General recommendations on maintaining an evolving and
    effective accounting program based on accurate data collection, storage
    and reporting in order to increase USFS budget and project
    transparency.

                              U.S. CLIMATE RESERVE

        According to the USFS, we are losing the equivalent of two Rhode
    Island's worth of open space a year. Some of this occurs on public
    lands. Our diminishing old-growth and mature forests need to be viewed
    as a national treasure of carbon storage. The U.S. Climate Reserve
    needs to be nurtured and enhanced, both as a carbon sink and as a
    storehouse of other ecosystem services on which we rely. But we need to
    provide incentives for private landowners as well, because 60 percent
    of our Nation's forests are privately owned. If we are to mitigate the
    threat of climate change, we need to recognize the public service
    provided by every private landowner who is willing to protect his
    forest from development, require sustainable practices when harvesting,
    and protect watersheds with replanting and riparian buffer zones. From
    wilderness designation to wetland banking, we need a truly national
    strategy to stop the galloping destruction of our existing carbon
    stocks that begins with the recognition that our forests are weapons in
    the fight against global warming and should be protected.
                                     ______

     Prepared Statement of The Wilderness Society and Washington Watershed
                             Restoration Initiative

        The Wilderness Society and the Washington Watershed Restoration
    Initiative strongly support funding for the Forest Service Legacy Roads
    and Trails Remediation Program, for which we are requesting a $100
    million appropriation in fiscal year 2010.
        One of the most serious environmental and fiscal problems facing
    the USDA Forest Service (USFS) is the deterioration of the vastly
    overbuilt, 380,000-mile road system on the national forests. The USFS's
    crumbling road system is causing serious damage to streams, fish
    habitat, and water supplies and is making recreational access to trails
    and campgrounds increasingly difficult for millions of Americans. The
    agency is also facing a $10 billion backlog of road maintenance and
    remediation needs that grows larger every year. As winter rain storms
    and peak stream flows intensify due to global warming, the ecological
    damage and financial costs of the USFS's road system are certain to
    grow.
        Fortunately, Congress decided to do something about the problem by
    creating the Legacy Roads and Trails Remediation Program in the fiscal
    year 2008 appropriations act. The Legacy Roads Program began with a $40
    million appropriation to fix deteriorating USFS roads and trails. With
    that initial funding, the USFS accomplished the following activities:
      --1,533 miles of system roads maintained;
      --180 miles of authorized roads decommissioned;
      --351 miles of unauthorized roads decommissioned;
      --6 bridges or major culverts decommissioned;
      --631 miles of system roads improved;
      --11 bridges or major culverts repaired or replaced; and
      --22 miles of system trails improved.
        Many national forests have greatly benefited from the Legacy Roads
    funding, especially in the Pacific Northwest.
        Congress recently boosted funding for the Legacy Roads Program to
    $50 million in the fiscal year 2009 Omnibus Appropriations Act. In
    addition, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) included
    $650 million for USFS road and trail maintenance and decommissioning
    and other capital improvement projects. We have urged the USFS to spend
    $100 million of that amount on trails and $280 million on
    decommissioning unneeded forest roads and fixing needed roads. We are
    also encouraged that the President's budget for fiscal year 2010
    includes $50 million for Legacy Roads.
        The Legacy Roads Program is an excellent way to stimulate
    employment in rural communities, as well as improve fish and wildlife
    habitat, recreational opportunities, and clean water for numerous
    communities. Our preliminary analysis of total economic impacts in
    Montana and Idaho indicates that each $1 million spent on road
    decommissioning activities in those States generates about 22 jobs,
    $500,000 in wages, and $250,000 in business income.
        The Wilderness Society, the Washington Watershed Restoration
    Initiative, and numerous other organizations across the Nation are very
    pleased to see a steady and increasing flow of Federal funding for the
    Legacy Roads Program. This funding stream provides an opportunity to
    make serious headway on ``right-sizing'' the USFS's hugely overbuilt
    380,000-mile road system. We believe that in fiscal year 2010 the USFS
    should use Legacy Roads Program funds to (1) complete road analysis and
    identify road remediation needs, (2) work collaboratively in
    prioritized watersheds, and (3) focus on decommissioning unneeded
    roads.

                        FISCAL YEAR 2010 RECOMMENDATIONS

        Following are recommendations developed by The Wilderness Society
    and the Washington Watershed Restoration Initiative, based largely on
    our initial evaluation of the Legacy Roads Program's first year of
    implementation.
        Funding Level.--We recommend an appropriation of $100 million for
    the Legacy Roads and Trails Remediation Program in fiscal year 2010. We
    believe that expanding the program and sustaining it for several years
    will allow the USFS to correct the most urgent problems and to develop
    long-term plans for dealing with the rest of the road system. Increased
    funding to right-size and improve the forest road system is essential
    to combating the impacts of climate change and ensuring the survival of
    salmon, steelhead, and many other species in the national forests.
        Integration with ARRA.--We also recommend that you consider ways of
    integrating fiscal year 2010 Legacy Roads funds with ARRA funds. The
    ARRA is creating thousands of jobs in the private sector by providing
    funds for the USFS to implement ``shovel-ready'' projects such as
    forest road maintenance and decommissioning. However, the USFS is not
    using ARRA funds to conduct the road analysis, NEPA planning, and
    design work that are necessary to build a ``pipe-line'' of future
    projects. Some funds for that essential staff planning work could come
    from the Legacy Roads Program, especially in fiscal year 2010 and 2011
    when ARRA funds are available for project implementation.
        Roads Analysis.--As discussed previously, the USFS needs to get
    serious about completing comprehensive roads analysis, including the
    level 1 and 2 roads that have generally been overlooked and neglected
    to date. Level 1 and 2 roads have not only been overlooked in planning
    but also have been given short shrift in maintenance, leaving these
    routes the most degraded and the most damaging to watersheds. We are
    glad that the conference report for the fiscal year 2009 Omnibus
    Appropriations Act included direction to the USFS to use existing
    regulatory authorities to evaluate its entire transportation system and
    identify unneeded roads. The 2001 roads policy provides all the
    necessary authority and procedural guidelines to the USFS; what the
    agency needs now is funding and continued direction from Congress and
    the administration to implement it. Therefore, we recommend that the
    fiscal year 2010 appropriations bill specify that Legacy Roads funds
    can and should be used to complete roads analysis, including
    identification of the minimum road system needed on each forest and a
    list of priorities for road decommissioning.
        Right-sizing vs. Downgrading the Road System.--Funding provided by
    both the Legacy Roads Program and the ARRA should allow the USFS to re-
    evaluate the entire road system in an effort to right-size it. In
    recent years, rather than eliminating unneeded roads, the USFS's
    strategy has been to ``shrink'' the system by downgrading the
    maintenance level categories of the roads. For example, in the Pacific
    Northwest, the USFS has cut in half the size of the road system that is
    maintained for passenger cars during the past two decades, while total
    road mileage has remained nearly constant at about 92,000 miles. This
    cost-cutting approach completely fails to address the ecological
    impacts of poorly maintained roads and will result in increased
    mitigation costs over the long term as under-maintained level 1 and 2
    roads are more likely to fail in the future. The USFS needs a new,
    environmentally responsible strategy to restore forest watersheds and
    create healthy, resilient ecosystems by reclaiming and storm-proofing
    roads.
        Stability.--Because it is so new, the USFS regarded the Legacy
    Roads Program as a special add-on to its regularly funded programs.
    Hopefully, that view will change if Legacy Roads funding is repeatedly
    included in the President's budget and in congressional appropriations.
    Agency managers need consistent, sustained funding in order to add the
    necessary staff for the program to be efficiently implemented. We are
    also interested in exploring other ways in which Congress can provide
    greater stability to the program, such as the following:
      --Amend the forest roads section of the highway bill to allow gas tax
            funds to be used for USFS road remediation. The WWRI and a
            national coalition with more than 100 supporters have requested
            that a new ``Forest Roads Reclamation and Remediation Program''
            be added to the bill and funded at $200 million annually.
      --Enact the FLAME bill in order to end the disruptive and
            destabilizing practice of ``fire-borrowing.''
      --Enact new legislation that includes an authorization of
            appropriations for road decommissioning.
        Monitoring.--The Legacy Roads Program should include adequate funds
    and direction to the USFS for environmental monitoring and reporting.
    Monitoring and evaluation are crucial not only to identify where roads
    are causing continued harm to aquatic resources but also to: (1)
    document and guide the proper execution of projects; (2) evaluate
    whether the intended environmental benefits actually are being
    realized; (3) document economic benefits and job creation/maintenance
    through Legacy Roads work; and (4) ensure that successful techniques
    are used. Monitoring and evaluation reports are needed to provide
    accountability for taxpayer investments, and the cost is low relative
    to project work--roughly 2 percent of funding for road-related projects
    should suffice. Funding should be equally divided between project
    implementation monitoring by forest staff, and ecological and economic
    effectiveness monitoring by the USFS research scientists. The agency
    can also consider contracting with independent, third-party entities
    like universities to implement monitoring programs.
        Best Value Contracting.--Road remediation work is typically
    performed by heavy equipment operators and other skilled contractors.
    Ideally, the contractors should have extensive experience with this
    type of work and possess the technical and practical know-how to handle
    unforeseen problems as they arise. One way to help ensure good results
    on the ground is to encourage the Forest Service to use ``best value''
    contracting criteria, such as past performance and technical ability in
    selecting Legacy Roads contractors, rather than automatically picking
    the lowest bidder.
        In conclusion, The Wilderness Society and the Washington Watershed
    Restoration Initiative commend Congress for creating the Legacy Roads
    and Trails Remediation Program. We strongly encourage you to continue
    and expand the Legacy Roads Program in the USFS's fiscal year 2010
    budget.
                                     ______

                    Prepared Statement of the USGS Coalition

                                    SUMMARY

        The USGS Coalition (Coalition) appreciates the opportunity to
    testify in support of increased appropriations for the United States
    Geological Survey (USGS) for fiscal year 2010. We continue to believe
    that the USGS budget is substantially below the amount required to
    ensure the long-term vitality of the agency. The USGS Coalition urges
    Congress to increase the budget of the USGS to at least $1.3 billion in
    fiscal year 2010.
        The USGS Coalition is an alliance of more than 70 organizations
    united by a commitment to the continued vitality of the unique
    combination of biological, geographical, geological, and hydrological
    programs of the USGS. 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 more than 2,000
    Federal, State, local, tribal, and private organizations.

                               FUNDING SHORTFALL

        The USGS budget declined in real dollars for 6 consecutive years
    from fiscal year 2003 to fiscal year 2008 (see Figure 1). In real
    terms, funding for the USGS is at its lowest level since fiscal year
    1997, the year after the National Biological Service was integrated
    into the USGS. The decline in funding for the USGS during this time
    period would have been greater if Congress had not repeatedly restored
    proposed budget cuts. In contrast, total Federal funding for research
    and development has increased substantially in real terms since fiscal
    year 1997.

        The USGS is uniquely positioned to address many of the Nation's
    greatest challenges, including energy independence, climate change,
    water quality, conservation of biological diversity, and natural
    hazards. The need for USGS science in these and other areas has
    increased dramatically as its budget has declined in real dollars.
        Ongoing volcanic activity at Alaska's Mount Redoubt, 106 miles
    southwest of Anchorage, illustrates the value of robust volcano
    monitoring systems and the need for increased Federal investments in
    the USGS. Mount Redoubt volcano erupted on March 22, 2009 and explosive
    events have sent volcanic ash more than 50,000 feet into the air.
    Approximately 20,000 passengers per day travel through the airspace
    affected by the volcano. The USGS provided advance warning of this
    explosive volcanism. Interior Secretary Ken Salazar said the USGS was
    ``able to actually forecast this event to prevent the endangerment of
    people and places that would otherwise have occurred.'' When Redoubt
    volcano erupted in 1989, a Boeing 747 passenger plane flew through a
    cloud of volcanic ash and lost power to all four engines. After
    plummeting more than 14,000 feet, the crew restarted the engines and
    safely landed the plane. The volcanic ash caused more than $80 million
    in damage to the plane but no lives were lost.
        Ongoing floods in North Dakota and surrounding areas led President
    Obama to sign a Major Disaster Declaration for North Dakota on March
    24, 2009 and a fourth amendment was issued on May 13, 2009. Flood
    waters crested at 34 feet in Fargo and exceeded record levels in some
    areas. Stream gage networks operated by the USGS are essential for
    issuing flood warnings.
        Natural hazards have negatively affected numerous communities
    across the country and around the globe over the past several years.
    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. An earthquake generated a
    tsunami that caused approximately 230,000 fatalities near the Indian
    Ocean in 2004. These and other events have inspired 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. The USGS monitors
    volcanoes and provides warnings about impending eruptions. It operates
    seismic networks and conducts seismic hazard analyses that are used to
    formulate earthquake probabilities and to establish building codes
    across the Nation. 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.
        USGS assessments of energy resources--including emerging energy
    resources and geothermal resources--are essential for making informed
    decisions about the Nation's energy future. Research conducted by the
    USGS is also vital to understanding and predicting the impacts of
    climate change on our Nation's coastal cities, water resources,
    ecosystems, and wildlife. The USGS is also developing new methods to
    assess the Nation's potential for storing carbon dioxide that could
    lead to techniques for lessening the impacts of climate change.
        Equally important, the USGS plays a critical role in bioinformatics
    and managing natural resources, activities that are 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.
        USGS research that spans the biological, geological, geographical,
    and hydrological sciences is 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
    decisionmakers.

                              USGS BUDGET REQUEST

        President Obama's fiscal year 2010 budget request for the USGS is
    $1.098 billion, an increase of $54 million, or 5.2 percent, more than
    the level in the fiscal year 2009 Omnibus Appropriations Act. The USGS
    budget request would provide increased funding for secretarial
    initiatives in climate change ($22 million), energy ($3 million) and
    youth conservation corps ($2 million). Budget increases are also
    proposed for the national stream gage network ($5 million), arctic
    ecosystem studies ($4 million), staffing for biology cooperative
    research units ($2 million), extended continental shelf studies ($1
    million), and sustainable energy development ($0.7 million). The budget
    request would provide full funding for increases in ``fixed costs''
    totaling $21 million. The proposed increases in the USGS budget deserve
    the support of Congress.
        The coalition urges Congress to increase the USGS budget to at
    least $1.3 billion in fiscal year 2010, which is necessary for the
    agency to continue providing critical information to the public and to
    decisionmakers at all levels of government. The budget increase
    recommended by the Coalition would enable the USGS to address the
    growing backlog of science needs that has resulted from stagnant real
    budgets for more than a decade, accelerate the timetable for deployment
    of critical projects, and launch science initiatives that address new
    challenges.
        The fiscal year 2010 budget recommended by the USGS Coalition would
    enable the USGS to meet the tremendous need for science in support of
    public policy decisionmaking. More investment is needed to strengthen
    USGS partnerships, improve monitoring networks, implement important
    bioinformatics programs, produce high-quality digital geospatial data,
    and deliver the best possible science to address societally important
    problems. The USGS has a national mission that directly affects all
    citizens through natural hazards monitoring, water resource studies,
    biological and geological resource assessments, and other activities.
        The USGS Coalition is grateful to the Senate Interior, Environment,
    and Related Agencies Appropriations Subcommittee for its leadership in
    restoring past budget cuts and strengthening the USGS . We are also
    grateful to the subcommittee for its leadership in providing $140
    million in stimulus funds for the USGS under the ARRA. Thank you for
    your thoughtful consideration of our request.
                                     ______

           Prepared Statement of the United Tribes Technical College

        For 40 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. These
    funds are authorized under title V of the Tribally Controlled Colleges
    and Universities Act. We do not have a tax base or State-appropriated
    funds on which to rely.
        We thank the House and Senate Interior Subcommittees and our
    congressional delegation--Representative Pomeroy, Senator Dorgan and
    Senator Conrad for their support, especially during the Bush
    administration budget submissions which consistently tried to zero out
    our BIE funding. We are very pleased that the Obama administration
    intends to ask for BIE funding for UTTC.
        The requests of the UTTC board for the fiscal year 2009 BIE/Bureau
    of Indian Affairs (BIA) budget are:
      --$5.5 million in BIE funds for UTTC, which is $1.5 million more than
            the fiscal year 2009 level.
      --$5 million toward the $10.9 million needed for a new math and
            technology building on our south campus.
      --$3.5 million toward the $36 million needed for a planned Northern
            Plains Tribal Law Enforcement Resource and Training Center
            located at UTTC.
      --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 was $8,864,000 with an
            additional $2,011,604 under TPA adult education for a total of
            $10.9 million. We appreciate that Congress included funding in
            the Recovery Act for BIA workforce training, although we don't
            know at this time how the $40 million will be allocated between
            workforce training and the Housing Improvement Program. In any
            event, the fiscal year 2009 amount will be 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.
        Law Enforcement Training.--We thank Congress for its support for us
    obtaining a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)with the BIA and the
    American Indian Higher Education Consortium that would establish a
    partnership so that we and other tribal colleges can better help fill
    the need for trained law enforcement and correctional officials in
    Indian country. This MOU was signed in May 2008. To that end, we are
    working toward establishment of a Northern Plains Law Enforcement
    Training Center located at UTTC which would provide basic and extended
    training for law enforcement officers for tribes and the BIA. We have
    identified a total budget of $36 million for construction of the
    facility with all necessary training components, but at this time are
    requesting $3.5 million for infrastructure and initial work.
        The need for more law enforcement officers in Indian country is
    staggering. The 2006 BIA gap analysis estimated that it would require
    $560 million to hire, train and equip the more than 1,800 additional
    BIA and tribal police officers needed to adequately police Indian
    lands. The BIA criminal investigations program provides funding to hire
    and training offices, but their fiscal year 2009 funding was only $163
    million. This is an area in which UTTC, with its long history of an
    accredited criminal justice program, could really make a positive
    difference.
        Math and Technology Building on new South Campus.--The bulk of our
    current educational training and student housing is provided in 100-
    year-old buildings, part of a former military base used by UTTC since
    its founding in 1969 and donated to us by the United States in 1973.
    They are expensive to maintain, do not meet modern construction and
    electrical code requirements, are mostly not ADA compliant, and cannot
    be retrofitted to be energy efficient.
        As a result, UTTC has developed plans for serving more students in
    new facilities that will provide training and services to meet future
    needs. We are now developing land purchased with a donation that will
    become our south campus. Infrastructure for one-fourth of the new
    campus has been completed, and we have now obtained partial funds for a
    new, and badly needed, science, math and technology building. We as
    asking for $5 million of the $10.9 million still needed to complete
    this building. We have already acquired $3 million toward the total
    cost. Our vision for the south campus is to serve up to 5,000 students.
    Funding for the project will come from Federal, State, tribal, and
    private sources.
        There are important things we would like you to know about our
    college:
        Our Students.--Our students are from Indian reservations from
    throughout the Nation, with a significant portion of them being from
    the Great Plains area. Our students have had to make a real effort to
    attend college; they 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 other mainstream institutions.
    Through a variety of sources, including funds from the BIE, 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.
        UTTC Performance Indicators.--UTTC has:
      --An 80 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 one of only two tribal
            colleges accredited to offer accredited on-line (Internet-
            based) associate degrees.
      --More than 20 percent of graduates go on to 4-year or advanced
            degree institutions.
        We also note the January 13, 2009, report of the Department of
    Education's Office of Vocational and Adult Education on its recent site
    visit to UTTC (October 7-9, 2008). While some suggestions for
    improvements were made, the Department commended UTTC in many areas--
    for efforts to improve student retention; the breadth of course
    offerings; collaboration with 4-year institutions; expansion of online
    degree programs; unqualified opinions on both financial statements and
    compliance in all major programs; clean audits; and use of the proposed
    measurement definitions in establishing institutional performance
    goals.
        The demand for our services is growing and we are serving more
    students. For the 2008-2009 year we enrolled 1,023 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, along with increasing
    populations. These statistics dramatically demonstrate the need for our
    services at increased levels for at least the next 10 years.
        In addition, we are serving 141 students during school year 2008-
    2009 in our Theodore Jamerson Elementary school and 202 children, birth
    to 5, are being served in our child development centers. We are proud
    to report that this school has achieved adequate yearly progress
    status.
        UTTC Course Offerings and Partnerships With Other Educational
    Institutions.--We offer accredited vocational/technical programs that
    lead to 17 2-year degrees (Associate of Applied Science (AAS)) and 11
    1-year certificates, as well as a 4-year degree in elementary education
    in cooperation with Sinte Gleska University in South Dakota.
        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/Public Health.--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. Given the
    overwhelming health needs of Native Americans, we continue to seek new
    resources to increase training opportunities for public health
    professionals.
        Online Education.--Our online education courses provide increased
    opportunities for education by providing Web-based courses to American
    Indians at remote sites as well as to students on our campus. These
    courses provide needed scheduling flexibility, especially for students
    with young children. They allow students to access quality, tribally
    focused education without leaving home or present employment. However,
    we also note the lack of on-line opportunities for Native Americans in
    both urban and rural settings, and encourage the Congress to devote
    more resources in this area.
        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. More than 80 courses are currently offered online, including
    those in the medical transcription and coding program. We presently
    have 50 online students in various courses and 137 online students in
    the medical transcription program.
        Criminal Justice.--Our criminal justice program leads many students
    to a career in law enforcement. Students are required to learn the
    basics of law enforcement procedures, and we now have on campus a
    career BIA law enforcement officer who is helping improve our program.
        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.--We help meet the challenge of
    fighting diabetes and other health problems in Indian Country through
    education and research. Indians and Alaska Natives have a
    disproportionately high rate of type 2 diabetes, and have a diabetes
    mortality rate that is 3 times higher than the U.S. population. The
    increase in diabetes among Indians and Alaska Natives is most prevalent
    among persons aged 25-34, with a 160 percent increase from 1990-2004.
    Our research about native foods is helping us learn how to reduce the
    high levels of diseases in our communities.
        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. There are 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 a Diabetes
    Education Center that assists local tribal communities, our students
    and staff to decrease the prevalence of diabetes by providing food
    guides, educational programs, training and materials.
        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.
        Our BIE and Perkins funds provide for nearly all of our core
    postsecondary educational programs. Very little of the other funds we
    receive be used for core career and technical educational programs;
    they are competitive, often one-time supplemental funds which help us
    provide the services our students need to be successful. We cannot
    continue operating without BIE funds. Thank you for your consideration
    of our requests.

           LIST OF WITNESSES, COMMUNICATIONS, AND PREPARED STATEMENTS

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page

    Alexander, Senator Lamar, U.S. Senator From Tennessee:
        Questions Submitted by.......................................   102
        Statement of..............................................2, 39, 64
    Alliance:
        For Community Trees, Letter From the.........................   108
        To Save Energy, Letter From the..............................   131
    American:
        Association of Petroleum Geologists, Prepared Statement of
          the........................................................   106
        Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, Letter From the.....   131
        Forest Foundation, Letter From the...........................   108
        Indian Higher Education Consortium, Prepared Statement of the   115
        Institute of Biological Sciences, Prepared Statement of the..   113
        Public Power Association, Prepared Statement of the..........   123
        Rivers, Prepared Statement of the............................   124
        Society:
            For Microbiology, Prepared Statement of the..............   134
            Of Agronomy, Prepared Statement of the...................   127
    Americans for the Arts, Prepared Statement of the................   109
    Amigos de la Sevilleta, Prepared Statement of the................   120
    Animal Welfare Institute, Prepared Statement of the..............   139
    Appalachian:
        Mountain Club, Prepared Statement of the.....................   118
        Trail Conservancy, Prepared Statement of the.................   136
    Association of:
        Fish and Wildlife Agencies, Prepared Statement of the........   112
        Performing Arts Presenters, Prepared Statement of the........   121
        State Drinking Water Administrators, Letter From the.........   130

    Beartooth Alliance, Prepared Statement of the....................   142
    Biomass Energy Research Association, Prepared Statement of the...   145
    Bird Conservation Funding Coalition, Letter From the.............   143
    Buena Vista Water Storage District, Prepared Statement of the....   252
    Byrd, Senator Robert C., U.S. Senator From West Virginia,
      Questions Submitted by.........................................    29

    Center for Plant Conservation, Prepared Statement of the.........   155
    Central Arizona Water Conservation District, Prepared Statement
      of the.........................................................   150
    Children's Environmental Health Network, Prepared Statement of
      the............................................................   152
    Chugach Regional Resources Commission, Prepared Statement of the.   163
    City of:
        Chicago Department of Streets and Sanitation, Bureau of
          Forestry, Letter From the..................................   108
        Milwaukee Department of Public Works, Forestry Division,
          Letter From the............................................   108
    Civil War Preservation Trust, Prepared Statement of the..........   172
    Close Up Foundation, Prepared Statement of the...................   170
    Cochran, Senator Thad, U.S. Senator From Mississippi, Question
      Submitted by..................................................33, 103
    Collins, Senator Susan, U.S. Senator From Maine, Questions
      Submitted by..................................................34, 104
    Colorado River:
        Basin Salinity Control Forum, Prepared Statement of the......   158
        Board of California, Prepared Statement of the...............   157
    Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission, Prepared Statement
      of the.........................................................   160
    Confederated Tribes of:
        Siletz Indians, Prepared Statement of the....................   165
        The Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon, Prepared Statement of
          the........................................................   168
    Cooperative Alliance for Refuge Enhancement, Prepared Statement
      of the.........................................................   148

    Doris Day Animal League, Prepared Statement of the...............   232
    Davey Institute, Letter From the.................................   108
    Defenders of Wildlife, Prepared Statement of.....................   175
    ``Ding'' Darling Wildlife Society, Prepared Statement of the.....   178
    Dorgan, Senator Byron L., U.S. Senator From North Dakota,
      Questions Submitted by.........................................    99
    Dzilth-Na-O-Dith-Hle Community Grant School of the Navajo Nation,
      Prepared Statement of the......................................   179

    Eastern Forest Partnership, Prepared Statement of the............   187
    1854 Treaty Authority, Prepared Statement of the.................   105
    Emissions Control Technology Association, Prepared Statement of
      the............................................................   184
    Endangered Species Coalition, Prepared Statement of the..........   189
    Enewetak/Ujelang Local Government, Prepared Statement of the.....   194
    Environmental:
        And Energy Study Institute, Letter From the..................   131
        Council of the States, Prepared Statement of the.............   182
        Service Research Institute, Prepared Statement of the........   191
    Evansville Audubon Society, Prepared Statement of the............   181

    Feinstein, Senator Dianne, U.S. Senator From California:
        Opening Statement of......................................1, 37, 63
        Prepared Statement of........................................    38
        Questions Submitted by.......................................25, 56
    Fond du Lac Band of Lake Superior Chippewa, Prepared Statement of
      the............................................................   196
    Friends of:
        Alaska National Wildlife Refuges, Prepared Statement of the..   198
        Back Bay, Prepared Statement of the..........................   201
        Blackwater National Wildlife Refuge, Prepared Statement of
          the........................................................   202
        Congaree Swamp, Prepared Statement of the....................   204
        Rachel Carson NWR, Prepared Statement of the.................   205
        Virgin Islands National Park, Prepared Statement of the......   213
        Wallkill River National Wildlife Refuges, Prepared Statement
          of the.....................................................   209
        Wertheim National Wildlife Refuge, Prepared Statement of the.   208
        The:
            Columbia Gorge, Prepared Statement of....................   207
            Patoka River National Wildlife Refuge, Prepared Statement
              of the.................................................   181
            Prairie Learning Center, Prepared Statement of the.......   302

    Gathering Waters Conservancy, Prepared Statement of the..........   229
    Geological Society of America, Prepared Statement of the.........   224
    Georgia River Network, Prepared Statement of the.................   222
    Greasewood Springs Community School Board, Prepared Statement of
      the............................................................   226
    Great Lakes:
        Geologic Mapping Coalition, Prepared Statement of the........   215
        Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission, Prepared Statement of
          the........................................................   218
    Green:
        Buildings Initiative, Letter From the........................   131
        Mountain Club, Prepared Statement of the.....................   221
    Gregg, Senator Judd, U.S. Senator From New Hampshire, Question
      Submitted by...................................................    61

    Highlands Coalition, Prepared Statement of the...................   230
    Hoosier Environmental Council, Prepared Statement of the.........   181
    Humane Society Legislative Fund, Prepared Statement of the.......   232

    Independent:
        Oil Producers Association, Prepared Statement of the.........   252
        Tribal Courts Review Team, Prepared Statement of the.........   242
    Indiana:
        Division Izaak Walton League, Prepared Statement of the......   181
        InterTribal Bison Cooperative, Prepared Statement of the.....   237
        Wildlife Federation, Prepared Statement of the...............   181
    International Maple Syrup Institute, Letter From the.............   108
    Interstate Mining Compact Commission, Prepared Statement of the..   234
    InterTribal Bison Cooperative, Prepared Statement of the.........   237
    Intertribal Timber Council, Prepared Statement of the............   240
    Izaak Walton League of America, Prepared Statement of the........   245

    Jackson, Lisa P., Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency.     1
        Prepared Statement of........................................     6
        Summary Statement of.........................................     4
    Jamestown S'Klallam Tribe, Prepared Statement of the.............   249
    John K. Moore, Prepared Statement of.............................   247
    Johnson Controls, Inc., Letter From..............................   131

    Kern County Valley Floor Habitat Conservation Plan Industry and
      Government, Prepared Statement of the..........................   252
    Keweenaw Land Trust, Prepared Statement of the...................   254
    Kimbell, Abigail, Chief, Forest Service, Department of
      Agriculture....................................................    37
        Prepared Statement of........................................    48
        Summary Statement of.........................................    39
    Knox County Quail Unlimited, Prepared Statement of...............   181

    Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians, Prepared
      Statement of the...............................................   257
    League of American Orchestras, Prepared Statement of the.........   255
    Leech Lake Area Watershed Foundation, Prepared Statement of the..   262
    Little River Band of Ottawa Indians, Prepared Statement of the...   264
    Lummi Indian Business Council, Prepared Statement of the.........   259

    Marine Conservation Biology Institute, Prepared Statement of the.   265

    National:
        Association of:
            Clean Air Agencies, Prepared Statement of the............   267
            Forest Service Retirees, Prepared Statement of the.......   270
            State:
                Energy:
                    Offices, Letter From the.........................   131
                    Officials, Prepared Statement of the.............   273
                Foresters, Letter From the...........................   108
        Conference of State Historic Preservation Officers, Prepared
          Statement of the...........................................   276
        Environmental Services Center, Prepared Statement of the.....   279
        Fish and Wildlife Foundation, Prepared Statement of the......   282
        Humanities Alliance, Prepared Statement of the...............   284
        Institutes for Water Resources, Prepared Statement of the....   290
        Mining Association, Prepared Statement of the................   293
        Recreation and Park Association, Prepared Statement of the...   300
        Wildlife:
            Federation, Prepared Statement of the....................   303
            Refuge Association, Prepared Statement of the............   306
    Natural Biodiversity, Letter From the............................   108
    Nelson, Senator Ben, U.S. Senator From Nebraska, Questions
      Submitted by..................................................31, 101
    New Mexico:
        Game and Fish Commission, Prepared Statement of the..........   295
        Interstate Stream Commission, Prepared Statement of the......   296
        Wildlife Federation, Prepared Statement of the...............   298
    New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Letter
      From the.......................................................   108
    North American:
        Insulation Manufacturers Association, Letter From the........   131
        Maple Syrup Council, Inc., Letter From the...................   108
    Northern Forest Alliance, Prepared Statement of the..............   280
    Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission, Prepared Statement of the.   287

    Occidental of Elk Hills, Inc., Prepared Statement of the.........   252

    Pacific Salmon Commission, Prepared Statement of the.............   317
    Partnership for:
        Saving Threatened Forests, Letter From the...................   108
        The National Trails System, Prepared Statement of the........   312
    Passamaquoddy Tribe, Prepared Statement of the...................   319
    Pelican Island Preservation Society, Prepared Statement of the...   311
    Performing Arts Alliance, Prepared Statement of the..............   308
    Pike Gibson Citizens for a Quality Environment, Prepared
      Statement of the...............................................   181
    Porcupine School, Prepared Statement of the......................   316
    Public Trust Environmental Legal Institute of Florida, Inc.,
      Prepared Statement of the......................................   320
    Purdue University, Department of Entomology, Letter From the.....   108
    Puyallup Tribe of Indians, Prepared Statement of the.............   322

    Quinault Indian Nation, Prepared Statement of the................   325

    Ramah Navajo School Board, Inc., Prepared Statement of the.......   329
    Rivers and Trails Coalition, Prepared Statement of the...........   331
    Robert Benavides, Governor, Pueblo of Isleta, Prepared Statement
      of.............................................................   327

    Salazar, Hon. Ken, Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Department
      of the Interior................................................    63
        Statement of.................................................
              .......................................................
        Summary Statement of.........................................    65
    Sevilleta National Wildlife Refuge, Prepared Statement of the....   336
    Society of Municipal Arborists, Letter From the..................   108
    Squaxin Island Tribe, Prepared Statement of the..................   334

    Tester, Senator Jon, U.S. Senator From Montana:
        Questions Submitted by.......................................   101
        Statement of................................................. 3, 51
    The:
        Conservation System Alliance, Prepared Statement of..........   337
        Fort Peck Indian Reservation, Prepared Statement of..........   211
        Humane Society of the United States..........................
        Nature Conservancy:
            Letter From the..........................................   108
            Prepared Statement of....................................   339
        Pennsylvania Game Commission, Letter From....................   108
        State University of New York College of Environmental Science
          and Forestry, Letter From..................................   108
        Wilderness Society, Prepared Statement of....................   348
            And Washington Watershed Restoration Initiative, Prepared
              Statement of...........................................   352
        Wildlife Society, Prepared Statement of......................   346
    Town of Ophir, Prepared Statement of the.........................   342
    Trust for Public Land, Prepared Statement of the.................   343

    U.S. Green Building Council, Letter From the.....................   131
    USGS Coalition, Prepared Statement of the........................   354
    Union of Concerned Scientists, Letter From the...................   108
    United Tribes Technical College, Prepared Statement of the.......   357
    University of Georgia, Center for Invasive Species and Ecosystem
      Health, Letter From the........................................   108

    Western States Petroleum Association, Prepared Statement of the..   252

                                 SUBJECT INDEX

                                  ----------

                           DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

                                 Forest Service

                                                                       Page

    Additional Committee Questions...................................    56
    Biomass..........................................................40, 44
    Cabin User Fees..................................................    60
    Collaborative Partnerships.......................................    52
    Firefighter Retention............................................42, 57
    Firefighting Aviation Needs......................................    59
    Focal Points for the Forest Service..............................    50
    Forest:
        Legacy Program...............................................    61
        Service......................................................    37
    Fuels............................................................    56
    Hazardous Fuels Treatment........................................    51
    Marijuana Enforcement on National Forest Lands...................    58
    Modular Airborne Firefighting System (MAFFS).....................    43
    National Forests Bordering Lake Tahoe............................    43
    Presidential Initiatives.........................................    48
    Quincy Library Group.............................................    54
    Renewable Energy.................................................    40
    Siting Wind Energy Turbines......................................    46
    Stimulus Projects Contracting....................................    53

                           DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

                            Office of the Secretary

    Additional Committee Questions...................................    99
    Administrative Cost Grants.......................................   100
    Abandoned Mine Sites on National Park Lands......................    90
    Abandoned Mines..................................................86, 88
    Brian O'Neill....................................................    92
    Budget Priorities................................................    75
    Creating a:
        New Energy Frontier..........................................    70
        21st Century Youth Conservation Corps........................    74
            And Tackling Climate Change..............................    66
    Drug Cultivation on Public Lands.................................    78
    Elk at Theodore Roosevelt National Park..........................    95
    Empowering:
        Indian Country...............................................    74
        Native American Communities..................................    67
    Energy Development...............................................    97
    Great Smoky Mountains National Park..............................    92
    Indian:..........................................................
        Country Law Enforcement......................................    96
        Guaranteed Loan Program......................................    99
    Land and Water Conservation Fund.................................    94
    Legislative and Administrative Proposals.........................    77
    Native American Communities......................................    87
    Offshore Wind Development........................................    84
    Overview of the 2010 Budget......................................    69
    Point Reyes National Seashore....................................    97
    Protecting Treasured Landscapes..................................    72
    Renewable Energy.............................................79, 80, 93
    Tackling Climate Impacts.........................................    71
    The First 100 Days...............................................    68
    Treasured Landscape..............................................    66
    21st Century Youth Conservation Corps............................    67
    Water............................................................    67
    Wild Horse and Burro Program.....................................    98

                        ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

    Accelerates Great Lakes Restoration..............................     7
    Acid Rain Program................................................    23
    Additional Committee Questions...................................    25
    Air:
        Quality and Radon Grants.....................................    10
        Toxics.......................................................     9
    BioFuels......................................................... 8, 24
    Brownfields......................................................     9
    Cap and Trade....................................................    25
    Combined Sewer Overflows.........................................    34
    Categorical Grants...............................................    10
    Chemical Risks...................................................     8
    Clean:
        Air..........................................................    14
            Act......................................................    18
            Interstate Rule (CAIR)...................................    20
    Coal Ash Spill...................................................    22
    Computational Toxicology.........................................     8
    E15 Clean Air Act Waiver.........................................    32
    Endangerment Finding.............................................    33
    Great Lakes Restoration Initiative...............................    26
    Gulf of Mexico Funding...........................................    33
    Green Infrastructure Research....................................     9
    Greenhouse:
        Gas..........................................................    25
            Emissions (Cap and Trade Program)........................     8
        Gases........................................................    12
    Hazardous Waste Financial Assistance Grants......................    11
    Homeland Security................................................    11
    Indirect Land Use Changes........................................    31
    Initiates a Comprehensive Approach to Slow Global Warming........     8
    Inspector General................................................    12
    Integrated Risk Information Systems (IRIS).......................     8
    Invests in Water Infrastructure..................................     7
    Lead Grants......................................................    11
    Leaking Underground Storage Tanks (LUST).........................    10
    Libby:
        Communications...............................................    16
        Healthcare...................................................    17
        Montana......................................................    16
    Mid-level Ethanol Fuel Blends....................................    35
    Mountaintop Mining...............................................    29
    National Mercury Monitoring Network..............................    34
    Nonpoint Source Program Grants...................................    10
    Partnerships.....................................................    10
    Pesticides, Toxics Substance, and Sector Program Grants..........    11
    Public Water System Supervision Grants...........................    11
    Rialto-Colton Basin--National Priorties List/Water Replacment
      Orders.........................................................    28
    Research and Development.........................................     8
    San Francisco Bay--Delta Water Quality...........................    27
    State Revolving Funds............................................    26
    Strengthens Environmental Enforcement............................     9
    Superfund........................................................     9
    Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA).................................    15
    Tribal General Assistance Program Grants.........................    11
    Water Pollution Control Grants...................................    10

                                       -