[Senate Hearing 112-392]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 112-392
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, ENVIRONMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES
APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2012
=======================================================================
HEARINGS
before a
SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
on
H.R. 2584
AN ACT MAKING APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR,
ENVIRONMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING SEPTEMBER
30, 2012, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES deg.
__________
PART 1 (Pages 1-xxxx)
Department of Agriculture
Department of the Interior
Environmental Protection Agency
Nondepartmental Witnesses
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/browse/
committee.action?chamber=senate&committee=appropriations
----------
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
64-606 PDF WASHINGTON : 2012
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800;
DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii, Chairman
PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi, Ranking
TOM HARKIN, Iowa MITCH McCONNELL, Kentucky
BARBARA A. MIKULSKI, Maryland RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama
HERB KOHL, Wisconsin KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas
PATTY MURRAY, Washington LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee
DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California SUSAN COLLINS, Maine
RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska
TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota LINDSEY GRAHAM, South Carolina
MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana MARK KIRK, Illinois
JACK REED, Rhode Island DANIEL COATS, Indiana
FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey ROY BLUNT, Missouri
BEN NELSON, Nebraska JERRY MORAN, Kansas
MARK PRYOR, Arkansas JOHN HOEVEN, North Dakota
JON TESTER, Montana RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin
SHERROD BROWN, Ohio
Charles J. Houy, Staff Director
Bruce Evans, Minority Staff Director
------
Subcommittee on Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related
Agencies
JACK REED, Rhode Island, Chairman
DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska
PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee
BARBARA A. MIKULSKI, Maryland THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi
HERB KOHL, Wisconsin SUSAN COLLINS, Maine
TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin
BEN NELSON, Nebraska ROY BLUNT, Missouri
JON TESTER, Montana JOHN HOEVEN, North Dakota
MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana
DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii (ex
officio)
Professional Staff
Peter Kiefhaber
Ginny James
Rachel Taylor
Ryan Hunt
Leif Fonnesbeck (Minority)
Rebecca Benn (Minority)
Brent Wiles (Minority)
Administrative Support
Teri Curtin
Courtney Stevens (Minority)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Wednesday, March 9, 2011
Page
Department of the Interior....................................... 1
Wednesday, March 16, 2011
Environmental Protection Agency.................................. 71
Thursday, May 19, 2011
Department of Agriculture: Forest Service........................ 135
Nondepartmental Witnesses........................................ 183
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, ENVIRONMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES
APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2012
----------
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 9, 2011
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 3:45 p.m., in room SD-124, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. Jack Reed (chairman) presiding.
Present: Senators Reed, Tester, Landrieu, Murkowski,
Cochran, Collins, and Blunt.
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
STATEMENT OF HON. KEN SALAZAR, SECRETARY
ACCOMPANIED BY:
DAVID HAYES, DEPUTY SECRETARY
PAM K. HAZE, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR BUDGET, FINANCE,
PERFORMANCE, AND ACQUISITION
opening statement of senator jack reed
Senator Reed. Let me call the hearing to order.
I want to thank the Secretary for joining us this
afternoon. I also appreciate your consideration of our
schedule, Mr. Secretary, but you have had some experience here
with the Senate schedule, so I think you were not shocked and
surprised when we had to delay this 30 minutes.
We certainly appreciate your taking time from your very
hectic schedule to come up and talk about the administration's
fiscal year 2012 budget for your Department, the Department of
the Interior.
And before I begin, I would like to commend and thank
Senators Feinstein and Alexander for their great leadership of
the subcommittee. As you know, they have shifted their focus
now to the Energy and Water Development Subcommittee, but they
still retain their membership on this subcommittee. They are
valuable members, and we look forward to their insights and to
their assistance as we go forward.
Now, I want to just, from the beginning, prove that the
Senator from Alaska and I are not a force to be taken lightly.
I would just point out the fact that between our two States, we
have more than half of the land in the National Park System.
Now, you could quibble over whether 41 million acres and 5
acres is--there is a difference, but together we are 51.5
percent of the park system. So you have got a majority right
here before you, Mr. Secretary.
Let me just say that I am delighted to be able to work with
Senator Murkowski. She is an extraordinarily talented and
dedicated representative not only of Alaska, but of commitment
to the issues that are important to the Nation as a whole. So
thank you, Senator, for your help and your assistance.
And also I recognize--and she has done a good job of
educating me already--that many of these issues are central to
the communities of her State, vitally central, and I do
recognize that and I look forward to working with her for her
constituents as well as the Nation.
These programs have impacts everywhere, though. In my home
State of Rhode Island, we have a rich, historic heritage. The
National Park Service--we have what I used to think was the
smallest park in America, but apparently there is a park in
Philadelphia, the Pulaski Park, that is smaller. It is less
than 5 acres, but we have a national park. We have the John H.
Chafee Blackstone River Valley Corridor. So we have a national
park influence and impacts, and I appreciate that very much.
We also have a wildlife refuge complex. We have many things
that we treasure deeply in Rhode Island that are governed by
your Department.
We are involved in offshore wind development. You and I,
Mr. Secretary, had discussions about that several times. So the
Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) is central not only to
the gulf and Senator Landrieu, but up in Rhode Island, in New
England, New Jersey, both coasts, every waterway.
And I really want to say how I look forward to working with
you. Every area of this country is affected by what you do. The
issues are critical, and as we go forward, I will continue to
ask for your advice, assistance, and help, as I have in the
past.
The administration for the Department of the Interior is
seeking approximately $11.175 billion. That is an increase of
about $100 million, or about 1 percent above the equivalent
2010 enacted level. That might not seem like a lot, but it
covers so many vital programs. For example, the Land and Water
Conservation Fund (LWCF) would be increased. Funding necessary
to complete the very important reorganization of the BOEM would
be included. Landsat operations are proposed for the U.S.
Geological Survey (USGS), in fact, an increase of about $61
million for those operations.
Some of these changes are laudable, in fact overdue, but in
this fiscal environment, I do not have to tell you, Mr.
Secretary, everything has to be weighed very carefully and very
tough choices have to be made among programs.
There are also in your budget reductions: $151 million for
management efficiencies. I applaud those proposals, and we want
to help you achieve those reductions.
I know, Mr. Secretary, you recognize that this is a
difficult budget. I also know and expect that you will be there
to help us make these decisions. And as I begin my tenure here,
it is our commitment to work with you to ensure that our public
lands are protected, that we uphold our responsibility to
Native Americans, that the Department has its resources in so
many different ways to carry out its critical missions.
Senator Reed. With that, Mr. Secretary, I would like to
recognize the ranking member, Senator Murkowski.
statement of senator lisa murkowski
Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is indeed a
pleasure to be working with you on this subcommittee. We laugh
about this kind of odd couple pairing, the largest State in
terms of geographic size with the smallest, but as you point
out, we have some shared issues. We have a lot of commonality,
and I look forward to working with you.
We have already decided that during our August break, we
are going to visit some national parks in my State and do the
same in Rhode Island and get to know the differences just a bit
better.
But I think one of the things that is important to
recognize is that we both share a common interest in ensuring
that taxpayer dollars are spent wisely, that the agencies under
our jurisdiction are accountable to the Congress and to the
public. We will work forward with that.
I would also like to recognize the members of our
subcommittee. We have got three new folks on the Republican
side who are new to the Senate, much less the subcommittee:
Senator Blunt, Senator Hoeven, and Senator Johnson. Senator
Landrieu and I have worked on so many of these issues over the
years. You recognized the work of Senator Feinstein and Senator
Alexander as the former chairman and the ranking member,
respectively, on this subcommittee, and we do appreciate their
leadership and their guidance.
Secretary, I am pleased to have you before us. I know that
these subcommittee hearings before the Senate committees and
the House are a bit arduous, but you always come with good
demeanor and kind words. I appreciate your leadership. I
appreciate your work. You do have a very difficult task in
front of you. I hate to think that Alaska is your problem every
day when you wake up, but so much of what goes on in our State
is under your jurisdiction. So we look forward to continuing
the relationship that we had when you were a member of the
Senate here and under your leadership as the Secretary.
I mentioned to the chairman here that my opening statement
may be a bit longer than usual. I promise you that I do not
typically do this, but there are a few important issues that I
would like to just put out on the table since we are always
more limited in our questions.
Without question, the most significant budgetary aspect of
the Department's request is the increase for LWCF programs as
part of America's Great Outdoors initiative. These programs are
proposed to grow by well more than 100 percent from $310
million to $675 million. An additional $225 million is proposed
in the Forest Service budget as part of a larger effort to fund
LWCF programs at their fully authorized level of $900 million.
I have got a couple of different concerns with this
approach. For example, in order to fund these large increases
for land acquisition in what is an overall flat budget for the
Department, other programs necessarily have to be cut. We
recognize that that is what happens. But one of the cuts that
has been made is the Bureau of Land Management's (BLM) Alaska
conveyance program. Mr. Secretary, we have had a chance to talk
about this. The fact that 50 years ago--actually it was 52
years ago--we became a State. There were certain promises,
conditions made at statehood, and we are still waiting in many
cases to receive patents to the lands that we were entitled to
under that statehood act.
I worked hard to address this problem. We got legislation
passed in 2004 to help accelerate it, but under the proposal
that we have got now, the BLM is not accelerating the transfer
of these lands. It is slamming on the brakes. In fact, at the
rate that the lands selected in Alaska--if we work this
transfer process as it currently goes, we do not finish this
until the year 2075. I am probably not going to be around by
then, and it is something that we believe that the commitment
needs to be there, and unfortunately, that translates into a
budgetary commitment as well.
Other cuts are also troubling. Every one of the
Department's construction accounts has been significantly cut
at a time when we are seeing a multibillion dollar maintenance
backlog at the Park Service, at the BLM, at Fish and Wildlife.
And it begs the question of how you can place such a high
priority on acquiring more land when you have got to cut the
very funds that you need to take care of the current
infrastructure in order to do so.
I also have to question these large increases when other
longstanding obligations languish. In Alaska, we have roughly
half of the federally recognized tribes. So one of my top
priorities has been ensuring that we honor our commitments to
Native Americans and Alaska Natives.
The Federal Government is responsible for two school
systems, one at the Department of Defense, one at the Bureau of
Indian Affairs (BIA). BIA funds 183 elementary and secondary
schools and dormitories for approximately 41,000 students.
According to the National Congress of American Indians, at the
beginning of last year, one-third of BIA schools were in
significant need of repair at an estimated cost of $1.34
billion. These deteriorating schools are part of a larger
problem with the school system that consistently lags far
behind our traditional schools. Chairman Reed and I have
already spoken about the need to work on this issue, and I hope
that we can see some progress this year.
In addition to my concerns about funding priorities, I am
very troubled by some of the proposed policy provisions in the
budget request. One that I find very, very troubling is the fee
on the so-called nonproducing oil and gas leases. The Trans-
Alaska Pipeline is the main economic artery of my State and a
major asset to our Nation's energy security and independence,
but production is falling to the point where this pipeline is
in jeopardy. We have to find new sources of oil and we have to
find it soon or we risk the possibility that that pipeline will
be decommissioned, dismantled, and we will no longer have the
ability to provide the domestic resource coming off the North
Slope to the rest of the country.
One of the areas that has the most promise is in the
Beaufort and the Chukchi Seas. Shell oil paid more than $2
billion to the Department of the Interior for leases back in
2005. That company is now halfway through its lease term, but
the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is preventing the
company from developing its leases by not issuing necessary air
permits, and this is after a 5-year process. The Interior
Department has elected to undergo yet another round of
environmental review. So we have got a situation where Shell
has spent literally thousands of man-hours, tens of millions of
dollars trying to thread the needle through the EPA's
regulatory morass, and now the Department of the Interior is
essentially saying we want to assess the company a fee because
they are not producing. They want to produce in the worst way.
So we need to address this.
What is perhaps even more galling on top of this is that
the company is currently paying rent to the Government on these
leases while they are not in production. So it is just kind of
an insult to injury type of a situation. We had an opportunity
to bring this up in the Energy Committee hearing just last
week. It is something, Mr. Secretary, that I do hope that you
will commit to working with us on that initiative.
I repeat the statement from the chairman in terms of
willingness to work with you. I know we have got some tough,
tough, tough issues. We are trying to get through CD-5 so that
we can develop the National Petroleum Reserve--Alaska. We are
trying to get offshore. We have got opportunities in the State
to provide for the rest of the country. We need to be working
together. I look forward to doing that with you. If sometimes
it appears that we are overly aggressive, it is because we feel
we have so much to offer up north, and we just need the
cooperation of those here in Washington. I look forward to your
leadership in helping us get there.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Reed. Thank you, Senator Murkowski.
Now if my colleagues have opening statements, Senator
Landrieu, and then I will go back and forth.
statement of senator mary l. landrieu
Senator Landrieu. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking
Member. I am looking forward to your leadership of this
subcommittee and enjoyed working with both of you on other
committees.
I am going to submit my statement for the record because I
have got, unfortunately, another 4 o'clock meeting.
I just want to welcome you, Secretary Salazar, but to
restate just briefly again how important it is to expedite the
reforms underway in the Gulf of Mexico and to get our people
back to work, get permits issued in the gulf. I know there is a
step up in funding for the reorganization of BOEM. That
reauthorization language needs to go through, of course, the
Energy Committee and move forward and not done exactly through
the appropriations process.
But I am interested in providing additional resources to
you and want to tell the chairman and ranking member of my
support so that we can process more quickly the permits that
are pending in the Gulf of Mexico. And with prices rising, you
know, at the pump, it is just important that we continue to
press forward on that accelerator, and we are still running
into some difficulty. I will submit the specifics to you.
I look forward to working with you on some aspects of this
budget. But please remain committed and focused, if you would,
on the Gulf of Mexico not just our restoration issues, which
are important and we really appreciate your leadership, Mr.
Secretary, but on getting our people back to work and getting
those permits issued.
Thank you.
Senator Reed. Thank you.
Senator Blunt, do you have a statement?
statement of senator roy blunt
Senator Blunt. I will submit my statement for the record.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Senator Roy Blunt
Thank you Chairman Reed and Ranking Member Murkowski for holding
this hearing today. This hearing is a great opportunity to not only
examine the budgetary needs of the Interior Department (DOI) throughout
our country, but also to make the proper investments that produce the
greatest return on taxpayer dollars.
Additionally, I would like to thank Secretary Salazar.
Your hard work on the budget is greatly appreciated. I look forward
to working with you now and in the future to address our country's
needs.
Last month the Federal Government added as much money to the debt
as it did in 2007. The numbers are stark and should serve as call for
immediate action. All across Missouri and the country, Americans at
home and at work are being expected to do more with less and now it is
time for the Federal Government to do the same.
Unfortunately, the DOI like the rest of the administration is
avoiding the necessary cuts that we all need to be making to address
our skyrocketing debt. But on top of this, I am concerned with the fact
that the DOI is using taxpayer dollars to hamper energy exploration.
For example, while the budget takes credit for expanding
protections against the impacts of coal mining, it doesn't address the
repercussions it will have on jobs and energy production.
Your recent stream protection rule would, according to your own
assessments, kill more than 20,000 coal mining and related jobs, and
wipe out a significant amount of coal production.
Our Nation relies on coal to power almost 50 percent of our
electricity, and in Missouri that number is more than 80 percent. I am
concerned with the consequences of this administration's attempts to
broadly penalize the use of coal in this country, and I hope that you
take a hard look at your policies to make sure that doesn't happen.
The budget calls for more money to the newly formed Bureau of Ocean
Energy Management office, and yet this administration has only managed
to approve one new offshore drilling permit since the Deepwater Horizon
spill last April. You have also officially blocked access to new areas
of the Gulf of Mexico until 2017, and caused such uncertainty that even
shallow-rig operators have idled.
A recent study showed that delays in offshore drilling could result
in the loss of 125,000 jobs and billions of dollars in investment and
government revenue--something I think we can all agree we sorely need
right now.
On top of blocking access to offshore drilling, your recently
announced ``wild lands'' policy out of the Bureau of Land Management
would block access to energy exploration on Federal lands. There is
great potential for energy development of oil and natural gas on our
Federal lands.
These lands need to be managed in a way that provides the greatest
benefit to the public--and what could be more beneficial than using
them to provide low-cost, reliable and plentiful energy to this Nation.
Right now, oil and gas production in Libya have fallen by an
estimated 60 to 90 percent since the outbreak of unrest. Libya accounts
for only about 2 percent of global supply, but that doesn't mean the
market impact isn't something we aren't feeling worldwide. We've seen
this impact now as oil as hit $100 a barrel and retail gas rates rose
32 cents between February 21 and March 7. This one-two punch--a
reliance on foreign oil and an administration with little concern for
expanding exploration--puts us in an extremely vulnerable situation.
Secretary Salazar I look forward to your testimony and working with you
to see how we can use our resources to make sure this Nation has the
energy we need to keep our economy running.
Senator Reed. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Tester.
Senator Tester. Just welcome.
Senator Reed. Senator Collins.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR SUSAN COLLINS
Senator Collins. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just want to
welcome our former colleague and good friend, the Secretary,
back to the U.S. Senate. We miss you, but look forward to
working with you on several issues.
The issues that I am going to raise today are not
unfamiliar to the Secretary. I look forward to talking to him
about the exciting research and development that is occurring
in the State of Maine, led by the University of Maine, and to
the potential for deepwater, offshore wind energy. I also want
to talk to him about the gem of a national park that we have in
the State of Maine, which the Secretary has visited, Acadia
National Park.
Senator Collins. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Reed. Thank you very much, Senator Collins.
We will proceed with 6-minute rounds. I am told the
Secretary has an appointment at 5 p.m., and I would assume that
we can do at least two rounds so that we will have ample time
to ask questions.
Mr. Secretary, again, thank you for being here this
afternoon.
Although the reorganization of the former Minerals
Management Service (MMS) is moving forward, I am concerned that
a lot of the attention is being focused on the leasing and
enforcement side of the ledger, not enough attention on the
revenue collection side. I know you have already moved that
into a different organization. And this has been an ongoing
problem going back several years. Just last week, in fact, the
Government Accountability Office (GAO) testified the Department
could not--in their words--provide reasonable assurance that it
was assessing and collecting the appropriate amount of
royalties. In February, the GAO added that revenue collection
program to its high-risk program list.
You are asking for a budget of $148 million for the revenue
office. That is an increase of about $38 million at the 2010
level with 55 new employees. Can you please tell us
specifically what the increases are for, what steps the office
has taken to address the problems that get it on the high-risk
list? This is central actually to many things. So your comments
will be appreciated.
Secretary Salazar. Thank you very much----
Senator Reed. Oh, excuse me, Mr. Secretary. I have
committed the, hopefully pardonable, offense of being a new
subcommittee chairman not allowing you to deliver your
statement before I deliver a question.
That was a test. I hoped you would interrupt and say, wait
a second. So let me withhold that question, recognize the
Secretary for his statement, indicate that your statement has
been made a part of the record so you may be concise. Mr.
Secretary, forgive me.
SUMMARY STATEMENT OF KEN SALAZAR
Secretary Salazar. Thank you very much, Chairman Reed. Let
me make a few opening comments and try to be brief because I
think it is probably more important to engage in a dialogue on
some of the issues which you have raised, including the one you
just raised.
Let me at the outset say to you and to Ranking Member
Murkowski, to Senator Tester, Senator Blunt, and Senator
Collins, and all the members of the subcommittee, I very much
look forward to working with you. Senator Feinstein and Senator
Alexander set a great template working with their staffs and
working with the Department of the Interior on the budget in
the last 2 years I have been the Secretary of the Interior and
hope to be able to continue the same bipartisan approach to how
we move forward on the budgetary matters relating to the
Interior.
I also want to congratulate you, Mr. Chairman, on your
position as a chairman of this subcommittee. Oftentimes when I
took this position, people would describe this as a
``Department of the West'', and I think while there is a
tremendous amount of focus in places like Alaska and the State
of Montana and major activities on the part of the Department,
it truly is the Department of all of America. We have seen with
the Gulf of Mexico and the oil and gas production issues there,
all of the offshore wind issues on the Atlantic, the great
places, iconic places in Maine like Acadia National Park, and
their interest in wind power. Throughout all 50 States and the
1.75 billion acres of the Outer Continental Shelf, it truly is
an honor and a privilege to be the custodian of America's
natural resources and America's cultural heritage. I very much
look forward to working with all of you and with your staffs.
With me today, Deputy Secretary of the Interior, David
Hayes, who helps me on the broad array of issues that we face
at Interior every day. He is a problem solver on so many
issues, including trying to work on many of the Alaska issues
which Senator Murkowski alluded to. Then Pam Haze, who has
worked for multiple administrations as the Deputy Assistant
Secretary for Budget, Finance, Performance, and Acquisition,
and works with your staff who know so much about the Interior
budget.
2012 BUDGET
Let me just make a few comments about the budget. The 2012
budget, from our perspective, as we put it together is a freeze
budget. We went through the budget line-by-line and put
together what we believed was an appropriate budget for the
times which the President endorsed. It includes cuts which are
about $1.1 billion when you accumulate them all.
Also, as the members of this subcommittee would expect of
me, we went through and we tried to find places where we could
be much more efficient in the delivery of Government services,
including $179 million in administrative type cuts which
include $42 million in travel, $36 million in information
technology, and $53 million in procurement reform.
I want to comment briefly on three key initiatives because
I know they are an issue of concern to members of this
subcommittee and to Members of the Congress.
ENERGY
One is on energy. And the first comment I want to make is,
we continue to believe at the Department of the Interior and in
the White House under the President's energy program,
conventional oil and gas resources are a very important part of
powering our economy. We are involved in what we consider to be
a robust energy production program for both oil and natural
gas.
The request we have in front of this subcommittee for
BOEMRE is an increase of $119 million to help us deal with
standing up an organization you as a Congress can be rightly
proud of. I think if there is a look back at the last 30 years
under multiple administrations, Republican and Democrats as
well, not enough attention had been given to the development of
oil and gas resources in America's oceans. We saw the
consequence with nearly 5 million barrels of oil flowing out
into the Gulf of Mexico last year in what became essentially
one of the national crises which all of us lived through in one
way or another.
It is essential the funding be there in order for us to be
able to continue to look at not only the Gulf of Mexico, but
also other places as well to develop oil and gas from our
oceans in a safe way. The same thing is true with respect to
the great renewable energy potential we find in the offshore,
especially along the Atlantic States where we have made it a
major priority within the Department of the Interior.
Number two, a quick comment just on the renewable energy.
It is a significant initiative of the Department. Since I
became Secretary of the Interior, I am proud that in 2010 we
were able to permit 3,700 megawatts of power, most of that
solar power in the deserts of the Southwest, but significant
power that also came from wind and geothermal energy as well.
We have also permitted nearly 5,000 miles of transmission in
the West to make sure we can move the renewable energy from the
places it is produced to the places where it is consumed. The
budget before you for 2012 has a goal that I believe is
achievable, and it is to get to a point where we have
authorized and are standing up 10,000 megawatts of renewable
energy power.
My comment overall on energy is that we need energy coming
from a lot of different sources. The President's agenda on
energy includes oil and gas. It includes nuclear. It includes
all of the renewables which I spoke about here. We believe we
need to have a robust energy program for the Nation and for the
future. Hopefully as we move forward, this is an area where we
can work with the Congress on a bipartisan basis to create a
framework to finally get to a point where we are dealing with
the issues of overdependence on foreign oil which, frankly, I
know all of you on this subcommittee have worked on and
commented on in terms of how it compromises our national
security.
Just an interesting factoid. Over the last 2 years, we have
seen the amount of energy we are importing from foreign
countries go down to about 50 percent. And that is as a result
of domestic production we have. It is also as a result of
demand reduction through efficiencies, including the higher
vehicle mileages that we are now getting on our roadways in
America. The energy agenda, which is one I work on closely with
the President and Secretary Chu and my other colleagues in the
Cabinet is very important and which is integrally tied into the
funding proposals before you.
CONSERVATION
The second area I want to touch on briefly is conservation
and our efforts including the proposal for $900 million in
funding for LWCF, which is included in this budget. As many of
you in this subcommittee know, over the years since the mid-
1960s, there was a promise essentially made that the LWCF and
the Historic Preservation Fund would be funded from offshore
oil and gas royalties. Yet, it has been an empty and broken
promise to America. Senator Collins and I actually led an
effort, a letter that was signed by some 50 Senators a few
years ago, where we restored some of the funding for LWCF.
I think it is important when we look at the issue, and I
ask you as subcommittee members when you look at the issue and
ask yourself the question why now and why this kind of funding.
To look back at Abraham Lincoln in the midst of the Civil War,
who had the courage to set aside the lands that became Yosemite
National Park or to look at Teddy Roosevelt. As Senator Cochran
knows so well from his great work on the Migratory Bird
Commission where we met this morning, we have done a lot in
this country to stand up a conservation legacy and an agenda we
can all be truly proud of, Democrats and Republicans, hunters
and anglers, bikers, and so many others, that really are part
of not only the conservation legacy, but also part of the
economic engine of America. The conservation outdoor activities
here in the United States alone produce about 6.5 million jobs
a year. In the quest of standing up our economy, it is
important to recognize tourism that comes with outdoor
recreation is very important and that all is what is fed with
the conservation efforts we have.
I will put a footnote on that, my intention, as we move
forward with all of our conservation initiatives in the
America's Great Outdoors, is to follow the model we have
incorporated through the Migratory Bird Commission where we
allocate, in cooperation with the States, the funding for
conservation to the high-priority projects local communities
and the States want. In doing so, what we end up getting is
significant additional matching dollars to advance the
conservation agenda of America.
When you think about our population today at 307 million
people, knowing that the population over the next 20 years will
probably grow by an additional 100 million people here in the
United States, you have to ask the question where will those
100 million people go? As we continue to grow as a country, it
is going to be important to protect the areas where we hunt
ducks and pheasants and we do all of the rest of the kind of
activity so important to outdoor recreation. I would ask you to
consider the conservation funding in that context.
PREPARED STATEMENT
Finally, just a quick word about water. Water is such an
important issue, especially all over the country, without a
doubt, all over the world, but I think in particular in the
West. We come from such arid States. It is the lifeblood of
most of our communities. The Water Smart program, which we have
included in the budget, will make sure we are doing more with
the water we have. An example of the Water Smart program, with
37 water projects in 2010, we are able to save 490,000 acre
feet of water which is a very significant amount of water when
you come from one of the arid States like Montana.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I am delighted to have the
opportunity to work with you as we address the difficult issues
of our country.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Ken Salazar
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I am pleased to be
here today to present the details of the 2012 budget request for the
Department of the Interior. I want to thank the members of this
subcommittee for your strong interest and support of our Department.
Your efforts have helped to build a strong foundation for our
initiatives.
The 2012 budget builds on that strong foundation with $12.2 billion
requested for the Department of the Interior. This budget includes
$11.2 billion for programs funded by the Interior, Environment, and
Related Agencies appropriation. The 2012 budget is a freeze at the 2010
level, including significant reductions and savings totaling $1.1
billion, while funding key priorities.
The budget demonstrates that we can responsibly cut the deficit,
while investing to win the future and sustain the national recovery.
Our budget promotes the actions and programs that America told us are
important in 50 listening sessions across the country. With that
inspiration we developed a new 21st century conservation vision--
America's Great Outdoors. The budget continues to advance efforts that
you have facilitated in renewable energy and sustainable water
conservation, cooperative landscape conservation, youth in the
outdoors, and reforms in our conventional energy programs.
introduction
Interior's mission is simple, but profound--to protect America's
resources and cultural heritage and honor the Nation's trust
responsibilities to American Indians and Alaska Natives. Interior's
people and programs impact all Americans.
The Department is the steward of 20 percent of the Nation's lands
including national parks, national wildlife refuges, and the public
lands. Interior manages public lands and the Outer Continental Shelf
(OCS)--providing access for renewable and conventional energy
development and overseeing the protection and restoration of surface-
mined lands. The Department of the Interior is also the largest
supplier and manager of water in the 17 Western States and provides
hydropower resources used to power much of the country. Interior is
responsible for migratory wildlife and endangered species conservation
as well as the preservation of the Nation's historic and cultural
resources. The Department supports cutting edge research in the earth
sciences--geology, hydrology, and biology--to inform resource
management decisions at Interior and improve scientific understanding
worldwide. The Department of the Interior also fulfills the Nation's
unique trust responsibilities to American Indians and Alaska Natives,
and provides financial and technical assistance for the insular areas.
The Department makes significant contributions to the Nation
measured in economic terms. The Interior Department supports more than
1.3 million jobs and more than $370 billion in economic activity each
year. Parks, refuges, and monuments generate more than $24 billion in
economic activity from recreation and tourism. Conventional and
renewable energy produced on Interior lands and waters results in about
$295 billion in economic benefits and the water managed by Interior
supports more than $25 billion in agriculture. The American outdoor
industry estimates 6.5 million jobs are created every year from outdoor
activities.
In measures that cannot be translated into dollars and cents, the
Department protects the Nation's monuments and priceless landscapes,
conserves wildlife and fisheries, offers unparalleled recreational
opportunities, protects and interprets the cultural collections that
tell America's history, and manages resources that help to fulfill the
Nation's demands for energy, minerals, and water. Through its trust
responsibilities on behalf of American Indians and Alaska Natives,
Interior supports tribal self-governance and the strengthening of
Indian communities. For affiliated island communities, the Department
fulfills important commitments providing much needed technical and
financial assistance.
2010--a year of challenge and success
At the start of the administration in 2009, I set Interior on a
course to create a comprehensive strategy to advance a new energy
frontier; tackle the impacts of a changing landscape; improve the
sustainable use of water; engage youth in the outdoors; and improve the
safety of Indian communities. These priority goals integrate the
strengths of the Department's diverse bureaus and offices to address
key challenges of importance to the American public. Interior has been
making progress in these areas, including:
--Approving 12 renewable energy projects on public lands that when
built, will produce almost 4,000 megawatts of energy, enough
energy to power close to 1 million American homes, and create
thousands of construction and operational jobs.
--Designating more than 5,000 miles of transmission corridors on
public lands to facilitate siting and permitting of
transmission lines and processing more than 30 applications for
major transmission corridor rights-of-way.
--Establishing 3 of 8 planned regional climate science centers and 9
of 21 landscape conservation cooperatives.
--Increasing the number of youth employed in conservation through
Interior or its partners increased by 45 percent more than 2009
levels.
--Reducing overall crime in four Indian communities as a result of a
concerted effort to increase deployed law enforcement officers,
and conduct training in community policing techniques, and
engage the communities in law enforcement efforts.
The tragic events resulting from the explosion and sinking of the
Deepwater Horizon drilling rig in April of last year drew the attention
of the world to the Gulf of Mexico. Much of the focus of the Interior's
bureaus and offices in 2010 was on oil spill response, gulf coast
restoration, strengthening safety and environmental standards for
offshore energy production, and re-organizing and reforming the former
Minerals Management Service (MMS). Nonetheless, the Department advanced
other key priorities and strategic goals that will improve the
conservation and management of natural and cultural resources into the
future:
--Interior, along with the Department of Agriculture, the
Environmental Protection Agency, and the Council on
Environmental Quality (CEQ), participated in the White House
Conference on America's Great Outdoors and held 50 public
listening sessions across the Country that have helped shape a
conservation vision and strategy for the 21st century. We have
released a report, America's Great Outdoors: A Promise to
Future Generations, that lays out a partnership agenda for 21st
century conservation and recreation.
--In the spirit of America's Great Outdoors, we welcomed new national
wildlife refuges in Kansas and Colorado and proposed a new
conservation area in Florida at the headwaters to the
Everglades. These refuges mark a new era of conservation for
the Department, one that is community-driven, science-based,
and takes into account entire ecosystems and working
landscapes.
--The Department worked with others to develop an action plan to
bring relief for the drought-stricken California Bay-Delta
area, invested more than $500 million in major water projects
over the past 2 years, and moved forward on long-standing water
availability issues in the Colorado River Basin.
--In December, I issued my recommendation to the Congress to
undertake an additional 5.5 miles of bridging on the Tamiami
Trail in the Everglades above and beyond the 1-mile bridge now
under construction. When combined with other planned work in
the Everglades Agricultural Area and water conservation areas,
this project should restore 100 percent of historic water
quantity and flow to Everglades National Park.
--With the help of the Congress, we brought about resolution of the
Cobell v. Salazar settlement and resolved four long-standing
Indian water rights issues through enactment of the Claims
Resolution Act of 2010. We also completed negotiation of a new
Compact of Free Association with the island of Palau which
awaits congressional approval.
--In December of last year, the President hosted the second White
House Tribal Nations Conference bringing together tribal
leaders from across the United States; we are improving the
Nation-to-nation relationship with 565 tribes.
interior's budget in context
In his State of the Union Address in January, President Obama spoke
of what it will take to ``win the future.'' He challenged the Nation to
encourage American innovation, educate young people, rebuild America,
and shrink the burden of mounting debt. Interior's 2012 budget request
responds to this challenge. The investments proposed in this budget are
balanced by reductions in other programs--recognizing the Nation's need
to live within its means to ensure a legacy of economic strength.
Taking Fiscal Responsibility.--Interior's 2012 budget must be
viewed in context of the difficult fiscal times facing the Nation and
the President's freeze on discretionary funding. The 2012 budget
reflects many difficult budget choices, cutting worthy programs and
advancing efforts to shrink Federal spending. The budget contains
reductions totaling $1.1 billion or 8.9 percent of the 2010 enacted/
2011 continuing resolution level. Staffing reductions are anticipated
in some program areas, which will be achieved through attrition,
outplacement, and buy-outs to minimize the need to conduct reductions
in force to the greatest extent possible. These reductions are a
necessary component of maintaining overall fiscal restraint while
allowing us to invest additional resources in core agency priorities.
This budget is responsible. The $12.2 billion budget funds
important investments by eliminating and reducing lower-priority
programs, deferring projects, reducing redundancy, streamlining
management, and capturing administrative and efficiency savings. It
maintains funding levels for core functions that are vital to uphold
stewardship responsibilities and sustain key initiatives. The 2012
request includes $11.2 billion for programs funded by the Interior,
Environment, and Related Agencies appropriation. This is $69.2 million,
or less than 1 percent, more than the 2010 enacted level and $87.6
million above the 2011 annualized continuing resolution level. The 2012
request for the Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) and the Central Utah
Project Completion Act, funded in the Energy and Water Development
Appropriations Act, is $1.1 billion in current appropriations, $88.3
million or 8 percent below the 2010 enacted level and $78.3 million or
7 percent below the 2011 continuing resolution level.
Permanent funding that becomes available as a result of existing
legislation without further action by the Congress results in an
additional $5.6 billion, for $17.8 billion in total budget authority
for the Interior in 2012.
Program Reductions and Terminations.--Interior's $12.2 billion
budget proposal includes $913.6 million in program terminations and
program reductions of which $188 million are featured in the
President's list of terminations and reductions. This also includes the
elimination of $47.6 million in congressional earmarks not related to
land acquisition or construction.
These cuts were identified as part of a top to bottom review that
considered mission criticality, the ability of partners to support the
function, duplication or overlap, relevance to key initiatives, program
performance, the relevance of timing and if the activity could be
deferred, and short- and long-term strategic goals.
Examples of the tough decisions made in 2012 include terminating
the $7 million Rural Fire Assistance program which is duplicative of
other fire assistance grant programs managed by the Department of
Homeland Security and Department of Agriculture. The National Park
Service's (NPS) Save America's Treasures and Preserve America programs
are eliminated in 2012 to focus the NPS resources on the highest-
priority park requirements. The NPS Heritage Partnership Programs are
reduced by half to encourage self-sufficiency among well-established
National Heritage Areas while continuing support for newer areas. In
the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), the Indian Guaranteed Loan Program
is reduced 63 percent in 2012 pending an evaluation of the program's
effectiveness and alternatives to improve program performance.
Program reductions are proposed in every bureau and office in the
Department. One area that is reduced Interior-wide is construction. The
budget includes $178.8 million for the Bureau of Land Management (BLM),
Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), and the NPS construction programs; in
total this is a reduction of $100.2 million or 36 percent from the 2010
enacted/2011 continuing resolution level. To achieve these reductions,
the Department has frozen construction of new facilities in 2012 and
deferred construction of replacement facilities. Interior's 2012
request for construction focuses on the highest-priority health and
safety and mission critical projects and defers lower priorities. The
Department is committed to the repair and rehabilitation of current
assets and funding for facility maintenance is held nearly level.
Administrative Savings.--The budget includes $99.4 million in
reductions reflecting administrative cost savings as part of the
administration's Accountable Government initiative. These reductions
will be generated by efficiencies throughout Interior, changing how the
Department manages travel, employee relocation, acquisition of supplies
and printing services, and the use of advisory services. These
reductions are in addition to $620 million in travel, information
technology, and strategic sourcing savings identified as part of the
President's 2011 request. These reductions are sustained in the 2012
request along with bureau-specific efficiencies.
--The Department will achieve $42 million in savings in travel and
relocation through improved management at the program level and
re-examination of Departmental policies.
--An estimated $53 million in savings will be achieved through
acquisition improvement initiatives including shared contracts
to use Interior-wide for the acquisition of commodities,
supplies, and services. In 2011, Interior is implementing
Department-wide strategic-sourcing initiatives for office
supplies and copier-based multifunctional devices. Savings from
expanded strategic sourcing is one component of a comprehensive
plan to improve acquisition practices throughout Interior.
--Efficiency savings from expanded strategic sourcing is one
component of a comprehensive plan to improve acquisition
practices throughout Interior. Another component to reduce
advisory services spending will achieve an approximate $15
million in savings.
--Through careful planning, strategic investments, and unprecedented
cooperation, significant opportunity exists to realize
efficiencies in the Department's IT infrastructure of an
estimated $36 million, including energy and cost savings. The
Department has identified five primary focus areas:
--risk-based information security services;
--infrastructure consolidation;
--unified messaging;
--workstation ratio reduction;
--radio site consolidation; and
--The Department's 2012 budget reflects a freeze on Federal salaries
for 2011 and 2012 and requirements to address fixed-cost
increases are limited to anticipated changes in the Federal
contributions to health benefits, GSA rent increases, changes
in workers and unemployment compensation costs, and specific
contract requirements for Public Law 93-638 agreements.
Cost Recovery.--The budget proposes to increase cost recovery to
offset the cost of some source development activities that provide
clear benefits to customers.
The budget proposes to increase fees for offshore oil and gas
inspections from $10 million in the 2010 enacted budget to $65 million
in 2012. These fee collections incorporate a more robust inspection
program and expand the scope of offshore inspection fees to include
offshore drilling rigs, given the need for greater scrutiny of drilling
operations as a core component of deepwater oil and gas development.
This is consistent with the National Commission on the BP Deepwater
Horizon Oil Spill and Offshore Drilling. The report states that the oil
and gas industry should be ``required to pay for its regulators'' so
that the costs of regulation ``would no longer be funded by taxpayers
but instead by the industry that is permitted to have access to a
publicly owned resource.''
Similarly, the budget proposes to collect $38 million for onshore
oil and gas inspection activities conducted by the BLM. The budget also
proposes new fees totaling $4.4 million for coal and other minerals
inspections conducted by the BLM to recover the costs of inspecting
these operations.
Likewise, the budget proposes to decrease Office of Surface Mining
(OSM) grants to State programs that regulate the coal industry, to
encourage those States to increase cost recovery fees for coal mine
permit processing.
investments for the future
America's Great Outdoors.--Last year, the administration initiated
a national dialogue at the White House Conference on America's Great
Outdoors. In 50 listening sessions held across the Country, the public
communicated their conservation and recreation priorities, and the
result is a report to the President, America's Great Outdoors: A
Promise to Future Generations. The report outlines how the Federal
Government can support a renewed and refreshed conservation vision by
working in collaboration with communities, farmers and ranchers,
businesses, conservationists, youth and others who are working to
protect the places that matter to them and by engaging people across
the country in conservation and recreation.
The report calls for the Government and its partners to help
conserve and recreate on the lands and places that Americans care about
most. To this end, the report recommends expanding access to green
spaces for recreation, restoring, and connecting open spaces and rural
landscapes to power economic revitalization and species conservation,
and increasing our investment of revenue from oil and gas development
in the protection of open spaces. The report calls for the revision of
Government policies to improve program effectiveness and alignment, and
leverage local, community-driven efforts and asks the Federal
Government to be a better partner with States, tribes, landowners,
local communities, the private sector and others to meet shared
conservation goals.
The 2012 President's budget identifies resources that are targeted
on these outcomes with $5.5 billion for programs included in the
America's Great Outdoors initiative, an increase of $363 million more
than the fiscal year 2010 level. The components of this budget request
include land management operations, programs funded through the Land
and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF), and grant programs focused on
partnerships that conserve natural resources, restore, rivers and
trails, and preserve the Nation's historic assets.
The 2012 budget for the America's Great Outdoors initiative
includes $4.6 billion for core operations, an increase of $13.5
million, in the land and resource management bureaus--the BLM, FWS, and
NPS. Increases in Interior's land management bureaus will enhance
cultural and interpretative programs throughout our network of national
parks, refuges, and public lands. This funding will also support day-
to-day operations, improve the condition of facilities, and address
natural resource management needs. More than 285 million Americans and
foreign tourists visited the Nation's national parks in 2009, nearly 11
million more than in 2008, a 3.9 percent increase. This was the fifth
busiest year for the National Park System, just missing the all-time
visitation record set in 1987. The increased visitation to the national
parks reinforces the importance and value Americans place on their
treasured landscapes.
The initiative also includes $675 million for programs funded from
the LWCF. The components of this request are: $375 million for Federal
land acquisition, $200 million for an expanded LWCF State grants
program including competitive grants, and $100 million for Cooperative
Endangered Species Conservation Grants.
The 2012 budget for Interior and the U.S. Forest Service (USFS)
includes full funding, $900 million, for the LWCF. This funding is
drawn from revenue generated each year from oil and gas development.
This fulfills the vision for the LWCF, with a dedicated source of
funding generated from the depletion of resources to be used annually
to advance resource conservation and recreational opportunities. For
the 2012 budget, the Department coordinates Interior bureaus' and the
USFS's land acquisition priorities and presents a joint conservation
strategy that maximizes conservation outcomes in key geographic focal
areas.
The 2012 budget also includes $150 million for fish and wildlife
conservation grants, an increase of $7 million, including $50 million
for the North American Wetlands Conservation Fund, $95 million for
State and Tribal Wildlife Grants, and $5 million for Neotropical
Migratory Bird Conservation Grants. An additional $72.4 million is
proposed for the NPS partnership programs, including $62.4 million for
historic preservation grants to States and tribes, an increase of $6.5
million and $10 million for the Rivers, Trails and Conservation
Assistance program, an increase of $1.1 million.
The 2012 America's Great Outdoors initiative focuses on investments
that will lead to healthy lands, waters, and resources while
stimulating the economy--goals that are complementary. Through
strategic partnerships, Interior will support and protect historic uses
of lands, restore lands and resources, protect and interpret historic
and cultural resources, and expand outdoor recreation opportunities.
All of these activities have significant economic benefits in rural and
urban communities. An economic impact analysis completed by the
Department in December 2009 estimates that in 2008 more than 400
million visits to the Nation's parks, refuges, and public lands
generated nearly $25 billion and more than 300,000 jobs in recreation
and tourism, contributing significantly to the economic vitality of
many communities.
New Energy Frontier.--The 2012 budget continues the Department's
New Energy Frontier initiative to create jobs, reduce the Nation's
dependence on fossil fuels and oil imports, and reduce carbon impacts.
Facilitating renewable energy development is a major component of this
strategy along with effective management of conventional energy
programs.
The Department has made significant advances in its priority goal
to increase approved capacity for renewable energy production on
Interior lands by at least 10,000 megawatts by the end of 2012, while
ensuring full environmental review. To date, the BLM has approved
projects that, when built, will generate approximately 4,000 megawatts
of energy. The budget requests $72.9 million for renewable energy
programs in 2012, an increase of $13.9 million more than the 2010
enacted/2011 continuing resolution level.
While we work to develop renewable energy sources, domestic oil and
gas production remain critical to our Nation's energy supply and to
reducing our dependence on foreign oil. As was underscored by the
tragic explosion of the Deepwater Horizon and the oil spill that
followed, we must take immediate steps to make production safer and
more environmentally responsible. The recently released report from the
National Commission on the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill and Offshore
Drilling concludes that neither industry nor the Government were
adequately prepared to respond to a blowout in deepwater. We have been
aggressively pursuing reforms to raise the bar on safety standards for
offshore drilling--including new standards for how well they are
drilled and for the safety systems to prevent blowouts, as well as
requiring operators to demonstrate that they are able to respond
promptly and effectively to a loss of well control in deepwater. We are
also making fundamental changes to improve the effectiveness of
Government safety oversight and environmental protection.
The Commission's recommendations are, in many ways, a strong
validation of the reforms that we at the Department of the Interior
have been undertaking to promote safety and science in offshore oil and
gas operations. Moreover, the Commission's findings and recommendations
bolster the case for Interior's comprehensive reforms and the
reorganization of offshore oil and gas oversight that will remedy
conflicted missions, stand up a stronger regulatory framework, create
an internal review unit to investigate problems in a timely manner,
improve agency and industry management of safety and environmental
protection, and expand the team of inspectors, engineers and other
safety personnel. Many reforms have already been accomplished
including:
--Implementation of strong new safety and environmental standards
including:
--a safety rule that raises standards for everything from drilling
equipment and well design to casing and cementing;
--a requirement that companies establish comprehensive risk
management programs;
--a requirement that operators demonstrate capability to deal with
a catastrophic blowout;
--limiting the use of categorical exclusions so that proposed lease
sales and drilling projects go through rigorous
environmental reviews under the National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA); and
--requiring companies to put their signature on the line to state
that their rigs comply with safety and environmental laws
and regulations; and
--Termination of the controversial royalty-in-kind program, which
accepted oil and natural gas from producers in lieu of cash
royalty payments, in favor of a more transparent and
accountable royalty collection system.
--Dissolution of the MMS with the transfer of minerals revenue
management to the Office of Natural Resources Revenue (ONRR) in
the Office of the Secretary and creation of the Bureau of Ocean
Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement (BOEMRE) as an
interim organization while further structural changes are made.
--Formulation of a plan for reorganization of the former MMS that
will separate the offshore resource management and the safety
and environmental enforcement programs into two independent
organizations--the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management and the
Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement.
--Development and implementation of regulations and guidance to
operators to heighten standards for drilling safety, including
requiring operators to demonstrate the ability to respond to a
deepwater blowout.
--Continuing to pursue changes responsive to the recommendations of
the Safety Oversight Board, the National Academy of
Engineering, and the National Commission on the BP Deepwater
Horizon oil Spill.
--Completion of a review of ethics issues related to the Department's
management of the OCS program and creation of the
Investigations and Review Unit.
--Implementation of a recruitment strategy for BOEMRE to expand the
field of inspectors and engineers including recruitment tours
of petroleum engineering programs at universities across the
country.
--Establishment of the Offshore Energy Safety Advisory Committee to
advise BOEMRE on issues related to offshore energy safety,
including drilling and workplace safety, well intervention and
containment, and oil spill response.
The 2012 budget includes $506.3 million for the components of the
former MMS to continue our efforts at reorganization and reform of both
offshore energy development activities and mineral revenue collection.
This includes a total program of $358.4 million for the BOEMRE, an
increase of $119.3 million, or 50 percent, more than the 2010 enacted
level, after adjusting for the transfer of mineral revenue collections
to the new ONRR. The budget proposes to offset BOEMRE program funding
with $160.2 million in offsetting rental receipts and cost recoveries
and $65 million from oil and gas inspection fees.
The budget makes investments to increase capacity for leasing and
environmental review, safety and environmental enforcement, and oil
spill research. This request will enable Interior to hire more than 100
inspectors, engineers, and other safety and enforcement staff by the
end of 2012. The 2012 budget includes funding for the Investigations
and Review Unit to respond to allegations or evidence of misconduct and
unethical behavior; oversee and coordinate internal auditing,
regulatory oversight and enforcement systems and programs; and ensure
the organization's ability to respond to emerging issues and crises,
including spills and accidents. Funding is also included to support the
use of sound science in all of the Department's offshore energy
activities.
The 2012 budget request also includes $147.9 million for the ONRR
located in the Office of the Secretary. The proposed $38.7 million
increase more than the 2010 enacted level will allow us to strengthen
auditing and compliance efforts for royalty revenue collections and to
complete the transition of the royalty-in-kind program to royalty-in-
value collections.
Youth in the Great Outdoors.--Furthering the youth and conservation
goals of the America's Great Outdoors initiative, the 2012 budget
proposes to continue engaging youth by employing and educating young
people from all backgrounds. The 2012 budget includes $46.8 million for
youth programs, an increase of $7.6 million more than the 2010 enacted/
2011 continuing resolution level.
Interior is uniquely qualified to engage and educate young people
in the outdoors and has programs that establish connections for youth
ages 18 to 25 with natural and cultural resource conservation. These
programs help address unemployment in young adults and address health
issues by encouraging exercise and outdoor activities. For example,
Interior is taking part in the First Lady's Let's Move initiative to
combat the problem of childhood obesity. The BLM, NPS, and FWS have
Let's Move Outside programs to promote physical activity for children
and families on the Nation's public lands. Interior has long-standing
partnerships with organizations such as the 4-H, the Boy Scouts, the
Girl Scouts, the Youth Conservation Corps, and the Student Conservation
Association. These programs leverage Federal investments to put young
people to work and build a conservation ethic.
In 2010, Interior met its high-priority performance goal to employ
15,900 in conservation-related careers through the Department or its
partners. This is a 45 percent increase from 2009. The 2012 goal is to
increase this youth employment by 60 percent.
Cooperative Landscape Conservation.--The 2012 budget realigns
programs and funding to better equip land and resource managers with
the tools they need to effectively conserve resources in a rapidly
changing environment. Significant changes in water availability, longer
and more intense fire seasons, invasive species, and disease outbreaks
are creating challenges for resource managers and impacting the
sustainability of resources on public lands. These changes result in
bark beetle infestations, deteriorated range conditions, and water
shortages that negatively impact grazing, forestry, farming, as well as
the status of wildlife and the condition of their habitats. Many of
these problems are caused by or exacerbated by climate change.
The 2012 budget includes $175 million for cooperative landscape
conservation, an increase of $43.8 million. The budget funds the
completion of the climate science centers and landscape conservation
cooperatives, the organizing framework for the Department's efforts to
work collaboratively with others to understand and manage these
changes. These efforts will allow the Department to meet its priority
goal to identify resources vulnerable to climate change and implement
coordinated adaptation response actions for 50 percent of the Nation by
the end of 2012.
The request for the USGS climate variability science is $73
million, which includes $14.3 million for carbon sequestration
research. The USGS is conducting cutting-edge research in biological
and geological carbon sequestration, to investigate the potential of
removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere for storage in vegetation,
soils, sediments, oil and gas reservoirs, and saline geologic
formations. The 2012 budget will advance USGS research to assess rates
and potential capacity for carbon storage in ecosystems, and evaluate
the Nation's potential resources for geological storage.
Water Challenges.--Interior is working to address the 21st century
pressures on the Nation's water supplies. Population growth, aging
water infrastructure, changing climate, rising energy demands, impaired
water quality and environmental needs are among the challenges. Water
shortage and water use conflicts have become more commonplace in many
areas of the United States, even in normal water years. As competition
for water resources grows, the need for information and tools to aid
water resource managers also grows. Water issues and challenges are
increasing across the Nation, but particularly in the West and
Southeast due to prolonged drought. Traditional water management
approaches no longer meet today's needs.
The request for the BOR funded in the Energy and Water Development
appropriation proposes to fund WaterSMART at $58.9 million. This
program is a joint effort with the USGS. The USGS will use $10.9
million, an increase of $9 million, for a multi-year, nationwide water
availability and use assessment program.
The Department is working hard to address water issues throughout
the West. Most of the work is led by the Department's BOR funded
through the Energy and Water Development appropriation. Many of the
Department's other bureaus, like the FWS, and the U.S. Geological
Survey (USGS), partner and offer additional support to these efforts.
The Bay-Delta is a source of drinking water for 25 million
Californians and sustains about $400 billion in annual economic
activity, including a $28 billion agricultural industry and up until
recently supported a thriving commercial and recreational fishing
industry. Our efforts in the Bay-Delta are focused on co-leading an
inter-agency effort with the CEQ to implement the December 2009 Interim
Federal Action Plan for the California Bay-Delta Conservation Plan. In
coordination with five other Federal agencies, we are leveraging our
activities to address California water issues, promote water efficiency
and conservation, expand voluntary water transfers in the Central
Valley, fund drought relief projects, and make investments in water
infrastructure. Over the past 2 years, we have invested more than $500
million in water projects in California. We have also, in close
coordination with NOAA and the State of California, worked on the
California Bay-Delta Conservation Plan, a long-term plan aimed at
restoring both reliable water supplies and a healthy Bay-Delta
ecosystem.
On February 18, we announced the initial 2011 Water Supply
Allocation for Central Valley Project (CVP) water users. We were
pleased to report that some of the CVP contractors and waters users
will receive a 100 percent allocation due to the precipitation and
snowpack in the Sierra Nevada Mountains and improved carryover
reservoir storage. Agricultural water service contractors South-of-
Delta have an initial allocation of 50 percent, but this is an
improvement on the 46 percent initial allocation they've averaged over
the past 20 years. These allocations represent good news given recent
years, but many challenges remain. We will continue to work with our
Federal, State, and local partners to improve water supply reliability
while addressing significant ecological issues.
Our 2012 budget for the BOR includes $53.1 million for the CVP
Restoration Fund that is offset by collections estimated at $52.8
million. The 2012 budget for BOR includes $39.7 million for the
California Bay-Delta Restoration account and $35.1 million for San
Joaquin River restoration. An additional $6.9 million is included in
the budget for the FWS and the USGS activities in support of Bay-Delta
ecosystem restoration.
Strengthening Tribal Nations.--The 2012 budget for Indian programs
is $2.5 billion, a decrease of $118.9 million. The reduction includes
completion of a one-time $50 million forward funding payment to tribal
colleges, completion of $47 million in public safety projects normally
funded by the Department of Justice, and $14.5 million for completed
water settlements.
The BIA budget includes reductions that are tougher choices,
including reductions of $27 million in Trust Real Estate Services,
$14.2 million in central oversight programs, and $5.1 million in the
Indian Guaranteed Loan Program.
The 2012 budget provides $89.6 million in increases including:
$42.3 million for programs that advance the Nation-to-Nation
relationship; $20 million to enhance public safety and justice
programs; $18.4 million to improve trust land management; and $8.9
million for education programs. The 2012 budget includes an increase of
$29.5 million for contract support and the Indian Self-Determination
Fund--this was the highest priority of the Indian tribes. These funds
will enable tribes to fulfill administrative requirements associated
with operating programs.
The 2012 budget supports achievement of a priority goal to reduce
violent crime by at least 5 percent within 24 months on targeted tribal
reservations through a comprehensive and coordinated strategy. The
budget includes $354.7 million, an increase of $20 million, for law
enforcement operations, detention center operations and maintenance,
tribal courts, and conservation law enforcement officers.
Indian Land and Water Settlements.--The 2012 budget includes $84.3
million in the BOR and BIA to implement land and water settlements.
The BOR's budget includes $51.5 million, an increase of $26.7
million, for the initial implementation of four settlements authorized
in the Claims Resolution Act of 2010. The legislation included water
settlements for the Taos Pueblo of New Mexico and Pueblos of New Mexico
named in the Aamodt case, the Crow Tribe of Montana, and the White
Mountain Apache Tribe of Arizona.
The Claims Resolution Act of 2010 establishes trust funds for
tribes to manage water systems and settlement funds to develop
infrastructure. The primary responsibility for constructing these water
systems was given to the BOR, while the BIA is responsible for the
majority of the trust funds, which includes $207.2 million in mandatory
funding in 2011.
These settlements will deliver clean water to the Taos Pueblo and
the Pueblos of Nambe; Pojoaque, San Ildefonso, and Tesuque in New
Mexico; the Crow Tribe of Montana; and the White Mountain Apache Tribe
of Arizona. In addition to funding for the initial implementation of
these four settlements, BOR's budget includes $24.8 million for the
Navajo-Gallup Water Supply project. In the 2012 budget, BOR is
establishing an Indian Water Rights Settlements account to assure
continuity in the construction of the authorized projects and to
highlight and enhance transparency.
The BIA 2012 budget includes $32.9 million for ongoing Indian land
and water settlements, a reduction of $12.9 million, reflecting
completion of the Pueblo of Isleta, Puget Sound regional shellfish, and
Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians settlements.
Land Remote Sensing.--For 40 years, Landsat satellites have
recorded the global landscape, creating an archive of both natural and
manmade changes. This imagery generates $935 million in value for the
U.S. economy by driving innovation in the agricultural, water
management, and disaster response sectors. For example, foresters
around the country use Landsat imagery to remotely map and monitor the
status of woodlands in near real-time. This allows them to track the
devastation caused by the pine bark beetle in the Rocky Mountains and
monitor drought and fire-prone areas.
Landsat fills an essential need for data that is refreshed on a
time scale and with a level of resolution and granular detail that is
otherwise not available. Commercial data is not available that fill a
void that could be created in the absence of continuous Landsat
coverage.
The 2012 budget for the USGS includes $48 million to begin planning
activities with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration
(NASA) for an operational Landsat program. Consistent with the
administration's national space policy, the 2012 budget enables the
USGS to assume management responsibility for a new operational Landsat
program that will ensure continuity of Landsat data in the future. The
USGS will provide data requirements and funding, while NASA, drawing on
its historic expertise, will build the Landsat satellites on a
reimbursable basis for the USGS. This new operating structure is
consistent with the approach used for NOAA's JPSS weather satellites,
and will ensure sufficient oversight while avoiding duplication.
The 2012 budget will enable the USGS to gather and prioritize
Federal user community requirements for land image data, conduct trade
studies on key design alternatives related to the development of the
imaging device, initiate the procurement process through NASA for the
Landsat 9 and 10 instruments and spacecrafts, and establish a science
advisory team, in order to launch Landsat 9 in fiscal year 2019 and
Landsat 10 in fiscal year 2024.
Also included within a new separate account for National Land
Imaging is an increase of $13.4 million to complete the retooling of
the ground receiving stations to be able to receive data from the new
instruments on Landsat 8, expected to be launched in December 2012.
mandatory proposals
Interior continues to generate more revenue for the U.S. Treasury
than its annual discretionary appropriation. In 2012, Interior will
generate revenue of approximately $14.1 billion and propose mandatory
legislation estimated to generate another $3 billion in revenue and
savings over 10 years. The budget assumes the enactment of legislative
proposals that we plan to submit to the Congress in the coming weeks.
These proposals will reform abandoned mine reclamation and hardrock
mining on Federal lands, and collect a fair return to the American
taxpayer for the development of Federal resources.
Reform Abandoned Mine Land (AML) Reclamation.--The administration
proposes to reform the AML program to reduce unnecessary spending and
ensure that the Nation's highest- priority abandoned coal and hardrock
sites are reclaimed. First, the budget proposes to terminate the
unrestricted payments to States and tribes that have been certified for
completing their coal reclamation work as these payments are no longer
needed for reclamation of abandoned coal mine lands. Second, the budget
proposes to reform the distribution process for the remaining
reclamation funding to competitively allocate available resources to
the highest-priority coal AML sites. Through a competitive grant
program, a new Abandoned Mine Lands Advisory Council will review and
rank the AML sites, so that the OSM can distribute grants to reclaim
the highest-priority coal sites each year.
Third, to address the legacy of abandoned hardrock mines across the
United States, Interior will create a parallel AML program for
abandoned hardrock sites. Like the coal program, hardrock reclamation
would be financed by a new AML fee on the production of hardrock
minerals on both public and private lands displaced after January 2012.
The BLM would distribute the funds through a competitive grant program
to reclaim the highest priority hardrock abandoned sites on Federal,
State, tribal, and private lands.
Altogether, this proposal will save $1.3 billion over the next 10
years, focus available coal fees on the Nation's most dangerous
abandoned coal mines, and hold the hardrock mining industry responsible
for cleaning up the hazards left by their predecessors.
Reform Hardrock Mining on Federal Lands.--The budget proposes to
provide a fair return to the taxpayer from hardrock production on
Federal lands. The proposal would institute a leasing program under the
Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 for certain hardrock minerals including
gold, silver, lead, zinc, copper, uranium, and molybdenum, currently
covered by the General Mining Law of 1872.
After enactment, mining for these metals on Federal lands would be
governed by the new leasing process and subject to annual rental
payments and a royalty of not less than 5 percent of gross proceeds.
Half of the receipts would be distributed to the States in which the
leases are located and the remaining half would be deposited in the
Treasury. Existing mining claims would be exempt from the change to a
leasing system, but would be subject to increases in the annual
maintenance fees under the General Mining Law of 1872. The ONRR will
collect, account for, and disburse the hardrock royalty receipts. This
proposal would generate an estimated $100 million in revenue over 10
years.
Fee on Nonproducing Oil and Gas Leases.--The administration will
submit a legislative proposal to encourage energy production on lands
and waters leased for development. A $4 per-acre fee on nonproducing
Federal leases both onshore and offshore would provide a financial
incentive for oil and gas companies to either get their leases into
production or relinquish them so that the tracts can be leased to and
developed by new parties. The proposed $4 per-acre fee would apply to
all new leases and would be indexed annually. In October 2008, the
Government Accountability Office issued a report critical of past
efforts by Interior to ensure that companies diligently develop their
Federal leases. Although the report focused on administrative actions
that the Department could undertake, this proposal requires legislative
action. This proposal is similar to other nonproducing fee proposals
considered by the Congress in the last several years. The fee is
projected to generate revenues to the U.S. Treasury of $25 million in
2012 and $874 million over 10 years.
Net Receipts Sharing for Energy Minerals.--The administration
proposes to make permanent the current arrangement for sharing the cost
to administer energy and minerals receipts, beginning in 2013. Under
current law, States receiving significant payments from mineral revenue
development on Federal lands also share in the costs of administering
the Federal mineral leases from which the revenue is generated. In
2012, this net receipts sharing deduction from mineral revenue payments
to States would be implemented as an offset to the Interior
appropriations act, consistent with the provision included in 2010 and
continued under the 2011 continuing resolution. Permanent
implementation of net receipts sharing is expected to result in savings
of $44 million in 2013 and $441 million over 10 years.
Repeal Oil and Gas Fee Prohibition and Mandatory Permit Funds.--The
administration proposes to repeal portions of section 365 of the Energy
Policy Act, beginning in 2013. Section 365 diverted mineral leasing
receipts from the U.S. Treasury to a BLM Permit Processing Improvement
Fund and also prohibited the BLM from establishing cost recovery fees
for processing applications for oil and gas permits to drill. The
Congress has implemented permit fees through appropriations language
for the last several years and the 2012 budget proposes to continue
this practice. Starting in 2013, upon elimination of the fee
prohibition, the BLM will promulgate regulations to administratively
establish fees for applications for permits to drill. In combination
with normal discretionary appropriations, these cost recovery fees will
then replace the permit fees set annually through appropriations
language and the mandatory permit fund, which would also be repealed
starting in 2013. Savings from terminating this mandatory funding are
estimated at $20 million in 2013 and $57 million over 3 years.
Geothermal Energy Receipts.--The administration proposes to repeal
section 224(b) of the Energy Policy Act of 2005. Prior to passage of
this legislation, geothermal revenues were split between the Federal
Government and States, with 50 percent directed to States, and 50
percent to the Treasury. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 changed this
distribution beginning in 2006 to direct 50 percent to States, 25
percent to counties, and for a period of 5 years, 25 percent to a new
BLM Geothermal Steam Act Implementation Fund. The allocations to the
new BLM geothermal fund were discontinued a year early through a
provision in the 2010 Interior, Environment, and Realted Agencies
Appropriations Act. The repeal of section 224(b) will permanently
discontinue payments to counties and restore the disposition of Federal
geothermal leasing revenues to the historical formula of 50 percent to
the States and 50 percent to the Treasury. This results in savings of
$6.5 million in 2012 and $74 million over 10 years.
Deep Gas and Deepwater Incentives.--The administration proposes to
repeal section 344 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005. section 344
mandated royalty incentives for certain ``deep gas'' production on the
OCS. This change will help ensure that Americans receive fair value for
federally owned mineral resources. Based on current oil and gas price
projections, the budget does not assume savings from this change;
however, the proposal could generate savings to the Treasury if future
natural gas prices end up below current projections.
Repeal of Authorities to Accept Royalty Payments In Kind.--The
administration proposes to solidify a recent Departmental reform
terminating the Royalty-in-Kind program by repealing all Interior
authorities to accept future royalties through this program. This
change will help increase confidence that future royalty payments will
be properly accounted for. The budget does not assume savings from this
change because the administration does not anticipate restarting the
program; however, if enacted, this proposal would provide additional
certainty that a new Royalty-in-Kind program would not be initiated at
some point in the future.
Federal Land Transaction Facilitation Act.--The administration
proposes to reauthorize this act, eliminating the 2011 sunset date and
allowing lands identified as suitable for disposal in recent land use
plans to be sold using the act's authority. The act's sales revenues
would continue to be used to fund the acquisition of environmentally
sensitive lands and the administrative costs associated with conducting
sales.
Federal Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamps.--Federal
Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamps, commonly known as Duck
Stamps, were originally created in 1934 as the annual Federal license
required for hunting migratory waterfowl. Today, 98 percent of the
receipts generated from the sale of these $15 stamps are used to
acquire important migratory bird areas for migration, breeding, and
wintering. The price of the Duck Stamp has not increased since 1991,
while the cost of land and water has increased significantly. The
administration proposes to increase these fees to $25 per stamp per
year, beginning in 2012. Increasing the price of Duck Stamps will bring
the estimate for the Migratory Bird Conservation account to
approximately $58 million. With these increased receipts, the
Department anticipates additional acquisition of approximately 7,000
acres in fee and approximately 10,000 acres in conservation easement in
2012. Total acres acquired for 2012 would then be approximately 28,000
acres in fee title and 47,000 acres in perpetual conservation
easements.
Compact of Free Association.--On September 3, 2010, the United
States and the Republic of Palau successfully concluded the review of
the Compact of Free Association and signed a 15-year agreement that
includes a package of assistance through 2024. Under the agreement,
Palau committed to undertake economic, legislative, financial, and
management reforms. The conclusion of the agreement reaffirms the close
partnership between the United States and the Republic of Palau.
Permanent and indefinite funding for the compact expired at the end of
2010. The 2012 budget seeks to authorize permanent funding for the
Compact as it strengthens the foundations for economic development by
developing public infrastructure, and improving healthcare and
education. Compact funding will also undertake one or more
infrastructure projects designed to support Palau's economic
development efforts. The Republic of Palau has a strong track record of
supporting the United States and its location is strategically linked
to Guam and United States operations in Kwajalein Atoll. The cost for
this proposal for 2012-2021 is $188.5 million.
Extend Service First Authority.--The budget includes legislative
language to extend authority for the Service First program. The laws
creating Service First give the Departments of the Interior and
Agriculture the authority to establish pilot programs that leverage
joint resources. Service First allows certain land management agencies
to conduct activities jointly or on behalf of one another; collocate in
Federal offices or leased facilities; make reciprocal delegations of
respective authorities, duties, and responsibilities; and transfer
funds and provide reimbursements on an annual basis, including
transfers and reimbursements for multi-year projects. This authority is
currently set to expire at the end of 2011. The extension included in
the budget will make the Service First authority permanent to continue
these arrangements that have saved costs and improved effectiveness.
conclusion
Thank you for the opportunity to testify on the President's 2012
budget request for the Department of the Interior. We have a tremendous
opportunity to improve the future for our children and grandchildren
with smart investments. This budget has fiscal discipline and
restraint, but it includes forward looking investments. For America to
be at its best and win the future, we need lands that are healthy,
waters that are clean, and an expanded range of energy options to power
our economy. I thank you again for your continued support of the
Department's mission. 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 Reed. Mr. Secretary, thank you for your statement,
and I apologize that I almost pre-empted it inadvertently. So
forgive me.
I know Senator Cochran is here. Senator, do you have any
comments?
STATEMENT OF SENATOR THAD COCHRAN
Senator Cochran. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. I am
pleased to join the other members of the subcommittee in
welcoming the distinguished Secretary to our subcommittee.
We did start off the day together at the Migratory Bird
Conservation Commission meeting where we have worked together
for some time. Of course, he was a Senator and he knows us all
very well. So we cannot get away with bluffing or any of that.
We have got to know what we are talking about today.
But it is a pleasure to welcome him to our subcommittee.
Senator Reed. You are absolutely right, Senator. This is
more conversational than testimonial. That is why I think I
slipped into the questions too quickly. But forgive me.
OIL AND GAS REVENUES
Just renewing the initial question, Mr. Secretary, with
respect to the revenue program, there is a request for
additional resources, additional employees. Can you tell us how
you are going to use these resources to increase revenues and
get this office off the GAO high-risk list?
Secretary Salazar. Absolutely. It is important to
recognize, Senator Reed, that the principle we are aiming at is
to get a fair return to the taxpayer because these are assets
owned by the American citizen. It is a responsibility which I
take seriously. It is a responsibility I know you want me to
take seriously.
We have moved forward with significant reform efforts on
the revenue side of what we do at the Department of the
Interior, including the creation of the Office of Natural
Resources Revenue (ONRR), so we can make sure the problems in
the past, including the ethical lapses and criminality within
the royalty-in-kind program in Lakewood, Colorado, do not occur
again. We are implementing the recommendations from the General
Accounting Office, and in the budget that is before you, we
have a request for $10 million for audit and compliance.
Hopefully it will allow us to do an even better job in honoring
that principle.
Senator Reed. Thank you.
OIL AND GAS INSPECTIONS
A related issue and that is the issue in terms of
inspection of some of this offshore drilling. You have
requested the authority to impose an increase in fees from $10
million to $65 million. This has been objected to in some
quarters as sort of an unsupportable burden on the industry.
But we did a little checking and just as a comparison, for
example, BP, which had Gulf of Mexico revenues last year of
$10.9 billion, is being asked to pay under this new scheme
about $1.5 million. That is .01 percent of their revenues.
Similarly, Shell Oil, which made $61.1 billion in the gulf last
year, is being asked to pay $1.8 million, or .03 percent of
their gross revenues. And I could go on and on and on.
This money seems to be essential to benefit these companies
and the American public by allowing you to be more thorough in
your inspections, more confident in your leasing. And I am just
surprised that this would be greeted by any opposition. I think
it is a sensible business-like way of getting the job done.
So if you do not get this increase in fees, if you have to
rely on the appropriations, the $10 million, what will that do
in terms of the inspectors, in terms of speeding up the process
of not only inspecting, but of just overall development of
resources, Mr. Secretary?
Secretary Salazar. Thank you, Chairman Reed.
First, let me just say the revenues we seek here for the
BOEMRE are absolutely essential if this Congress wants us to
move forward with robust energy and gas production in America's
oceans. We intend to do that, but we cannot do it without the
personnel to do the job.
Second, I believe the fees we have suggested are reasonable
fees. I will walk through a couple of them. For example, a
$17,000 inspection fee for facilities that have up to 10 wells.
You know, $17,000 in terms of the inspection fees for those
kinds of facilities--and there are many of those operating on
platforms off the gulf--does not seem to me to be unreasonable.
An inspection fee of $31,500 for facilities with more than 10
wells. When you understand the complexity of these operations
in the offshore, you have to recognize the need in order to be
able to do the job of inspecting them. You need to have the
right personnel and the right resources to do it. The fee
program we have put forward in the budget to do the
inspections, I think, is a reasonable one.
Senator Reed. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
I have additional questions, but at this time I would like
to recognize the ranking member. Then we will conduct a second
round if your time allows.
CHUKCHI SUPPLEMENTAL EIS
Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Secretary, I would like to ask my initial question
about a decision that came out Friday of last week. The BOEM
announced that as part of its ongoing litigation in the lease
sales up north, that it has revised its schedule for the
completion of the supplemental EIS that is being prepared for
the oil and gas lease sale 193 up in the Chukchi. And now I
understand that the supplemental EIS is going to be revised to
include a very large oil spill scenario. This is going to be
made available to the public for comment, I understand, in May.
I am trying to understand kind of the thought process or
what was behind all this, understanding when the supplemental
EIS is expected to be completed, whether or not it will be
worked on at the same time as the exploration plans.
What I am trying to get at here is, as you know very well,
we have already experienced some very lengthy delays in the
leasing process with both the Beaufort and the Chukchi. Shell
canceled their plans for the 2011 season. I am trying to
determine what impact this additional assessment, this revision
is going to have on Shell and their proposal moving forward in
2012. So if I can ask you to speak to that.
Secretary Salazar. I will have David Hayes to speak to the
specifics in terms of the timelines when we expect the
supplemental EIS to be completed because I think he has those
on the tip of his tongue.
Senator Murkowski, because I know your great interest in
this, as well as the members of the subcommittee, our view on
the Arctic, looking at what happened in the Gulf of Mexico last
year, is it is a place where we need to move forward
thoughtfully and make sure that we have adequate resources for
oil spill response, and the science is well understood. We are,
in fact, for the proposed plan scoping in the Arctic in both
the Beaufort and the Chukchi Seas.
Having said that, I will also tell you there is a lot of
work to be done up there. We had hoped the Shell exploration
well could have moved forward this year in 2011. It probably
will be on schedule to move forward in 2012.
Because your question is specifically on Chukchi 193 and
the decision that came down, let me just have David Hayes speak
about the SEIS and the rationale behind moving forward with
that process. David.
Mr. Hayes. Yes. Senator, the reason for the additional
environmental review is, during the comment period on the
supplemental EIS, many critical comments came in suggesting the
spill response analysis in the original EIS was vulnerable in a
post-Macando world because it assumed no blowout had occurred
in 30 years and had sort of the usual pre-Macando suggestion
that the blowout was virtually inconceivable. We thought it was
important, therefore, to address the issue on the record to
ensure the environmental review associated with sale 193 will
be valid and will provide the basis for moving forward with
drilling.
We are on an expedited schedule to complete the
supplemental work. As you correctly said, the draft we expect
to come out in May and a final SEIS is scheduled for September.
We are looking forward to reviewing in parallel the exploration
plan from Shell. We do not want this or expect this to affect
the permitting process. We understand the timing sensitivity.
Senator Murkowski. Let me ask you, though, because the
initial comment period for the original SEIS had ended in
October. So why did it take from October until just now last
week in March to initiate this new scenario study? What was
going on?
I guess an additional question to that was was there any
consultation or discussion of the pros and cons regarding the
additional study with any of the stakeholders on either side as
we kind of talk about how we move forward to 2012.
Mr. Hayes. Senator, I am not privy to what sort of
discussions there were. I know this was largely driven by the
legal view the EIS was vulnerable and it should be addressed. I
will be happy to look into the issue for you in terms of the
outreach to the stakeholders.
Senator Murkowski. Do you know why it took from October
until now to add this additional scenario, if you will?
Mr. Hayes. I do not.
DEEPWATER DRILLING PERMITS
Senator Murkowski. One more question before my time expires
here, and this relates to an issue that was brought up in the
Energy Committee hearing last week. I had asked you, Mr.
Secretary, about Judge Feldman's ruling that the Department
needed to act on five deepwater drilling permits in the Gulf of
Mexico by the end of next week. I asked you if you were still
on track. You at that time said that there was some
disagreement, of course, with Judge Feldman's ruling. Mr. Hayes
went on to state, I believe it was, that you did feel that you
would be on track to complete or to comply with the order.
So where are we? That time period, as I understand, now for
compliance is the end of next week. So the question is, will we
be seeing anything in terms of additional permits between now
and the time that the judge has requested?
Secretary Salazar. Senator Murkowski, let me say two
things.
First, I disagree with the court order. Not only this court
order, but other court orders issued in this particular
situation. We will be appealing the judge's decision. So that
is something that we will work out, work its way through the
legal review, and we will see what the Fifth Circuit has to say
about what I consider to be an overreach into administrative
authority. Those arguments will obviously go into the realm of
the legal review.
With respect to the issuance of permits, which is I think
the more fundamental question you care so much about, as do
other members of the subcommittee, we are moving. We did issue,
as I testified in front of the Senate Energy and Natural
Resources Committee, the first of the deepwater permits. It is
a well which is at about 6,000 feet deep and will go almost
3\1/2\ miles below the ocean. It is a well which is expected,
based on the geophysical information available, to be a huge
producer in the Gulf of Mexico.
We have in hand a number of other permits that we expect to
issue very soon in the deep water. These first permits,
hopefully, will become the template for allowing other
deepwater permits to be issued in the Gulf of Mexico.
Part of the reason why these deepwater permits have not
been issued until this point is because the oil spill
containment efforts, which industry had been working on and
which we had been encouraging, frankly were not ready and,
indeed, are now just basically ready to come on line. Both the
Helix oil spill containment program as well as the Marine Well
Containment Corporation program are works that have been in
progress.
The Deputy Secretary, along with Michael Bromwich and
myself, went to Houston to do a visual inspection of the
sealing caps and other things proposed as part of the
containment program. We are more comfortable today, but frankly
if industry is straight with the Congress and with the American
people, they will tell you they were not ready to deal with an
oil spill or blowout of the kind we saw at Macando, and we are
just getting there now.
Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Reed. Thank you, Senator Murkowski.
Senator Tester.
Senator Tester. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking
Member Murkowski. It is a pleasure to serve with you on this
subcommittee.
Welcome, Secretary Salazar. Thank you for being here. I
will tell you that I appreciate your vision for public lands
and keeping them public for access. Critically important is
your vision for water. You know how important water is being a
Westerner. It is our most valuable resource. And I appreciate
the work you have done for our Native Americans in this
country. It has been very impressive.
And I know you have had a very difficult year with what
transpired in the gulf. I think a lesser man would have had all
his hair pulled out, and it is good it has not affected you in
that way at all.
So thank you for being here.
WOLVES
Secretary, of course, you know what I am going to talk
about. I am going to talk about wolves. Secretary Salazar, last
month you began reviewing a conservation hunt proposal for the
State of Idaho so that State professionals can cull wolf packs
to protect livestock and big game. This is important. It is
allowed under the 10(j) rule of the Endangered Species Act.
The State of Montana submitted an application for a
professional hunt in the Bitterroot Valley, but the request has
not moved forward. We had visited earlier about this issue. I
was assured that Montana would receive authority last month in
an expedited process. It is a critically important issue, as
you know, that we get Montana's hunt approved as soon as
possible. Can you give me the assurance today that we will
start the same review, Montana being ``we'', as Idaho this
week?
Secretary Salazar. The answer, Senator Tester, is yes. Let
me just make two quick comments about the wolf issue because I
know it is one of the issues which you have been so concerned
about and have been pushing very hard to allow the wolf
management to be turned back to the State of Montana so the
hunts can be continued.
We believe at the Department of the Interior, the wolf has,
in fact, been recovered and we should, in fact, return
management of the wolf back to the State of Montana. We have
litigation saying we have to consider Wyoming and Idaho as
well. The Idaho and Montana plans are acceptable to us, as well
as to the courts. On the other hand, Wyoming's plan is not. We
are trying to work through a solution. We support your
legislative efforts to move forward to find a solution.
Senator Tester. Well, I appreciate that. I appreciate your
leadership on that.
MONUMENTS AND REFUGES
I want to talk about monuments and refuges for a second.
Mr. Secretary, the Department of the Interior does some great
work in Montana. You need to be commended for that. You are
partnering with landowners, local nongovernmental
organizations, community groups, local businesses, and others
to protect the way of life in the Rocky Mountain front for
generations to come from oil and gas development. And make no
mistake. There are folks who do not understand how important
the front is to Montana's ranching and outdoor heritage. You
do.
I appreciate your work with Canada, British Columbia, and
the State of Montana to protect the North Fork of the Flathead
from mining in the headwaters of the Flathead up in Canada. You
have done some great work on that. It is outstanding.
These are all great efforts with huge benefits now for our
children and grandchildren. The projects are locally supported,
and they are great conservation success stories and I firmly
believe any conservation in Montana must have solid local
support before anything happens.
On the other hand, the Department of the Interior is not
hearing a clear voice from eastern Montana residents about
monuments and refuges. There is not the kind of local support
that is critical to making this work. We have talked about this
in the past. You have told me that nothing would go forward
without local input, and I do appreciate that. But I am here to
tell you that I am hearing clearly from the folks in eastern
Montana when it comes to monuments and refuges, do not do this.
There cannot be a new monument or refuge on the Missouri River
in eastern Montana. Period.
Let us focus your efforts on the Rocky Mountain front, the
Blackfoot, the North Fork, where you have done such great work.
Let us focus making life better in Indian country in Montana.
But the will is simply not there in eastern Montana. You can
either comment to that or not. That is up to you.
Secretary Salazar. I would first say the great work you
have done on the Flathead and the Rocky Mountain front, I
think, are the great examples in Montana, and I could cite many
of those kinds of examples all over the United States. It is
what we want to do and we want to do it with our America's
Great Outdoors effort throughout the country. They are locally
driven conservation initiatives where we as the Federal
Government can be partners in the same way as in the Migratory
Bird Commission with Senator Cochran. I think we reviewed seven
very significant projects for wetlands and wildlife. It is that
kind of approach that underpins everything we will do in
conservation.
Senator Tester. I appreciate that, Secretary Salazar. I can
tell you what the people in eastern Montana told me very, very
recently. Montana is a State of about 950,000 people. Not a lot
of them live in the eastern part of the State. The majority of
the population lives in the West. And they said we are a few
people. We have been on this land for more than 100 years in
many cases, and when it comes to input, is our input going to
be given more weight than folks that live outside the State or
outside the area? And that is really what their concern is.
When we talked about ground up, you and I both know what we are
talking about when we talk about ground up. But the fact is
that if people within the EPA give as much weight to people
that live outside the area and outside the State, as folks who
have lived there, it could be a real problem.
Do you have any comment about that?
Secretary Salazar. I fully agree with the concept. I think
coming from a very rural area myself, I never liked Denver
telling the San Luis Valley what to do, and I did not like
Washington telling Colorado what to do. I very much understand.
And that is why we have engaged in significant outreach. I will
tell you, Senator Tester, I intend to continue that kind of
outreach in all the 50 States of the United States before we
make final decisions on how we are moving forward on
conservation initiatives.
Senator Tester. Okay, thank you.
My time has run. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Reed. Thank you, Senator Tester.
Senator Blunt.
Senator Blunt. Thank you, Chairman. I look forward to
working with you and Senator Murkowski and others on this
subcommittee.
Secretary, it is nice to see you again. I am glad you are
here and I look forward to working with you too.
Just a couple of comments before I get to a question.
LAND ACQUISITION
One is in line with--maybe I will go ahead and ask a
question. Do you anticipate acquiring more land? You mentioned
that comment we are going to grow by another 100 million
people. Where do they go? Is it part of your budget to acquire
more Federal lands?
Secretary Salazar. The answer is yes, as appropriate, but
as we have seen--and if I may, Senator Blunt and Mr. Chairman,
just take as an example of what we did in Kansas with former
Senator Brownback and now Governor Brownback and others as we
created the Foothills National Conservation Area. It was an
effort which was supported strongly by the Kansas Livestock
Association, the Kansas Farm Bureau, and the Nature
Conservancy, and a whole host of other organizations. What we
did there was to create a 1.1 million acre national wildlife
conservation area which will protect the last of the remaining
tall grass prairie within North America. It was important for
the ranchers that we do that because the ranchers wanted to
make sure they had the ranching heritage on these working lands
to pass on to future generations. They have been partners with
us as we moved forward with the initiative. We are not buying
those lands. It is a partnership that we are working on with
private landowners. We will seek as many of those opportunities
as possible.
On the other hand, if you look at the Grand Tetons National
Park, which is a crown jewel for the Nation and for the State
of Wyoming, there are significant inholdings within the
national park itself. We have an effort included in this budget
request to buy out those inholdings so we do not have trophy
homes essentially being built in the middle of what is one of
the Nation's crown jewels.
Senator Blunt. Well, thank you. I appreciate that. In fact
I have in the past encouraged the Department to buy some pieces
of land that made parkland more whole and more secure and more
intended for what it wanted to be.
I will continue to be concerned, though, as I know you are,
about maintaining what we have, whether it is the 50-year-old
St. Louis Arch that is 50 years old this year and has
significant challenges--I know you have been there and visited
that location--or the mall 200 or 300 yards from where we sat.
Maintaining what we have or making it conducive to people to
visit is also important. And I look forward to working with you
on that because our maintenance needs have been great in the
system since I came to the Congress a dozen years ago, and they
do not seem to be getting any better. They seem to be getting
greater all the time.
I am glad to see some of the things happening on the mall
with lots of private encouragement, and that is good. It seems
like all of our big projects now have to involve a public/
private partnership for lands or facilities that were
essentially put there by the Federal Government for the people
of the country and wind up with this big maintenance backlog.
And I am concerned about that and will continue to be
interested in that and want to work with you on that.
BUDGET REQUEST COMPARED TO 2008
Just a fundamental question. How does the 2012 budget
compare to the 2008 budget? Does anybody have that number?
Secretary Salazar. Let me ask our budget director.
Senator Blunt. While you are looking, I will let her look
for that, and we will come back to that.
OIL SPILL
On the oil spill that you mentioned as a national crisis--
and it was. I heard kids at school every day, as I would drop
my son off there, saying has the oil spill stopped yet. And
they were very concerned about it.
I hear different reports as to the long-term impact of
that, and I think the last White House report I heard was that
the long-term impact, not to minimize the oil spill or suggest
we would ever want it to happen again, may be not as bad as we
had thought. What do you see in the public and private lands as
the impact of that oil spill?
Secretary Salazar. Senator Blunt, I have spent a good
amount of time, obviously, in the last year over the Gulf of
Mexico and the Mississippi Delta and have done so because I
feel I have responsibility to make sure, as we move forward
with oil and gas drilling, that we are doing it safely. I also
have done it because of the great importance of protecting the
environment and the ecosystem. My hope is that out of this
tragedy we will basically be able to stand up a gulf coast
restoration program that finally restores the marshlands of the
Mississippi River and helps us with barrier reefs and a whole
host of other things that are so important to the five States
that share the gulf coast. I know there is legislation being
considered to try to at least get some of the civil penalties
coming from this case into that kind of a gulf coast
restoration.
My own personal view of what I have seen through my eyes as
I have been in the area is much of the oil, yes, has been
cleaned up, but there are still many places in the gulf where
you can still see the remnants of oil. The assessments of what
the damage is are still continuing. We have a Natural Resource
Damage Assessment Program where we are working closely with the
affected States to determine what the final damage is going to
be. We will not know for a while, frankly, because there is a
lot of science involved in trying to figure out what happened
with the oil. It is an ongoing issue.
BUDGET REQUEST COMPARED TO 2008
Senator Blunt. Back to the other question, I think maybe we
have got the answer to that, the 2012 number versus the 2008
number.
Ms. Haze. Yes, sir. The 2012 request is $12.2 billion. The
2008 funding level for the Department in discretionary funding
was $11.5 billion. If you include supplemental appropriations
from that year, it was $11.8 billion.
Senator Blunt. And what about 2010? Do you happen to have
that available also, which is the level we are spending right
now.
Ms. Haze. Right. That is $12.2 billion.
Senator Blunt. $12.2 billion. And you are asking for----
Ms. Haze. $12.2 billion.
Senator Blunt. You are asking for the 2010 level.
Ms. Haze. Essentially.
Senator Blunt. Any new revenue sources in that that would
not have been----
Ms. Haze. Yes. We have increases for inspection fees in
both the BOEMRE and the BLM. I am trying to remember if there
is anything else.
Senator Blunt. But level funding from 2010 and up from 2008
even with the supplemental in 2008.
Ms. Haze. Right.
Senator Blunt. I think I have gone over my time here, Mr.
Chairman. I am sorry.
Senator Reed. Thank you, Senator Blunt.
Secretary Salazar. If I may, Mr. Chairman----
Senator Reed. Mr. Secretary.
Secretary Salazar [continuing]. Just make a quick comment
to respond to Senator Blunt.
I think one thing, as we deal with these very difficult
times on the deficit, Senator Blunt--and I know it is a concern
of yours, a great concern of the members of this subcommittee,
is to look at the history of funding of the different
Departments. If you look at the Department of the Interior from
2001 through 2008, it essentially was not funded at the levels
that in my view were appropriate. The consequence is we ended
up having a Government that, frankly, was dysfunctional in some
areas, and including the efforts with respect to ocean energy
and MMS. What we have been trying to do in the budgets for the
last several years is to get up to the funding needs that will
essentially allow us to do the job assigned to us over the now
163 years of history of the Department of the Interior.
Senator Reed. Senator Collins, please.
Senator Collins. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Secretary, as I said, it is great to see you here again
today.
OFFSHORE WIND ENERGY
One of the most promising renewable energy technologies in
the country, indeed in the world, is the development of
deepwater offshore wind energy to help us meet some of our
Nation's electricity needs. I am very concerned that the United
States may lose the race in developing this technology. Too
often with the other alternative energy technologies, we have
seen the development of the initial technology in the United
States, but then we see China or some other country end up
doing the development or the manufacturing. And solar is an
example of that where the Chinese now manufacture the majority
of solar panels.
I do not want us to lose the race for the development of
deepwater offshore wind technology which does offer such
promise. In order for the United States to win that technology
race, we are going to need a partnership with the Federal
Government, State governments, universities, and the private
sector.
And that is exactly what we have been putting together in
the State of Maine. The University of Maine, the State of
Maine, a consortium of private companies have been working
together to develop the research and technology and actually to
develop a prototype of a windmill with new composite blades
that are stronger and can more easily withstand the persistent,
stronger offshore winds, which is, of course, the advantage of
offshore deepwater winds.
With respect to the role of the Department of the Interior,
where does deepwater offshore wind fit in within Interior's
plans for leasing opportunities?
Secretary Salazar. Senator Collins, let me say it is a very
high priority for the Department of the Interior. I am going to
have David Hayes comment specifically on the deepwater offshore
wind. But let me preface it by saying this.
We have worked very hard over the last 2 years with the
Governors, Democrats, and Republicans--we do not make a
distinction--from all the States on the Atlantic. We view the
opportunity for the development of offshore wind as a huge
opportunity on the Atlantic because of the quality of the wind
and the importance of not having to go through the choke you
sometimes have to go through when you are dealing with
transporting renewable energy on the offshore and you have to
build transmission. We have some great opportunities and have
been working closely with the Department of Energy in funding a
number of different projects and are looking at including the
research. I am going to have David answer part of the question
because otherwise he will say, well, why do you need a deputy
if you do all the talking?
Secretary Salazar. So David Hayes, the Deputy Secretary.
Senator Collins. Mr. Hayes.
Mr. Hayes. I will resist.
Senator, we share your enthusiasm for deepwater technology
and think the State of Maine is the place to test drive this
new technology. It fits in, as the Secretary is suggesting,
with our Atlantic strategy, and Maine is the place with the
deepwater and the strong winds. We are partnering, as you know,
with the Department of Energy to pilot projects and with the
efforts of the University of Maine and others. We are looking
forward to continuing to work with the task force set up in
Maine and with the new Governor to identify the best areas to
pilot test the technology. We look forward to working with you
to have Maine leading the world in terms of deepwater wind
technology.
Senator Collins. Thank you. I am truly so excited about
this opportunity. And the winds off the coast of Maine, as you
know, are some of the strongest and most persistent. That is
why I was a little concerned when I saw that the Department was
designating some mid-Atlantic States for the expedited
permitting when we have better wind.
I mean, there are a lot of opportunities, obviously, along
the Atlantic sea coast, but truly, the studies do show that we
have stronger and more persistent wind.
There is a need to inform the rulemaking and permitting
processes for deepwater floating technologies, including the
environmental design and safety criteria. Do you see a role for
the Department by helping perhaps to sponsor a prototype
deployment? That is what we are looking at in Maine is
developing an offshore windmill that could be anchored or
floated. They are still working out the technology. Do you see
a role for the Department in helping to sponsor such a
prototype?
Mr. Hayes. Absolutely, Senator. We are very interested in
doing that. We are partnering with DOE to find some dollars,
and they have already committed $1 million toward this effort.
We will do our part, which is the permitting part, to help make
that happen.
Senator Collins. Great. Thank you very much.
And thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Reed. Thank you, Senator Collins.
Senator Cochran.
PREPARED STATEMENT
Senator Cochran. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. I have
already made a comment or two, and I have an opening statement
which I could read and I am sure everyone would appreciate my
artful way of saying things. But I will withhold that impulse
and ask----
Senator Reed. We appreciate that also.
Senator Cochran [continuing]. That my statement be printed
in the record.
Senator Reed. Without objection.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Senator Thad Cochran
Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to join you in welcoming the
distinguished Secretary of the Interior to present the fiscal year 2012
President's budget request for the Department of the Interior to our
subcommittee.
The Department of the Interior has seen quite a few changes this
year--many in response to last year's Gulf of Mexico oil spill. As you
know, this oil spill has created much hardship in my State, from rig
workers to restaurateurs to fishermen. The entire gulf coast economy
has been hurt by the spill, and because we were already suffering from
an economic recession, gulf coast residents have been hit harder than
most.
Mr. Secretary, I appreciate the fact that you and your staff have
worked very hard to reorganize the agency that oversees offshore
drilling in order to increase safety. It is important to ensure that
nothing comparable to the Deepwater Horizon incident ever happens
again. The effects on the drilling industry, however, have been severe.
Domestic drilling employs thousands throughout the gulf region, and
with every month of delay in the Department of the Interior's
permitting process, the option of closing domestic production
altogether becomes more of a threat. As gas prices rise to more than
$3.50 a gallon nationally, I urge you to consider how this lack of
energy security affects consumers all over the United States.
The Mississippi gulf coast is a wonderful resource, and I hope that
rehabilitation and maintenance of the Gulf Islands National Seashore
remains at the top of your priority list. Additionally, I thank you for
your continued support of the scenic Natchez Trace Parkway that runs
from one corner of Mississippi to the other. It is important to
recognize and take care of such interesting and historically
significant areas of America.
I appreciate your attention to our concerns, and I look forward to
hearing your testimony.
Senator Cochran. I join others on the subcommittee in
complimenting the Secretary for the good job he is doing and
finding out that he has a Deputy Secretary that he lets do some
of the talking when pressured.
But thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Reed. Thank you, Senator Cochran.
Mr. Secretary, I think you have to depart in approximately
10 minutes, and so let me ask one question, Mr. Secretary, then
recognize my colleagues down the line for questions.
Secretary Salazar. Mr. Chairman, it is another U.S. Senator
that I can push back.
So if the subcommittee wishes me to continue to answer
questions, I am happy to stay here a little longer.
Senator Reed. I admire your patience and your fidelity to
duty.
Secretary Salazar. It happens to be a Senator from
Colorado. So I might be able to just tell him----
Senator Reed. Then I am revising. We will have 10-minute
second rounds. No.
Let me go ahead and ask one question.
Just for the record, all statements of my colleagues will
be made part of the record.
In addition, I assume additional questions will be
submitted to you, Mr. Secretary, very promptly for your written
response, and we would appreciate that response promptly.
Let me ask my one question and then in the remaining time
recognize my colleagues.
LANDSAT
This is with respect to the USGS. There is a $61 million
request for additional funding for the Landsat program, and
there are two areas I want to focus on.
First, there seems to be a change in the basic program. My
understanding is that previously NASA would assume
responsibility and budget for the preparation, the launch, that
once the vehicle got in space, Landsat would run it and
distribute the data and do all the things that you had to do to
manage the satellite. Now the proposal is--and this is for
Landsat 9 and 10. There is already 5, 7, and 8 that are
orbiting--that essentially the Department will absorb all the
costs and contract back to NASA the costs that they were
previously fronting in terms of preparation and launch.
So it raises one significant issue. Why are we changing it
this way? Is this just sort of moving money around on the
Federal budget between two agencies? What is the advantage?
And it is significant because, as I look at the numbers
going out to fiscal year 2016, maintaining or budgeting for 5,
7, and 8, the satellites in progress now, it is about a $50
million annual cost. With 9 and 10, because of the new regime,
it is $264 million a year. So that is a lot of money going
forward. Can you afford it and again why are we doing it this
way if the previous system seems to work?
And it raises a related question, which is then-Secretary
Kempthorne formalized a policy that this information is no cost
to the public. And I think in the concept of public libraries
and the schools, that is great, but with large corporations
that use this information for their own purposes, market it,
sell it at a profit, there might be some consideration to some
type of fee structure in which you would get paid for what is
very valuable information.
So two comments. Why are we making the changes? Can you
substantiate in a budget authority over several years this new
responsibility? And are you thinking about charging
appropriately for for-profit use of the information?
Secretary Salazar. Chairman Reed, the proposal we have in
front of you is as a result of a very long and extensive effort
involving the President's National Space Council. That is where
this proposal has emerged.
I am going to ask the Deputy Secretary to address the
issue.
Mr. Hayes. Senator, the reason for the change basically is
to mirror what we do with weather satellites, which is to have
the agency using the data, helping to develop the program and
to implement the program for which the satellite data is used
to have overall responsibility for managing the data, et
cetera. That is the Interior Department. We run the Landsat
program. Traditionally it has been awkward with NASA
essentially being the delivery mechanism. They have also had
sort of a gray area with us in terms of programmatic
responsibilities. The idea is to consolidate those with us,
have NASA as our partner as necessary in terms of the launching
of the satellites, et cetera. We think this will be more
efficient, we will save money in the long run, and we will have
a more organized way to run this program.
Of course, the information from the Landsat program is
central to the resource mission of this Department. Our
agricultural water management, disaster response, national
security, all is managed through the USGS as part of the
Department of the Interior and our companion bureaus.
With regard to your second question about the potential
charging for Landsat type information, under the current law we
would only be able to charge incremental costs of the
generation of the images themselves. That is the way the Land
Remote Sensing Policy Act works. That incremental cost is very
modest, particularly compared with the heavy public usage of
this information. In fiscal year 2010, more than 2.5 million
scenes were downloaded and used by localities, States and
Federal Government. I actually represented the United States in
some international discussions, and the availability of Landsat
imagery is actually providing international benefits to the
United States.
The most we think we could recover would be about $200,000
under the statute. We think the availability of this
information for free to the public is a tremendous benefit, and
the transaction costs of 10 cents an image probably does not
make sense. So that is our view on that, Senator.
Senator Reed. I appreciate it very much. Again, given the
daunting challenges, the budget challenges, there might be an
opportunity or an obligation to rethink not for the public
libraries, for the individual farmers throughout the country,
et cetera, but for large companies that are using this
information. And if this would require a legislative change,
then obviously we would like to be informed.
Thank you.
Senator Murkowski.
Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Two last questions, and of course they are easy ones:
Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) and BOEM reorganization. So
this should go really quickly.
SPR
I understand, Mr. Secretary, that it is not the Secretary
of the Interior's decision on SPR. It is the Secretary of
Energy. I have expressed a concern about tapping into the SPR
in order to reduce the price of gas just temporarily. I think
there are some other factors there. I guess the question to you
would be if the administration were to move on such a proposal,
do you expect that BOEM would be directed to take its royalty-
in-kind and use that to replenish the SPR? And recognizing that
we have abolished the royalty-in-kind program, would it
complicate our ability to do so?
Secretary Salazar. Thank you very much, Senator Murkowski.
The royalty-in-kind program is no longer available because
it was part of the reform effort which we instituted in the
last year. The program has been phased out.
On whether or not the SPR is ultimately triggered, there
are lots of considerations going on. I think you raise some
very valid considerations.
Senator Murkowski. Are you being consulted in that process?
Secretary Salazar. We are involved in the discussions with
other members of the Cabinet and with the White House. These
decisions will be made in the context of what is in the best
national interest, but no decision has been made at this point
in time.
In terms of the replenishment, if in fact there was a
reduction in the amount of oil in the SPR, there would be a
program to replenish it. How that would be put together I
cannot tell you right now, but I would be happy to get the
information back to you in a hypothetical sense.
Senator Murkowski. Does it make a difference? I mean,
recognizing that our domestic production is down, I understand
that production will fall 13 percent in 2011 primarily because
of the decreased activity in the Gulf of Mexico. Is that an
issue that we need to be looking at as we discuss this as an
option? And again, it is not one that I am supporting. But do
we have the confidence that we will be able to replenish the
SPR given what we are facing just domestically in terms of the
decreased production levels?
Secretary Salazar. Senator Murkowski, we will, number one,
have a program and strategy for the replenishment because it is
essential, from our point of view, for the United States.
In terms of the decrease in production you raise, I think
it is important for us to remind ourselves, even in the midst
of this horrific oil spill, we were able, with a very small
agency, to still continue to oversee the steady, very
significant production from the Gulf of Mexico, which produces,
I believe, 29 percent of all of the oil we domestically produce
here in the country. As we look ahead, while there may be some
modest decline in the production from the Gulf of Mexico
because of the Deepwater Horizon and the need to make sure we
were doing exploration and production in a safe way, it is
modest from all the projections we have seen, including our own
and those of EIA. You may see a blip, but the fact of the
matter is we have more rigs in the Gulf of Mexico,
interestingly, today than we did a year ago. Part of that is
because the oil and gas industry sees the very significant
potential with respect to oil and gas development in the gulf.
BOEMRE REORGANIZATION
Senator Murkowski. Let me ask you about the reorganization,
and I am mindful of your time here.
The GAO came out with its list of agencies and programs
that are at high risk of waste, fraud, and abuse, and one of
the programs that was at the top of the list was the management
of Federal oil and gas leases. And in their findings, they cite
the challenges. And we have had an opportunity to talk about
the challenges that you have with hiring and training and
retaining the staff in some key positions.
I know that you are engaged in the reorganization of both
the offshore oil and gas management, the revenue collection.
Under the reprogramming guidelines that we have in this
subcommittee, you have got to submit your major staff
reorganizations and the budget reorganizations for us to
approve. Do you have any idea in terms of timelines when you
would submit such a reprogramming?
Secretary Salazar. We have submitted information to the
subcommittee and to the Congress on parts of the reorganization
which have been implemented, for example, the ONRR, which has
been split off from what had been the former MMS. As we move
forward with the completion of the reorganization, we will
continue to keep the subcommittee informed.
Let me say that the issues the GAO has raised, including
their recommendations, are ones that we are taking seriously
and many of them we have already implemented. At its core, as
we look at the reorganization for this subcommittee, it is
important to identify the three missions which were in conflict
and which we are attempting to deconflict through the
reorganization. Those three missions were revenue collection;
second, leasing and permitting of the lands and the resource;
and then the third, the safety and environmental compliance
mission which was with MMS. The reorganization we have put
together deconflicts those missions so we do not end up in the
same kinds of situations which existed for the last 30 years
while the MMS functioned from 1981 until last year.
Senator Murkowski. And I cannot imagine what you are going
through in terms of this kind of a reorganization because, as
you point out--you make it sound pretty neat and tidy with
three categories, but this is a large undertaking. And at the
same time that you are doing this, there is the expectation
that the work is being conducted, that the production records
are being kept, the environmental standards are maintained. We
certainly have an interest in making sure that all that is
happening, and you have got a couple things going on at the
same time, maybe more than a couple things going on at the same
time. I know that you are paying attention to this, but I guess
that I would just add we are very mindful of the fact that we
do need to be doing all of the daily work, while at the same
time the reorganization goes. So as these reprogramming
requests come through, we will be taking careful looks at them.
Secretary Salazar. Senator Murkowski, I very much
appreciate the comment. The reality is you are looking at a
relatively small agency with the revenue piece split off from
what was MMS. You are looking at a staff of about 1,000, and
they have the responsibility for safety, environmental
compliance, permitting, all of the new sets of rules we have
required of industry. There is just a tremendous amount of work
going on, and we are mindful of that.
We have asked the Congress for assistance with additional
resources. We have received some of those additional resources
in the budget for 2012. I asked for the additional resources we
believe we need to create a robust agency.
I will say one other thing. Director Bromwich, as he has
worked very, very hard to stand up this robust agency needed
for these important functions, has already gone out to the
universities in Texas, Louisiana, and other places to try to
recruit people to come and work in the Department in these
positions so we make sure we have the expertise from an
engineering, petrochemical, and financial point of view to be
able to do the job. We are hopeful if we get the resources from
this Congress, we will be to achieve the goal.
Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Reed. Senator Blunt.
Senator Blunt. Mr. Secretary, thanks for staying. I know
you have another appointment. Even if it is a Colorado Senator,
I want you to be sure and make it.
OFFSHORE PERMITTING
I have just two or three questions actually about drilling
and searching for resources. I agree with you that our
conventional resources have to continue to be an important part
of what we are doing for a long time, and we ought to be
looking for more of everything--more wind, more solar, more
nuclear--how do we add on to meet the new capacity needs we
have.
But have there been any new offshore drilling permits in
the gulf issued since the Deepwater Horizon? Is there one
permit that has been issued?
Secretary Salazar. The answer is yes. The first was issued
on, I believe it was, Monday of last week. We expect there will
be additional permits that will be issued very soon.
Senator Blunt. And would you anticipate that the $500
million increase that you asked for in the BOEM would make that
permitting go faster, or will that have no impact on that
particular part of what you do?
Secretary Salazar. I think the request that we have in
front of you for the additional personnel will help us do the
job and hopefully we can undertake the permitting process in a
way to meet the requirements of the law and make sure we are
doing it in a safe and environmentally protected way. We have
new rules of the road we created which we announced related to
everything from certification to the kind of oil spill
containment put into place. It is going to take a while for
industry and for the BOEMRE to get up to speed with the post-
Macando world.
I view the oil and gas from our Nation's oceans in the pre-
Macando well and the post-Macando well timeframe, and I think
at the post-Macando well time frame, it is important for us to
recognize, one, the policy of the United States has not
changed. We continue to believe in the development of oil and
gas in our Nation's oceans. Second, we need to learn the
lessons from the Macando well blowout, meaning we need to make
sure, moving forward, we are doing it in a safe and
environmentally protected way.
We have had the good fortune of working with a lot of
people as we move forward with this agenda, including industry,
and obviously this is a dynamic situation we would be happy to
continue to brief you and other members of the subcommittee on.
Senator Blunt. When do you think the capacity or the
production there will reach its pre-new horizon levels, or do
you think it ever will get back to that level of production?
Secretary Salazar. I think it possibly could, especially
with some of the geophysical information being developed. There
are reservoirs out there in the Gulf of Mexico which have a
high-production capability. You saw one of those reservoirs as
it came up through the Macando well for 87 days. There are
significant reservoirs out there, and there is interest,
significant interest, on the part of industry to continue to
explore and develop in the Gulf of Mexico.
We have approximately 37 million offshore acres in the Gulf
of Mexico leased, and, there is significant opportunity to
expand oil and gas.
Senator Blunt. And the additional rigs you mentioned that
were in the gulf today were prior approved leases, just people
set new platforms or something in areas that had already been
approved? Did I not hear you say there were more drilling rigs
in the gulf today than there were----
Secretary Salazar. There are more rigs, and part of what we
will do, as we issue these permits, is those rigs hopefully
will be able to go back to work soon.
Senator Blunt. So more rigs would include inactive rigs
then.
Secretary Salazar. This is our latest count. March 3, 2011,
there were 126 rigs in the gulf. On March 3, 2010, there were
121 rigs--an additional 5 rigs. Now, some of those rigs are
under contract and some of them are not. Some of them have been
going through maintenance and upgrades. That is a flotilla
waiting to begin the exploration activities and the drilling
activities as we get going here.
Senator Blunt. As you know, there was a lot of concern
whenever the moratorium was put on the deepwater rigs, if they
were never moved out of the gulf--it was too expensive to move
them in and out, and we would not see those rigs again. Has
that happened?
Secretary Salazar. I have heard anecdotes there may have
been a few rigs that have left, but I think the presence of
them in the gulf reaffirms the great interest on the part of
industry to develop the gulf. I think it reaffirms the
statements the President of the United States made and I have
made since the Deepwater Horizon that we will look at the Gulf
of Mexico as a central place to provide the energy to power our
economy.
Senator Blunt. And have you issued any nondeepwater, the
shallower water leases since the Deepwater Horizon?
Secretary Salazar. We have worked very hard on that,
Senator Blunt, and at the last count, it was 37 shallow well
permits issued in the Gulf of Mexico. Indeed, one of the things
we did, as we started to stand up the post-Macando world, is
the Deputy Secretary and Michael Bromwich and I spent time
visiting the different kinds of rigs operating in the Gulf of
Mexico, including rigs that are operating in the shallow
waters. It was based on some of those demarcations that we felt
we could move forward with permits in shallow water, and is why
there have already been 37 permits issued for those waters.
Senator Blunt. For the shallow water wells.
WILDLANDS POLICY
The only other comment I would make, while you are here--
and we will talk more as the time progresses--is that I am
concerned that the wild lands policy can have a negative impact
on resource development in public lands. And the way that is
phased in, whether or not there is a true resource effort to
look at what resources are there, would be important, I would
think, to know at what point those lands need to go into that
wild lands category if there is some environmentally friendly
way to utilize those resources before we set those lands--I
assume once you go into the wild lands idea, that has the
potential if not--maybe it definitely puts those lands off the
list of public lands we could look at for drilling and
exploration and other inventory issues. That is my last
question, if you want to comment on that.
Secretary Salazar. I will have the Deputy Secretary comment
on this last question.
Senator Blunt. I was hoping I could eventually ask a
question so difficult that the Deputy Secretary would answer
it.
Secretary Salazar. I can answer the question, but I want to
make sure he has a turn at the mic.
Senator Blunt. I hear you. Thank you, Secretary. It is good
to see you again.
Secretary Salazar. It is good to see you.
Mr. Hayes. I think the first part of your question was what
the impact might be on available resources. We have 41 million
acres already onshore leased for oil ad gas development. Only
about 30 percent of those are currently in production. We have
an inventory of about 30 million acres of leased oil and gas
lands onshore that are not in production at all.
The second part of your question, I think, Senator, was
whether once identified as wildlands, is it a forever
designation. The answer is no. Only the Congress can establish
a wilderness area that is off limits. The idea of the wild
lands policy is, as part of the normal resource management
planning process under the Federal Lands Policy Management Act,
the BLM will make decisions through a public process of how to
manage the different multiple uses of lands. In an update of a
resource management plan, it may decide that certain lands with
wilderness characteristics should be identified and protected
during the life of the resource management plan as wild lands.
But the decision can be revisited with a revision to the
resource management plan.
PERMITTING
Senator Blunt. Let me ask one more thing since you brought
this up. Just because you have given a leased area does not
mean you have approved specific individual actions, does it? It
is not all the fault of the leaseholder that they are not fully
utilizing all of those leases.
Mr. Hayes. Senator, you are right. There is a permit
process, of course. Most of these leases are dormant; they are
not pending applications to drill. In fact, last year we
approved more than 5,000 applications to drill. This year we
expect to approve more than 7,000 applications to drill
onshore. We are processing those applications to drill as they
come in. There is not a major backlog there.
ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS
Senator Blunt. And would those be on public lands or on----
Mr. Hayes. Yes. These are all on public lands.
Senator Blunt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your generosity
with the time.
[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 Patrick J. Leahy
Question. White Nose Syndrome (WNS) continues to spread across the
country and we have experienced a die-off of historic proportions that
I fear will have far reaching effects, not only for wildlife and
ecosystems, but also American agriculture and public health. We now
have several States considering listing the little brown, northern
long-eared, and tri-colored bats as either threatened species or a
species of concern, when just a few years ago these bat populations
were considered very strong. A significant investment is needed to get
this under control and I would like to hear from you how much funding
you believe is needed in fiscal year 2012 to tackle this problem and
halt the spread of WNS before our bat populations are wiped out
entirely.
Can you please share with us what the Department of the Interior
(DOI) is doing to get to the bottom of this mystery disease and stop
its spread? And are these funds coming at the expense of other Endanger
Species Act programs?
Answer. The Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) is coordinating WNS
response activities with more than 100 agencies, organizations, and
institutions. In May 2011, the FWS published ``A National Plan for
Assisting States, Federal Agencies, and Tribes in Managing White-Nose
Syndrome in Bats.'' The plan outlines the actions necessary to
coordinate Federal and State efforts and identifies actions in support
of State, Federal, tribal, and partner WNS management efforts. The FWS
has funded research on the fungus causing the disease, the impacts of
the disease on bats and bat populations, and potential management
controls. The FWS has also provided funding to States for developing
response plans, conducting surveillance and monitoring, participating
in research, and implementing management actions. In addition to
leading the development of a national plan to guide the response
effort, the FWS has issued a national cave advisory to reduce the risk
that humans might spread the fungus to unaffected areas. The FWS'
coordination needs will increase as WNS, now found in 16 States and 3
Canadian Provinces, continues to spread, and as additional agencies,
institutions, nongovernmental organizations, and individuals become
engaged in the response effort or are impacted by response actions. The
number of States needing assistance also continues to increase.
The FWS received a $1.9 million congressional appropriation in
fiscal year 2010 that was used to address these issues. The FWS
estimates its base funding to address WNS in fiscal year 2010 was
$712,000. The FWS' base funding for WNS comes from the endangered
species recovery subactivity account which would be directed to
recovery efforts for other federally listed endangered and threatened
species.
In partnership with the FWS and other partners, the United States
Geological Survey (USGS) responded quickly to identify the causes and
potential spread of the WNS outbreak once discovered, working closely
with partners to provide critical scientific information to support
management. Using field sampling, diagnostic testing and analysis, and
surveillance, USGS scientists isolated and identified the causative
fungal organism, the role of humans in WNS spread, and evaluated
potential modes of transmission, all key factors in resolving any
disease outbreak. The USGS has unique capabilities to address emerging
diseases including specialized facilities for diagnosis and research.
Bats play a major role in pest insect suppression; studying their
ecology is important not only to understanding the disease, but to
other public interests. Getting this problem under control requires
additional research, and leveraging existing funding to provide the
additional data and information critical to science-based solutions for
State and Federal agencies charged with managing this outbreak. The
USGS research staff has the ability to conduct a disease investigation
and has mobilized quickly to meet this challenge. Solving this problem
means revealing potential weak links in the disease cycle that can be
exploited to manage and control WNS, requiring a significant increased
effort of ongoing research to expand our understanding of the
interactions among bats, the environment and a novel pathogen.
Question. The FWS has functionally accepted full, Federal control
of the Sea Lamprey Control Program on Lake Champlain. This program was
previously run by the States of Vermont and New York and the FWS. I
greatly appreciate FWS now leading the way. This Federal leadership has
increased the sustainability, efficiency and effectiveness of the
lamprey program considerably. The recent transition to Federal control
has been facilitated by funds from the Great Lakes Fishery Commission,
but I feel that the FWS should make the Sea Lamprey Control Program
part of the basic operations and budgeting process within the northeast
region. That is the most efficient and sustainable continued path for
this important work. Lake Champlain Sea Lamprey Control Program is not,
however, fully funded within the FWS 2012 budget proposal.
Why has the DOI not included full funding of the Lake Champlain Sea
Lamprey Control Program as a part of the fiscal year 2012 budget for
the northeast region?
Answer. The sea lamprey control program is a highly successful
program. Because of the FWS' long history in sea lamprey control to
support salmonid fisheries in the Great Lakes and the capability we
have developed on Lake Champlain, it is appropriate to adopt the model
employed in the Great Lakes, where the FWS biologists implement the
lamprey control program. The opportunity to use $1.2 million from the
allocation for Lake Champlain in the Great Lakes Fishery Commission
budget in 2010 allowed the FWS to assume this lead responsibility,
which the FWS will continue as long as funding allocations through the
Commission allow.
This Federal leadership provides for more effective sea lamprey
control through dedicated, professional staff and clearer procedures to
address bi-State and within-State administrative challenges. In
addition to the core lamprey control program, which relies on the
careful use of lampricides, the FWS is supporting research and
implementation of alternatives to control sea lamprey, enhancing
lamprey population assessment capabilities, and pursuing investigations
toward restoring self-sustaining salmon populations to the lake.
Because of effective lamprey control on Lake Champlain in recent years,
the lamprey wounding rate on salmon is now at its lowest point in more
than a decade. Record-breaking fish are being caught by anglers, and
public support of the fishery is high.
Question. And, will you include this program as part of the
operations and budget for fiscal year 2013?
Answer. The sea lamprey control program is one of many issues that
the DOI is considering in the fiscal year 2013 budget formulation
process, and funding decisions have not been finalized.
Question. The final Champlain Valley National Heritage Partnership
management plan is now complete, approved by the regional office, and I
understand that it is at headquarters awaiting your final signature.
Will you approve this plan as soon as possible and can you assure
me that this partnership will be considered a fully fledged National
Heritage Area (NHA), co-equal with the other fine areas across the
United States when the National Park Service (NPS) allocates fiscal
year 2011 funding among these areas?
Also I see that your fiscal year 2012 budget proposes to cut
funding for the NHA program from $15 million to $8 million, just when
there are several new areas being approved. How can this important
program be sustained under these circumstances?
Answer. The NPS Northeast Regional Office is finalizing its review
of the Champlain Valley National Heritage Partnership management plan.
Upon completion of the review, the plan will be forwarded to the
Washington program office for final approval. Once the Secretary has
approved the management plan, the plan is implemented as funding and
resources are available, including the 1:1 match in funding by the
managing entities required in authorizing legislation. In fiscal year
2012, the Heritage Partnership Program will focus on supporting
recently authorized area planning and areas in the early stages of
development, such as the Champlain Valley National Heritage
Partnership.
The reduced fiscal year 2012 funding level for National Heritage
Areas supports the directive in the 2010 Interior, Environment, and
Related Agencies Appropriations Act for NHAs to work toward becoming
self-sufficient. State and local managers of NHAs continue to rely
heavily on Federal funding, even though the Federal ``seed'' money
authorized in legislation to help NHA organizations become established
was not intended as a pathway to long-term Federal funding. NPS will
continue to work with the NHAs and the Congress to develop a method for
allocating funding that considers the age and scope of the areas,
whether self-sufficiency plans have been put into place and cumulative
funding provided to date.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Dianne Feinstein
cadiz
Question. On June 30, 2009, I wrote a letter to the Department of
the Interior (DOI) requesting a re-examination of a 1989 Solicitor's
Opinion that suggests that nonrail uses for railroad rights-of-way
across public lands are permissible in certain circumstances. I raised
this issue out of concern for the proposed use of the Arizona &
California Railroad Right-of-Way for a water conveyance pipeline in the
Mojave Desert. While the DOI acknowledged my letter, I have yet to
receive a formal response. This is a matter of growing importance
because recently a California water district announced its intention to
begin preparing the state environmental report necessary to develop the
Cadiz water project which proposes to use this Right-of-Way for water
conveyance. In my opinion, it would be inappropriate for a right-of-way
granted to a railroad by the Federal Government for rail purposes to be
used for anything other than rail.
What is the DOI's position in the appropriate uses of rights-of-way
granted to railroads across public lands and this proposed use in
particular?
Answer. I have asked the Solicitor to review this question in close
coordination with the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). The Solicitor's
Office has not yet completed its review.
fish and wildlife habitat conservation plans (hcp)
Question. The Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) has worked with
communities across the country to develop and approve HCP that are
intended to provide a ``clear regulatory mechanism to permit the
incidental take of federally listed fish and wildlife species'' as
explained in FWS Handbook on HCPs. Recently, however, the FWS has
undermined the certainty that communities felt they had secured through
the HCPs, and designated critical habitat within approved HCP
boundaries, for example with the Santa Ana Sucker fish and the Western
Riverside HCP.
What assurances can you provide to communities developing HCPs that
their work will indeed result in the clear regulatory mechanism they
hope to secure, and not be later encumbered with further regulatory
burden?
Answer. When designating critical habitat, the FWS evaluates the
physical and biological features essential to the conservation of the
species, identifies the areas with those features and determines
whether the features may require special management concern. The act
provides that lands with the physical and biological features essential
to the conservation of the species and in need of special management
consideration may be excluded from critical habitat if the FWS
determines that the benefits of excluding the lands outweigh the
benefits of including them. In these instances where the FWS did
designate lands within the Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan
(MSHCP), it reviewed and evaluated the benefits of inclusion and
benefits of exclusion and the rationale for inclusion or exclusion is
explained in detail in each rule.
The FWS recognizes the ongoing efforts of the Western Riverside
County Regional Conservation Authority to fulfill its obligations under
the MSHCP, and is committed to continuing to work in good faith with
them to implement the MSHCP to conserve our covered species and their
habitats.
central valley aquifer
Question. In 2009, the United States Geological Survey (USGS)
completed a study of the groundwater aquifer beneath the Central Valley
in California, which revealed very useful information about the risk of
subsidence beneath critical infrastructure. This work is very useful,
and much appreciated by decisionmakers.
What are you doing to continue to monitor the risk of subsidence in
critical areas?
Answer. The USGS is currently working on two studies to address
subsidence in the Delta-Mendota and Westlands areas of the San Joaquin
Valley (see Figure 1 below). It is also trying to find funding partners
to do additional subsidence monitoring in the southern part of the
valley.
The Delta-Mendota study is titled ``Evaluation of Groundwater
Conditions and Land Subsidence Along the Delta-Mendota Canal'' and is
funded by the Bureau of Reclamation. The objectives of this study are
to:
--determine the location and characteristics of changes in land-
surface elevation, develop and implement an approach to improve
understanding of groundwater conditions and land subsidence;
and
--develop groundwater flow and land-subsidence simulations to provide
input to stakeholders.
The Westland study is titled ``Evaluation of Groundwater Conditions
and Land Subsidence Along the California Aqueduct'', and is funded by
the California Department of Water Resources. The objectives of this
study are to determine the location and characteristics in land-surface
elevation along the California Aqueduct in the Westlands area from 2003
to 2010, develop and implement an approach to monitor subsidence in the
Westlands area, and improve the understanding of groundwater conditions
and land subsidence.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Figure 1. Location of Delta Mendota and Westlands study areas.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Tim Johnson
Question. While I understand the difficult budget decisions that
the Interior Department (DOI) is facing, I am extremely concerned about
the inadequate resources provided to authorized rural water projects
within the Bureau of Reclamation (BOR). The Congress provided $121
million for authorized rural water projects in fiscal year 2010, and
yet the administration has requested just $35 million in fiscal year
2012. I am especially interested in the Lewis and Clark Regional Water
System, which will provide water to 300,000 people in South Dakota,
Minnesota, and Iowa when completed. The project is more than half-way
complete, and the 20 local sponsors have pre-paid their share, many
well in advance of receiving water from the project. This project
requires approximately $35 million annually to remain on schedule for
completion, and yet that is essentially the amount provided in the
entire account for authorized rural water projects. The amount
requested for Lewis and Clark--just $493,000--is insufficient and will
not provide for any forward progress on construction. Recognizing that
we will likely continue to face a difficult budget situation over the
next several years, can you assure me that the DOI is committed to
finishing these vital rural water systems in a reasonable period of
time?
Answer. The DOI is committed to finishing these projects in a
reasonable period of time. We recognize and appreciate what these
projects mean to the communities they serve: good quality water for
municipal, industrial, and environmental purposes. BOR utilized a set
of standard criteria to allocate funding for rural water projects. The
first priority is funding for the required operations and maintenance
component of all projects. Second, for the construction component, BOR
allocated funding based on objective criteria that gave priority to
projects nearest to completion and projects that serve on-reservation
needs. We will continue to allocate funding to these projects as best
as we can within available resources.
Question. This administration has placed a high priority on
infrastructure investments, especially in the context of creating jobs
and growing our economy, and I agree with that philosophy. Utilizing
funding from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA), BOR
provided more than $56 million to Lewis and Clark for the water
treatment plant--no small investment. ARRA, which I supported, was
intended as economic stimulus; it was never meant to supplant the
regular budget process. Jobs have already been created in these
communities, but I am extremely concerned that economic opportunities
will be missed and growth constrained, if the Federal Government does
not do more to prioritize this type of crucial infrastructure project
in the budget. What is the administration's justification for cutting
rural water project funding so significantly, and will you work to
provide additional funding for congressionally authorized water systems
in coming years?
Answer. We certainly appreciated the funding that the DOI received
from ARRA. The BOR obligated $232.1 million of ARRA funding for rural
water projects. This helped us make major progress on these projects,
especially enabling us to engage in some projects that would have far
exceeded our funding ability from our annual appropriations. Recovery
Act funds did not supplant our regular program. Nonetheless, the BOR's
rural water projects must compete for funding with all of our other
priorities and programs within available resources. Commissioner Connor
and I will be happy to work with you to identify additional funding
opportunities in the coming years.
Question. With regard to the DOI's energy initiatives, I commend
your commitment to making sustainable and renewable energy a top
priority. Wind energy is a key part of the green energy economy, and
South Dakota can capitalize on tremendous wind potential to help meet
our renewable energy goals. I am interested in how the DOI is balancing
the need to grow renewable energy development with its charge to
protect birds and other wildlife species. I have heard from wind farm
developers and turbine manufacturers that Land-based Wind Energy
Guidelines recently released by the DOI could put development of tens
of thousands of megawatts of wind energy in the United States at risk.
What is the DOI doing to harmonize the protection of birds and other
wildlife with continued development of wind energy?
Answer. The Guidelines are an example of how the DOI tries to
balance protection of wildlife with the need for renewable energy
development. It is not the intent of the draft Guidelines to inhibit
wind energy development; rather, the goal of the draft Guidelines is to
help guide developers to site and construct wind energy facilities in
areas where there is least risk to wildlife species. Because
construction and operation of wind energy facilities can have adverse
impacts to migratory birds, western ground-nesting birds, bats, eagles,
and other wildlife, it is important to thoroughly evaluate a site prior
to construction to verify that the facility will not negatively impact
wildlife populations. The draft Guidelines recommend early and frequent
communication between wind energy developers and agencies so that it is
known early in the development process whether a site may pose a risk
to wildlife, and if needed, measures to further assess and address
those risks. The assessment is dependent upon the anticipated level of
risk to wildlife. If a development site has no or few wildlife issues,
the need to invest in pre- and postconstruction studies will be
minimal. The level of environmental coordination provided for renewable
energy projects is consistent with other development project reviews,
including residential and commercial construction, transportation,
surface coal mining, oil and gas extraction, and construction of
electrical generation facilities.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Mary L. Landrieu
Question. Mr. Secretary, your agency delayed the next Outer
Continental Shelf (OCS) lease sale until next year. The OCS leasing
program brings in billions annually to the U.S. Treasury. What analysis
have you done on the economic impacts of a delayed and scaled-back
leasing program under the OCS leasing program? Do you have a clear
understanding of what revenues and taxes will be lost to the U.S.
Treasury because of the delayed lease sale?
In addition, do you have estimates on the revenues lost to the
Federal treasury because of the slow issuance of permits in the gulf?
Answer. The Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act requires that the
Secretary of the Interior balance the potential for oil and gas
discoveries against the potential for environmental or other harms from
the continued development of our domestic energy resources on the OCS.
This balancing takes on new meaning in the wake of the Deepwater
Horizon disaster.
In light of the oil spill that resulted from the Deepwater Horizon
event, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement
(BOEMRE) must assess the extent to which the baseline environmental
information utilized in the 2007 Gulf of Mexico (GOM) Environmental
Impact Statement (EIS) has changed. BOEMRE has begun appropriate
environmental reviews, including development of a supplemental EIS for
the remaining GOM sales. In light of the need for these environmental
reviews, on May 27, 2010, pursuant to the presale process, I cancelled
Western GOM Sale 215, which was scheduled for August 2010. Central GOM
Sale 216, which had been scheduled for March 2011, is being
consolidated with Central GOM Sale 222, currently scheduled for 2012.
Pending completion and results of additional NEPA analysis, Western GOM
Sale 218 remains on the schedule for the 2007-2012 program.
BOEMRE is in the process of planning for a sale in the Western GOM
within the next year, possibly even before the end of this calendar
year. The bonuses that would have been received in August 2010 and
2011, while delayed, are not lost.
Question. The budget recommends that offshore inspection fees be
increased to raise $65 million to help fund the BOEMRE budget. Over the
past decade, the industry has paid on average $7 billion a year in
royalties, bonus bids, and rental fees. This number excludes taxes paid
by the industry. Why not reassign the $7 billion first to help fund the
$65 million the agency needs? If the industry can't get permits to go
back to work, it seems unfair to assess higher fees on the industry.
Answer. Royalties and user fees are not interchangeable. The
purpose of royalties is to achieve a fair return to the taxpayer for
the use of Federal resources; while the purpose of a user fee is to
recover the costs the Federal Government must pay to regulate an
industry. Because these regulatory activities benefit the oil and gas
industry, it is in the interest of the industry to ensure a more robust
regulatory agency is available that can function efficiently and
timely.
The proposed level of inspection fees, with minor exceptions,
amounts to less than 1 percent of gross revenues for companies
incurring these costs. The administration does not believe this to be
an unreasonable or burdensome cost. Findings from the numerous
investigations of the Deepwater Horizon incident highlighted the need
to reform the regulatory oversight of leasing, energy exploration, and
production to assure human safety and environmental protection. This
has resulted in new processes, rules, and regulations that must be
followed by the oil and gas industry. In testimony before the National
Commission on BP Deepwater Horizon and Offshore Drilling, Marvin Odum,
President, Shell Oil Company, and Upstream Americas Director, Royal
Dutch Shell, stated that:
``The industry needs a robust, expertly staffed, and well-funded
regulator that can keep pace with and augment industry's technical
expertise. A competent and nimble regulator will be able to establish
and enforce the rules of the road to assure safety without stifling
innovation and commercial success.''
The National Commission, after noting current contributions from
the oil and gas industry, stated that:
``The oil and gas industry, however, should do significantly more
and provide the funds necessary for regulation of offshore oil and gas
operations and oil spill preparedness planning. The amount of funding
needs to keep pace as industry moves into ever-more challenging depths
and geologic formations because the related challenges of regulatory
oversight likewise increase . . . No matter the precise mechanism, the
oil and gas industry would be required to pay for its regulators, just
as fees on the telecommunications industry support the Federal
Communications Commission. Regulation of the oil and gas industry would
no longer be funded by taxpayers but instead by the industry that is
being permitted to have access to a publicly-owned resource.''----
National Commission, Final Report p. 290.
BOEMRE continues to review and approve applications that
demonstrate the ability to operate safely and contain a subsea blowout
in deepwater. The rate of deepwater permit applications is increasing,
which reflects industry's growing confidence that it understands and
can comply with the applicable requirements, including the containment
requirement. However, the need for additional resources to support this
function is widely recognized and supported by industry. With the
additional personnel requested in the fiscal year 2012 budget, BOEMRE
will ensure a thorough and timely review of permitting requests.
Question. The budget presents a 45 percent increase to the agencies
that oversee offshore drilling activity and revenue collection.
Previously, the Minerals Management Service was funded at $338 million.
Now, the President proposes that BOEMRE and the Office of Natural
Resource Revenues (ONRR) be funded at $506 million. Can you please
provide a breakdown of the number of full-time employees you expect to
hire with this budget and the number of employees that will be hired to
review environmental assessments and drilling applications? If BOEMRE
is provided with the funds to hire these full-time employees, do you
expect further permitting delays in the gulf? Or will these employees
provide BOEMRE with enough manpower to handle the permits in a more
timely fashion?
Answer. The fiscal year 2012 President's budget requests a total of
$506 million for BOEMRE and ONRR. Of this total, $358 million is
requested for BOEMRE and $148 million for ONRR; increases of $134
million and $39 million, respectively, more than the fiscal year 2010
enacted level.
BOEMRE's request is composed of funding increases for resource
management functions; safety and enforcement functions; and
administration, savings, and other budget adjustments. The request also
contains funding for an independent advisory board and an
investigations and review unit. BOEMRE is requesting a total of 1,417
full-time equivalents (FTE), an increase of 321 more than the fiscal
year 2010 enacted level.
Forty-one additional FTE are requested to review and process lease
management, qualification, bonding and unitization requests and issues,
as well as requests for development activities, such as plan and permit
processing and approval. A recently published report by the Department
of the Interior OCS Oversight Safety Board to the Secretary of the
Interior states that the ``Gulf of Mexico district offices are
challenged by the volume and complexity of permit applications and the
lack of a standardized engineering review protocol. In addition, the
Pacific region's permitting staff is facing significant succession
issues.'' It goes on to state that the workforce associated with
regulating day-to-day activities has not increased proportionately to
work demands, creating challenges in the need to balance an adequate
analysis of permit requests with the need to be responsive to industry.
For instance, Applications for Permits to Modify have increased by 71
percent from 1,246 in 2005 to 2,136 in 2009 in the New Orleans
district. In the Pacific region, 80 percent of current permitting
employees will be retirement eligible in the next 2.5 years. The
requested funds will enable BOEMRE to ensure that staffing levels are
commensurate with increasing workloads.
The fiscal year 2012 request includes $3.6 million for 23 FTE
originally requested in fiscal year 2011. The reviews conducted by
BOEMRE staff are necessary to ensure the safety and environmental
soundness of oil and gas drilling and production on the OCS.
Additional resources are essential to effectively meet industry
demand for an efficient, effective, transparent, and stable regulatory
environment given the increased review that must occur. BOEMRE
continues to review and approve applications that demonstrate the
ability to operate safely and contain a subsea blowout in deep water.
We have seen the rate of deepwater permit applications increasing,
which reflects growing confidence in the industry that it understands
and can comply with the applicable requirements, including the
containment requirement. BOEMRE expects additional permit approvals in
the near future. However, the need for additional resources is
recognized and supported by industry, as evidenced by a letter, dated
November 17, 2010, to the House and Senate subcommittees on Interior,
Environment, and Related Agencies signed by the American Petroleum
Institute; American Exploration & Production Council; International
Association of Drilling Contractors; Independent Petroleum Association
of America; National Ocean Industries Association; and US Oil and Gas
Association.
Additional detail on BOEMRE's fiscal year 2012 request appears in
the following table.
[Dollars in thousands]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Full-time
Item equivalents Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2010 Bureau of Ocean Energy 1,684 $181,520
Management, Regulation and Enforcement
(BOEMRE)--direct appropriation:........
Baseline adjustment reorganization:
Transfer to Office of Natural -588 -109,244
Resource Revenues (ONRR)/
Policy, Management and Budget
(PMB)..........................
-------------------------------
Fiscal year 2010 BOEMRE-- 1,096 72,276
revised baseline--direct
appropriation \1\..........
===============================
Fiscal year 2011 continuing resolution .............. +12,036
(Public Law 111-322) \2\...............
===============================
Fiscal year 2012 BOEMRE changes:
Administration, savings, and
adjustments:
Fixed costs..................... .............. +1,192
Reorganization efficiencies and +1 +1,058
budget changes.................
Administrative savings.......... .............. -1,432
Offsetting collections (rental .............. -5,273
receipts and cost recovery
fees)..........................
-------------------------------
Subtotal...................... +1 -4,455
===============================
Resource management:
NEPA and environmental studies +52 +8,063
staff..........................
Environmental studies........... .............. +6,500
General support................. .............. +2,527
Renewable energy................ +11 +2,050
Fair market value............... +1 +1,930
Marine spatial planning......... +4 +1,000
Bid evaluation.................. +2 +310
Center for Marine Resources and .............. -900
Environmental Technology.......
Marine minerals................. .............. -2,000
-------------------------------
Subtotal...................... +70 +19,480
===============================
Safety and Environmental
Enforcement:
Inspection/monitoring capability +116 +44,483
\3\............................
Engineering studies--TA&R....... +12 +11,360
Oil spill research.............. +4 +8,620
Permitting...................... +41 +6,945
Environmental and operational +33 +5,115
oversight compliance...........
Management operations support... +12 +2,860
General support................. .............. +1,246
Oil spill response compliance... +8 +1,240
Inspection fees................. .............. -55,000
-------------------------------
Subtotal...................... +226 +26,869
===============================
Other:
Investigations and review unit.. +20 +5,782
Independent Advisory Board...... +4 +1,200
-------------------------------
Subtotal...................... +24 +6,982
===============================
Total, BOEMRE fiscal year 2012 1,417 133,188
request--direct appropriation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The direct appropriation funding shown here is provided for
comparison with the BOEMRE fiscal year 2012 request. Because ONRR is
funded through the ROMM appropriation in 2010 and 2011 and has access
to offsetting collections, the actual budget reflects higher direct
appropriations and lower offsetting collections.
\2\ Public Law 111-322 provided a total of $24.9 million in direct
appropriations over fiscal year 2010. Of this amount, $12.9 million
was designated for ONRR. Public Law 111-242 (a previous continuing
resolution) included a $25 million rescission of prior year
unobligated balances for the OCS Connect Project for which budget
authority is restored in fiscal year 2012. FTE hired with funding from
Public Law 111-322 are reflected in the total request for the
Inspection/Monitoring Capability initiative.
\3\ An additional net amount of $10.2 million was provided for
regulatory activities in the fiscal year 2011 continuing resolution
(Public Law 111-322) which has enabled BOEMRE to initiate, on a
limited basis, some of the efforts planned in fiscal year 2011 for
this initiative. This includes hiring new inspection team members, the
acquisition of additional helicopter support, vehicles, and space
needs required to support additional inspection/monitoring capability.
Question. The price of gas is skyrocketing, and we cannot afford to
suddenly have our energy supplies disrupted with the resulting price
surges, gasoline lines and uncertain economic future when we have
reliable sources of energy here at home. American families cannot
afford to pay $4 per gallon of gas--do you have an answer for the
families already struggling to fill up the tank on why you are not
aggressively making every effort you can to provide more energy now?
Answer. In fact, we are making every effort to provide more energy
in a safer and less environmentally risky manner. A domestic energy
source cannot be considered reliable in a broad sense if the potential
for a catastrophic accident, such as we have experienced both
domestically and internationally within the past year is not minimized.
Our assessment of the Federal offshore oil and gas program following
the Deepwater Horizon incident was that there were readily identifiable
actions that we could adopt and which the industry should be required
to undertake that could reduce the program risks in a meaningful way.
It is now up to the industry to demonstrate that it can implement the
changes that we have codified in rules, regulations, and notices to
lessees.
We at the Department of the Interior continue to believe that under
the President's energy program, conventional oil and gas resources are
a very important part of powering our economy. We continue to operate a
robust energy development program for both oil and natural gas.
The President's energy agenda also includes nuclear power and
renewable resources, such as offshore wind and onshore solar power, in
order to have a robust energy program for the Nation into the future.
More specifically, the Department of the Interior has made it a major
priority to develop the renewable energy potential that we find
offshore especially along the Atlantic coast. In November 2010,
Secretary Salazar launched the ``Smart from the Start'' wind energy
initiative for the Atlantic OCS. This initiative is designed to
facilitate siting and leasing for commercial wind projects on the OCS,
thereby spurring responsible development. This is a significant
initiative of the Department. The budget before the Congress for 2012
has a goal to authorize and stand up 10,000 megawatts of renewable
energy power.
Question. The BLM recently finished the Antelope Complex gather,
and I understand it was stopped short of the planned removal number
because they did not find enough horses. This suggests that the program
is operating under an inaccurate count of how many horses are left on
the range. In addition, the BLM has only been able to adopt
approximately 3,000 animals per year. Considering this, in addition to
the 39,000 horses already under the BLM's care in short and long-term
holding, 7,600 removals per year still seems high. Since the bulk of
costs for this program is in caring for the horses removed from the
range, would the BLM consider limiting the number of removals to 3,000
per year, the number they are able to adopt, at least until the
National Academy of Sciences (NAS) study is complete?
Answer. The Congress has asked the BLM to find ways to manage wild
horses and burros in a more cost-effective, humane manner, and the
Department is committed to doing that. To achieve these goals, the BLM
has issued a proposed strategy for the Wild Horse and Burro Program and
invited public comment. As part of this new strategy, the BLM intends
to reduce the annual number of wild horses removed for at least the
next 2 years from 10,000 to 7,600, a level that would essentially
maintain the current number of wild horses and burros on the range. The
BLM is adopting this more conservative gather approach pending the
findings of the NAS study that will review the program's current
policies and make recommendations on how best to manage wild horses and
burros based on the latest scientific research.
Question. In follow up, we cannot effectively and responsibly
manage the wild horse and burro population without an accurate count.
Can you confirm that population estimate methods will be considered in
the NAS study? Is the BLM committed to a state-of-the-art Census once
the NAS study is complete?
Answer. The BLM is committed to using the best science available in
managing wild horses and burros on western public rangelands. Accurate
population survey data is the foundation for management decisions, and
the BLM is continuing to take steps to ensure that it is using the best
methods available to estimate horse populations. This summer, the BLM
will fill a new wild horse and burro population survey specialist
position and begin to train field personnel to use two new methods
recently developed for horse surveys by the U.S. Geological Survey.
These new methods are expected to enhance the BLM's population estimate
data by accounting for the animals not seen during aerial surveys
through statistical analysis. The BLM also is asking NAS to review
these new methods and determine if there are better methods that could
be used to estimate herd population numbers.
Question. Mr. Secretary, I understand that gathers may continue to
be necessary, but as you know, I still have grave concerns about the
timing of these gathers. I have heard that the Triple B gather in
northeastern Nevada is planned for July, one of the hottest months of
the year. Many horses died at a gather conducted last July in the same
area of Nevada. Gathers should not be conducted during the summer
months except in emergencies and the Triple B does not qualify as an
emergency. Will the BLM consider rescheduling this gather for the fall
of 2011? If not, why not?
Answer. The BLM is preparing to gather wild horses in the Triple B
Complex, located near Ely, Nevada, beginning in July 2011. This
proposed gather is needed to improve the health of the herds and public
lands and to prevent an emergency similar to the Tuscarora gather,
during which 13 wild horses died as a direct result of water starvation
or of complications related to dehydration. During summer months and
dry years, water resources become very limited within the Triple B
Complex. When this occurs, wild horses tend to concentrate around the
few existing water sources resulting in negative effects to riparian
resources. These effects on water resources are compounded by a wild
horse population in the Triple B Complex that is nearly three times
above the appropriate management levels. Many of the limited water
sources are unable to keep up with the current wild horse population
and the BLM has been hauling water to designated spring sources within
the Triple B Complex. Reducing population size would help ensure that
the remaining wild horses remain healthy and are not at risk of death
or suffering due to insufficient forage and/or water as a result of
frequent drought conditions.
A key reform to the Wild Horse and Burro Program is increasing the
number of mares treated with fertility control. The Porcine Zona
Pellucida vaccine should be applied to mares in the fall and winter
months to ensure its effectiveness at preventing foaling. Therefore,
logistically the BLM is scheduling fertility control gathers for the
fall of 2011. All other gathers, including Triple B, are for the summer
months.
The BLM adjusts its operations during summer months to ensure that
the wild horses are humanely gathered. Temperature and animal condition
are monitored, and the gather activities are usually limited to the
morning and early afternoon hours when the temperatures are cooler. The
BLM and the gather contractor also make sure there is plenty of clean
water for the animals to drink once they have been gathered and removed
from the range.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Jack Reed
Question. Mr. Secretary, your budget includes a 33 percent increase
for cooperative landscape conservation programs, for a total of $175
million. That amount includes a $17.5 million increase for the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) to expand its Landscape Conservation
Cooperatives (LCC) network and a $10.4 million increase to expand the
U.S. Geological Survey's (USGS) Climate Science Centers (CSC). Could
you please explain what these investments will actually buy in terms of
increased science capacity and on-the-ground restoration work?
Answer. To protect the viability of fish, wildlife, plants, and
their habitats from the serious threats of sea level rise, drought,
shifting wildlife migration, habitat loss, disease and invasive species
that are associated with the effects of compounding environmental
stressors, the Department of the Interior (DOI), must rapidly develop
the ability to deliver conservation across connected landscapes of
habitats, based on the best available scientific understanding.
To meet that goal, the DOI is establishing a new business model
with our partners to manage at the landscape scale and leverage the
conservation capacity of individual organizations to attain biological
outcomes larger than any one partner could achieve alone. The 2012
President's budget proposes an increase of $10.2 million through the
FWS for these landscape partnerships, LCCs, which will identify
landscapes, habitats, and species that are most vulnerable to climate
change; define clear conservation objectives; and focus management
actions where they will be most effective on the landscape. Building on
the nine LCCs currently operating, the FWS will establish three LCCs by
the end of 2011 and another six in 2012. An additional three LCCs will
be led by other DOI bureaus, completing the national network.
Concurrently, the FWS budget proposes an increase of $7.3 million
to acquire key scientific information needed to inform planning and
design and to continue to develop an in-house applied science
capability.
A specific example of the role LCCs will play is evidenced in the
DOI's ecosystem restoration efforts across the Nation. The LCCs will
conduct science assessments to appraise the current spectrum of
scientific knowledge surrounding shared resource priorities, and will
identify and prioritize management questions and related research and
technical assistance gaps and needs. They will explore potential
approaches for utilizing existing information, developing scientific
tools, and improving the state of knowledge. These assessments will
identify common needs for science among the various partners and
partnerships to meet their conservation priorities and goals, and will
be developed in coordination with CSCs.
Specific examples of how this acquired scientific information will
be used in ecosystem restoration are as follows:
--In the California Bay Delta region, the California LCC will work to
address water supply and environmental challenges outlined in
the Interim Federal Action Plan for the California Bay Delta.
The region will use the LCC and new Strategic Habitat
Conservation business model to work in this changing ecosystem,
ensuring that our actions are driven by science, respect for
our partners and a focus on outcomes.
--The Gulf Coastal Plains & Ozarks (GCPO) LCC and its partners have
developed habitat modeling capabilities in its geographic area.
Two new working groups, the Alligator Gar Conservation Group
and the Louisiana Pearlshell Mussel Group, have begun to model
habitat needs for these species, which will characterize their
existing habitats, identify potential areas of new or unknown
populations, and identify areas with potential for restoring
populations. The modeling process will also be used as a
template for aquatic habitat models for similar species within
the GCPO and other LCCs with similar habitats and species.
The 2012 President's budget requested increase of $10.4 million for
CSCs will enable the USGS to complete the network of eight climate
science centers, by establishing the remaining five CSCs, serving all
parts of the United States. These centers will provide access to the
highest-quality academic talent in a rapidly evolving scientific field.
The linkage to management--largely through the input of LCCs--will
ensure that the funds appropriated to the USGS are directed to high-
priority needs of managers from the DOI, States, and other management
partners. For example, the Northeast Climate Science Center will be
faced with demands from State and Federal coastal managers to provide
information on how climate-driven changes in sea level rise, increased
storm surges, and increased intensity and frequency of coastal storms
will affect coastal ecosystems, species, and human infrastructure.
Through the CSC framework, the DOI will be able to access the most
appropriate scientific expertise on climate change research.
Question. How are the investments in LCCs and CSCs unique compared
to current FWS or USGS programs?
Answer. A common theme throughout the various response strategies
to climate change and other environmental stressors is the recognition
that no individual agency or program has the capacity to unilaterally
provide the needed science and information or to stand alone in any
effort to address the suite of threats to our natural resources. The
conservation community must establish more effective and coordinated
mechanisms for research, the sharing and transfer of science and
related information, and the creation of innovative and effective
science-based conservation tools, all predicated on collaboratively
developed priorities. The community must also develop more effective
processes for collaborative approaches to conservation planning,
prioritization, and evaluation to support adapted responses to a wide
variety of natural resource stresses including, but not limited, to
climate change. This realization is what led to the initiation of a
national network of LCC and CSCs.
Both the CSC and LCC networks allow the bureaus to collaborate with
interested parties across the landscape, breaking down traditional
jurisdictional boundaries. CSCs provide the basic data and
understanding of how climate will affect natural and cultural resources
with the goal of supporting LCCs and other managers in making local
landscape-scale decisions about climate adaptation. LCCs bring together
public and private sector managers to apply science to resource
management decisions in specific places or for specific species or
other resources. The 21 LCCs are landscape-scale applied conservation
science partnerships that will support and enhance on-the-ground
conservation efforts by facilitating the production and dissemination
of applied science for resource management decisionmakers. The LCCs may
consist of Federal, State, tribal, international, local, and private
stakeholders. The LCCs will identify and seek to coordinate among
existing relevant conservation partnerships, plans, agreements, and
programs with the specific goals of identifying common needs for
information and sharing information and science. Science development
can be accomplished through the LCCs' relationships with CSCs as well
as through LCC-specific funded applied science and LCC-supported
science developed by partners. LCCs will also actively share the
results of new research and development with local partners and with
the LCC network nationwide. Accordingly, LCCs will help the larger
conservation community achieve better implementation of their programs
by fostering improved communication and coordination among partners.
Through participation in LCCs, conservation agencies and organizations
can more strategically target and implement actions that satisfy their
missions as well as landscape conservation priorities shared by the LCC
partners. None of this work could be completed on this scale within
current programs at any of the DOI's bureaus on their own.
Question. How will the proposed LCCs and CSCs work together to help
the DOI set its conservation priorities?
Answer. The eight regional CSCs will provide fundamental scientific
information, tools, and techniques that land, water, wildlife, and
cultural resource managers and other interested parties can apply to
anticipate, monitor, and adapt to climate change impacts. Much of the
information and tools provided by the CSCs, including physical and
biological research, ecological forecasting, and multi-scale modeling,
will be in response to the priority needs identified by the LCCs.
Working closely with the LCCs, the CSCs will help develop statistically
sound sampling programs and processes to monitor climate change effects
and help develop adaptive management approaches. The CSCs will be
partnership-based regional entities functioning with LCCs as well as
the regional management community, scientific entities, and other
stakeholders.
LCCs and CSCs will have strong, collaborative, and complementary
roles and functions. These roles and responsibilities fall along a
continuum of research and science needs, which range from fundamental
climate science modeling and tool development by CSCs to applied
science that is management specific through LCCs. Interactions between
LCCs and CSCs will involve:
Science Priority Setting.--LCCs will deliberate and communicate
shared priority science needs and conservation priorities to
the regional CSC, which will review the input of all relevant
LCCs to develop a regional science agenda.
Scientific Collaboration.--LCCs and CSCs have complementary
science roles. Working with downscaled atmospheric climate
models, CSCs will produce models, datasets, decision support
tools, and research products that support applied conservation
planning through LCCs. LCCs will utilize these science
resources and tools to further develop and support applied
scientific information tailored to specific locations and
resource management priorities.
Integrated Data Management.--LCCs and CSCs have a mutual goal of
developing integrated data management networks to facilitate
easy sharing of information; these systems will maintain
consistency with DOI-wide information standards (e.g., shared
data standards, databases, and GIS protocols) to enable
coordination and information sharing.
Furthermore, with the creation of the DOI's Energy and Climate
Change Council, policy oversight, and direction for the DOI bureaus
will be provided with respect to the Department's efforts to facilitate
renewable energy development and respond and adapt to climate change
impacts on the resources managed by the DOI. Working groups have been
formed within the DOI to address specific issues related to
implementation of the CSC and LCC networks, and these entities are
charged with facilitating coordination and communication among bureaus
in this effort.
Question. Your budget request assumes that the FWS will establish
12 new LCCs in fiscal year 2011 and fiscal year 2012, for a total of
21. It also assumes that the USGS will add five more CSCs, for a total
of eight. These new cooperatives and centers require significant
funding increases at the same time we are facing tight budget
constraints. Can you maintain these new investments over the long run
without negative impacts to other core science and land management
programs?
Answer. It is imperative that the DOI build and maintain the
scientific capacities envisioned within LCCs and CSCs to achieve
mission goals. In light of current budget constraints, it is more
crucial than ever that we be able to effectively target programs, and
set and evaluate goals for performance.
Additionally, one of the key factors of success for CSCs and LCCs
is partnerships. By building on existing partnerships, the LCC network
will provide the information needed to accomplish conservation
objectives that no single agency or organization can accomplish alone.
LCCs will comprise a seamless national network with the scientific and
technical capacities to help conservation agencies and organizations
maintain landscapes capable of sustaining abundant, diverse and healthy
populations of fish, wildlife, and plants. At present, no other
organization is fulfilling this function, and we believe our
conservation partners will assist us in ensuring that the LCC work,
focusing on the landscape scale, will only help to inform (not harm)
other core science and land management programs.
u.s. geological survey--landsat funding
USGS LANDSAT FUNDING PROJECTIONS
[In millions of dollars]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Item Fiscal year 2012 Fiscal year 2013 Fiscal year 2014 Fiscal year 2015 Fiscal year 2016
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Landsat 9 and 10 estimated costs \1\......................... 48.0 159.0 410 .0 306 .0 264.0
Landsat 5, 7, and 8........................................... 53.5 53.5 53.5 53.5 53.5
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Landsat 5, 7, 8, 9, and 10....................... 101.5 212.5 463.5 359.5 317.5
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes both NASA and USGS Landsat 9 and 10 activities.
Total USGS Funding Levels.--Fiscal year 2010 enacted: $1,111,740;
fiscal year 2011 request: $1,133,359; fiscal year 2012 request:
$1,117,854.
impact on usgs programs
Question. The 2012 budget includes $112 million in program
increases, including $61 million in additional funding for the Landsat
program. These amounts are offset by $84 million in decreases to
existing programs and another $29 million in estimated savings for
efficiencies. The Director of the Office of Science and Technology
Policy in written testimony submitted to the House Committee on
Science, Space, and Technology last month stated that significant
reductions to USGS programs like minerals and water resources research
were necessary to offset funding priorities like Landsat.
Water resources programs, earthquake and volcano hazards detection,
minerals resources investigations, and biological studies are just some
of the areas in which the USGS currently provides information that is
vital to the public's safety, the Nation's security and protection of
the environment. Will these programs continue to have the funding
needed to provide these services in a time of declining budgets or is
this the beginning of a shift in mission for the USGS from these
services to a satellite mission?
Answer. The core mission of the USGS has not changed, but the
budget is being realigned with the science missions detailed in the
science strategy. The 2012 budget reflects tough choices. We are
repositioning core responsibilities to better address complex
multidisciplinary issues within a reduced funding level.
The request for an increase to begin transitioning the National
Land Imaging Program to the USGS will create a stable home for the
Landsat series of satellites. While NASA will still be our partner with
responsibility for spacecraft instrument integration and launch, by
aligning budgetary authority with the USGS, major programmatic
decisions will be made with the best interest of the user community in
mind. Landsat belongs with the USGS just like weather satellites belong
with National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, so that data
users can be responsible for the determination of data requirements on
the satellite.
The administration supports both the development of a National Land
Imaging Program at the USGS and the traditional USGS disciplines, and
would be happy to work with the Congress to ensure this Landsat
transition occurs responsibly.
landsat
NASA vs. USGS
The division of responsibility for the Landsat land imaging program
has traditionally been a shared one with NASA designing and launching
the spacecraft and the USGS managing the operations of airborne
satellites and the collection, processing and archiving of data. The
new proposal would give the USGS primary budget authority for the all
aspects of the Landsat program.
The budget request for NASA's earth sciences program in fiscal year
2012 is $1.65 billion, larger than the USGS' entire $1.1 billion
request, and includes at least a dozen separate earth observation
satellite missions. Given this fact, can you explain the rationale for
severing the Landsat program from these other similar missions and
moving it to the DOI?
Answer. NASA's primary mission is to develop research missions,
where new technology is developed and tested. Some of these instruments
are then transitioned to operational missions, where they can collect
routine, continuous observations over long time periods. Just as
weather satellites have transitioned from NASA as research missions to
NOAA as operational missions, it is time for Landsat to transition to
an operational mission, hosted by the DOI. The model proposed by the
DOI for a sustained land-imaging capability is similar to that of the
Nation's weather satellite capabilities whereby NOAA provides mission
requirements and funding to NASA, which develops and launches the
spacecraft that NOAA then operates in order to widely and freely
distribute meteorological data and information. This approach ensures
that the primary data users are responsible for the development of the
mission requirements and funding. This approach has been supported by
the last two administrations and is reflected in the President's
national space policy.
Question. Under the new proposal, once funding is appropriated and
the USGS contracts with NASA on a reimbursable basis to design and
launch the spacecraft, doesn't business proceed as it has in the past?
Answer. The primary difference in the business model will be that
the USGS will have the programmatic lead for Landsat missions,
including the development of mission requirements, which is essential
to ensure that user needs of the Federal agencies are a priority in
mission development. After the development of mission requirements, the
construction of the satellite will continue in largely the same way as
it has in the past, capitalizing on existing infrastructure,
capabilities and lessons-learned.
Question. What does another administrative layer with an additional
set overhead costs add to the process and how is it more efficient than
appropriating design and launch funds directly to NASA?
Answer. The DOI is one of the primary users of Landsat imagery and
has been since Landsat I was launched in 1972. It will be more
efficient for Interior, through the USGS, to have responsibility for
the development of Landsat data requirements. The USGS was reconfirmed
as the organization responsible for operational land remote sensing
requirements in the recent national space policy and will actively work
with the other Federal agencies and Landsat users on defining Landsat
data requirements. The USGS will be responsible for making decisions
about trading technical capabilities defined by these requirements and
the schedule to manage the Landsat program within its budget.
Separating control of the budget from the data user creates conflicts
of interest, diminishing the effective operation of the program. While
the USGS will need to develop the capability to oversee and manage this
project, they will not duplicate NASA's role, minimizing any additional
costs while maximizing the overall effectiveness of the mission.
reimbursement of costs
Question. In a 2004 report to the Congress, the USGS described
Landsat as a $21.2 million annual program of which $10.2 million was
appropriated and $11 million was derived from data product sales and
cost share fees from International Cooperator (ICs). In 2012, base
funding for Landsat 5, 7, and 8 will be $53.5 million and the funding
request for Landsat 9 and 10 adds another $48 million to the bottom
line for a grand total of $98.5 million. At the same time, there is no
longer a revenue stream to partially support the Landsat budget.
Technological advances have standardized and streamlined access to
information and shifted the costs of customizing data away from the
USGS to the end user. Former Secretary Kempthorne formalized the policy
of data availability at no cost to the public in an announcement in
2008.
Given the inevitability of dwindling Federal resources, has any
thought been given to other innovative ways in which the Landsat
program might recoup some of the Federal investment and generate some
sort of offsetting revenue stream?
Answer. There has been some consideration of offsetting revenue.
Since the USGS no longer provides products tailored to individual
customers, the only fee-for-service that might be applicable under
Public Law 102-555 would be for the negligible cost of each customer
downloading a scene from a USGS server (currently around 10 cents per
scene). If imposed, this fee would cost the USGS more to process than
the fee charged.
Some operational costs for Landsats 5 and 7 are recovered by the
USGS via charges for providing data downlinks to IC ground receiving
stations, which also serve as valuable data-capture back-ups should a
Landsat satellite's onboard image--data recorder or image--data relay
capability be lost, as in the case of Landsat 5. Such fees, however,
cover only a portion of Landsat operations.
NASA and NOAA have distributed vast amounts of digital satellite
data at no charge to users for many years. NASA and NOAA base their
data distribution on the following policy:
``Policies concerning distribution of government-produced
information . . . are founded on the concept that government-produced
information is a public resource and that its value is maximized when
it is made freely available for widespread and convenient use. Policies
on fees allow for charges for the costs of distribution only not for
the costs of production. These policies apply to all kinds of US
Government information--weather data, census data, geophysical data,
financial data, etc. regardless of which agency is creating/collecting
the information. They have served to create many information service
industries in the US that generate jobs and create economic growth.
Trying to use sales of government information to support government
activities beyond recovering costs of distribution is contrary to these
policies and would be, in effect, a form of taxation.''
Since these data products are generated and placed on the Internet
for timely distribution; fee-for-service or joint venture do not appear
viable. Other reasons to maintain the current approach are:
--Tax dollars have already paid for the development, launch and
operations of the satellite, plus image-data reception,
archiving, and processing;
--Landsat data distribution policy is aligned with other USGS, NOAA,
and NASA data distribution policies;
--By law, the data must be distributed on a nondiscriminatory basis
at no more than the cost of fulfilling user requests; and
--Landsat data are considered a ``public good'' similar to GPS and
weather data.
re-examination of proposal
Question. The concept of USGS assuming primary responsibility for
all aspects of the Landsat program has been discussed for years and was
formalized in a report issued in 2007 by the previous administration.
The fiscal landscape has changed dramatically since that time and
Federal budgets are going to contract significantly.
What is the rationale for moving forward at this time with a
proposal that is 4 years old and developed under more robust economic
times? Wouldn't this be an appropriate time to re-evaluate the program
with an eye toward forming partnerships that might reduce the overall
cost? Why can't functions be consolidated and streamlined?
Answer. The proposal under consideration in the 2012 budget
reflects the administration's preferred model for future Landsat
missions. Consolidation and partnership for Landsat missions was
considered as an option for reducing cost, but will ultimately be less
successful than the model presented in the budget. For example, several
years ago, the administration directed that the Landsat primary sensor
be added to the National Polar-orbiting Environmental Satellite System
(NPOESS) weather satellite mission. However, the extremely precise
pointing requirements for the Landsat sensor were not achievable by the
NPOESS satellite bus without extensive and costly modifications. It was
quickly determined that it was not in the Government's best interest to
add Landsat to the already-complex NPOESS mission, and the decision was
made to make Landsat a free-flyer mission. The same issue would arise
again should future Landsat sensors be placed on another satellite.
Further complicating the issue is the need for a separate thermal
instrument to accompany the Landsat primary sensor. Adding two
instruments with stringent pointing requirements to another satellite
would be problematic, increasing the cost to the taxpayer.
Landsats 4 and 5 were built and launched by NASA for NOAA. After
the 1980s failure of Landsat commercialization, the Congress directed
NASA to build and launch Landsat 7, which has been operated by the USGS
since October 2000. NASA built and launched Landsats 1 through 5 and 7
and is currently building Landsat 8 (LDCM) in partnership with the
USGS. NASA also built and launched all of the NOAA satellites currently
on orbit. NOAA's cancelled NPOESS Program was a departure from the
NOAA-funded/NASA-built model, which NOAA has since returned to and
which the USGS is proposing to follow. NOAA's scientific expertise and
satellite operations focus on the oceans and atmosphere while the USGS
concentrates its science and satellite operations on the land.
The budget's Landsat proposal builds off of the successes and
failures of Landsat's long history in various Federal agencies and the
private sector. Ultimately, the DOI-funded/NASA-built satellite will
best meet the needs of the data user community, at the least cost to
the American taxpayer.
Question. Technology continues to develop at a lightning fast pace.
Has there been a recent assessment of Landsat's planned technology
investments that assures us that 7 years down the line, when Landsat 9
is scheduled to be launched, our investments will still be current and
provide the best data? Is anyone looking at other ways of obtaining the
information that we now get via Landsat?
Answer. The Landsat Data Continuity Mission (LDCM or Landsat 8
after launch), scheduled to launch in December 2012, boasts state-of-
the-art imaging technology in both the primary multispectral
Operational Land Imager instrument and the Quantum Well Infrared Photo-
detector based Thermal Infrared Sensor. These two sensors are
substantial improvements over past Landsat sensors, and are expected to
deliver easily the highest-quality Landsat data in the history of the
program, and should spawn a host of new applications to the tens of
thousands of current Landsat users. The baseline plan with Landsat 9 is
to take maximum advantage of the recurring engineering development work
already accomplished with the LDCM imaging instruments in order to
significantly reduce development risk and launch the new mission on
time and budget.
Under the budget proposal, NASA would continue in its role of
investigating, developing, and testing cutting-edge technology for
land-imaging sensors plus data transmission and processing systems. The
USGS, in turn, would operate Landsat satellites built by NASA using
technology it has already found to be flight-proven and reliable.
The Landsat Science Team, a 16-member group of external independent
scientists and engineers (from government, academia, the private
sector, and international organizations) advises the USGS on
requirements for sensors to meet the needs of Landsat users to ensure
the technological needs of Landsat missions are achieved. The science
team has repeatedly called for Landsat data continuity for the future.
Alternate sources of data identical to that of Landsat and routinely
captured on a global scale are not available.
Beyond contracting for another Government-managed free-flyer space
system, there really are no other acceptable ways to obtain the
information we now receive from Landsat. Alternate sources of data
identical to that of Landsat are not available. Other possible imaging
systems either have spectral or spatial resolutions inconsistent with
that of Landsat, have insufficient ground systems to capture global
datasets, or lack the operational characteristics necessary to support
the tens of thousands of current Landsat users. Landsat has provided a
38-year record of continuous land use imagery data. The value of the
Landsat data is the consistent record of land imagery with common
imaging characteristics over a significant period of time. Changing key
technical characteristics would significantly alter the data set and
diminish the utility of the continuity of data.
offshore wind development
Question. I applaud your efforts to streamline the regulatory
process to approve offshore wind development through your Smart from
the Start initiative. Rhode Island has already made great strides in
preparing for offshore wind development, which is why I was
disappointed that Rhode Island was not included in the initial group of
States announced last February for this initiative. In particular,
through extensive data collection and stakeholder outreach, Rhode
Island developed a comprehensive coastal resource management plan
called the Ocean Special Area Management Plan (SAMP). I believe these
efforts have positioned Rhode Island well to prudently, but rapidly
advance through the all stages and components of the regulatory process
in offshore wind development. Can you explain how the extensive work of
the Ocean SAMP will be incorporated into developing the DOI's plan for
Rhode Island? Will the plan also include clearly defined next steps for
Rhode Island to take that build upon the Ocean SAMP and will help Rhode
Island rapidly advance through the regulatory process?
Answer. BOEMRE has coordinated closely with Rhode Island throughout
development of the Ocean SAMP. As we consider leasing in the Area of
Mutual Interest agreed to by Rhode Island and Massachusetts, the
information gathered through the SAMP effort will be instrumental in
identifying a Wind Energy Area (WEA) that is suitable to offer for
lease for commercial wind development under Smart from the Start. The
SAMP will continue to be a source of useful information as we complete
environmental analysis of the WEA to be offered for lease, as well as
in the preparation of required plans by the eventual lessee(s) and
subsequent review by BOEMRE. The SAMP information has great potential
for allowing lessees to prepare and submit combined Site Assessment/
Construction and Operations Plans (SAP/COP), which would significantly
reduce the permitting timeline. This approach has been discussed by
BOEMRE and Rhode Island officials in developing a Rhode Island pilot
project under the Atlantic Offshore Wind Energy Consortium established
by Secretary Salazar and 10 Atlantic States to focus and expedite
offshore wind development efforts. BOEMRE and Rhode Island officials
have discussed process steps and will develop a timeline for SAP/COP
submission and review after the lease process is initiated and we
determine whether a commercial lease(s) will be issued competitively or
noncompetitively.
america's great outdoors initiative/environmental education
Question. Mr. Secretary, I appreciate the emphasis that the
America's Great Outdoors initiative places on environmental education
for young people. I have long advocated including environmental
education in elementary and secondary education because it can pique a
child's interest in learning and reinforce concepts taught in the
classroom. That's why I have been proud to sponsor the No Child Left
Inside Act, which I'll be reintroducing this Congress. I believe that
the keys to success in these initiatives are strong coordination among
environmental agencies and education agencies. Can you please tell me
how the DOI and other environmental agencies will work with the
Department of Education to coordinate environmental education programs?
How will you work assess outcomes from your programs?
Answer. The America's Great Outdoors report to the President
recommends that the Department of Education and other Federal agencies,
including the DOI align and support programs that advance the awareness
and understanding of nature. To that end, Secretary of the Interior
Salazar and Secretary of Education Duncan have discussed collaborating
on education programming in the areas of environmental science, social
studies, history and civics, and science, technology, engineering, and
mathematics (STEM) education. As a result, the Departments of Education
and the Interior have drafted a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) due
for signature later this spring. Following establishment of the MOU,
the National Park Service (NPS) will work with the Department of
Education on a detailed interagency agreement establishing specific
collaboration efforts including environmental science, STEM, and
history and civics teacher preparation and development, distance
learning, higher education through tribal colleges and universities,
and place-based learning research. All programs jointly managed between
the two agencies will have a built-in evaluation component to assess
student and teacher outputs and learning outcomes. Currently, the NPS
works to integrate evaluation into many of its curriculum-based
programs. Outcomes often include increases in students' motivation for
and confidence in learning science and history, improved test scores,
increased desire to care for the environment, and increases in teacher
confidence in using hands-on, interactive and place-based teaching
methods.
The DOI has also recently developed a Youth Programs Impact
Evaluation Tool-Kit that will provide another tool to program managers
for evaluating the impact of participating in our environmental
education programs; the Tool-Kit will provide yet another way for
managers to assess a program's impact on environmental literacy, civic
engagement, and career preparedness.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Jon Tester
implementation of the indian land consolidation program (ilcp)
Question. With no funds requested in the President's budget request
for fiscal year 2012, what is your vision for how the ILCP will be
implemented and when will that begin?
Answer. On December 8, 2010, the President signed into law the
Claims Resolution Act of 2010 that includes the $3.4 billion Cobell
settlement. Under the terms of the settlement, approximately $1.5
billion will be distributed to the class members to compensate them for
their historical accounting claims and to resolve potential claims that
prior U.S. officials mismanaged the administration of trust assets. The
second part of the settlement establishes a $1.9 billion fund for the
voluntary buy-back and consolidation of fractionated land interests to
address the continued proliferation of thousands of new trust accounts
caused by the division of land interests through succeeding
generations. The land consolidation program will continue to provide
individual Indians with an opportunity to obtain cash payments for
divided land interests and consolidate ownership(s) for the benefit of
tribal communities. In response to this provision, funds for the ILCP
are not requested in the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) budget in
fiscal year 2012. In addition, as an added inducement to facilitate the
purchase of fractionated land interests, up to $60 million of the $1.9
billion for land acquisition will be contributed to an existing,
nonprofit organization for the benefit of educating American Indians
and Alaska Natives. Upon final approval by the U.S. District Court for
the District of Columbia, the Cobell v. Salazar settlement agreement
will be implemented.
Question. Has the Department of the Interior (DOI) consulted with
or otherwise communicated with the congressional committees of
jurisdiction, Indian tribal leaders, or class members in the Cobell
lawsuit?
Answer. The DOI stands ready to implement the Cobell settlement
when it is approved by the court. The court-supervised process of
notifying class members has begun, and is being handled by the
plaintiffs. The court anticipates holding a ``fairness hearing'' in
June prior to finalizing the settlement. During the pendency of this
process, the court is continuing to restrict communications between DOI
officials and class members. As a result, the DOI cannot yet begin the
Government-to-government consultations with tribes and tribal members
to discuss how we will move forward with the implementation process.
The DOI has a briefing with the congressional committees of
jurisdiction scheduled in April 2011. Deputy Secretary David Hayes and
Solicitor Hilary Tompkins began hosting monthly calls with tribal
leaders in February 2011, and hosted a call on March 25, 2011. Tribal
leaders from all 565 federally recognized tribes were sent an
invitation.
Question. What new structures does the DOI believe are needed to
successfully implement the trust land consolidation fund?
Answer. As mentioned above, the DOI cannot yet begin the
Government-to-government consultations with tribes and tribal members
to discuss how we will move forward with the implementation process,
which includes implementation of the land consolidation fund.
Nonetheless, we will use these intervening months to have internal
discussions regarding how best to proceed with implementation, so that
we will be prepared to have productive discussions with the tribes and
trust beneficiaries, as soon as the settlement is finalized and
approved by the court.
Question. What has the DOI's experience been in the ongoing land
consolidation efforts?
Answer. The ILCP was established in 1999 on three reservations
within the Midwest region to study the feasibility and provide the
groundwork for the reduction or elimination of the fractionation
problem. In 2000, an amendment to Indian Land Consolidation Act
initiated a land consolidation acquisition program within the BIA to
consolidate fractionated lands. The program became permanent through
American Indian Probate Reform Act in 2004. Its mission is to acquire
fractionated interests. Overall, the program has acquired 427,153
interests (642,554.6 acres) through February 4, 2011.
Question. Are there regional or statewide differences in progress
made thus far in consolidating Indian land that is fractionated?
Answer. The ILCP focus has been targeted in the Great Plains,
Midwest and Eastern Navajo Regional land bases as the strategy was to
target highly fractionated interests. A majority (not all) of the
tracts that resided in the Midwest land base and some Navajo tracts
were valued by the Office of Appraisal Services in a timely manner as
those tracts were relatively homogenous, could be valued at the same
time, and the Office of Mineral Evaluation had already completed
mineral evaluations where tracts were identified as having low mineral
content. The Great Plains Region has an automated valuation system that
allows for many of these tracts to be valued with minimal preparatory
work. Due to these factors, these interests within the Great Plains
were consolidated at a much faster rate.
renewable energy development
Question. Mr. Secretary, When I was president of the Montana State
Senate, I led the charge to institute a renewable portfolio standard.
That standard has created a number of good jobs in Montana and
attracted investment throughout the State.
Though we don't have a renewable energy standard here, your
Department is working toward the goal developing 10,000 MW of renewable
energy on public lands by 2012. I know you've worked hard to achieve
this goal and have approved 4,000 MW on Bureau of Land Management (BLM)
land. You've requested an increase in funding ($14 million increase to
$73 million) to achieve this.
How do you plan to double these efforts this year, while still
adhering to a strong environmental review?
Answer. The President's fiscal year 2012 budget request includes a
$13.9 million increase for renewable energy efforts for the DOI,
including a $3 million increase for the BLM. To help meet the goals for
permitting renewable energy projects on public lands, the BLM has
identified 20 projects (10 solar, 5 wind, and 5 geothermal) on our 2011
Priority Project List (PPL). To be a priority project, a company must
demonstrate to the BLM that the project has progressed sufficiently to
formally start the environmental review and public participation
process, as well as have the potential to be approved by the end of
2011. In addition, the projects must be sited in an area that minimizes
impacts to the environment. All renewable energy projects proposed for
BLM-managed lands will receive the full environmental review required
by the National Environmental Policy Act, and will include the same
opportunities for public involvement required for all other land-use
decisionmaking by the BLM. PPL projects have been screened in
accordance with this policy and are generally located away from
sensitive areas and believed to have relatively few conflicts with
other important resources.
Question. What are you doing in expand renewable energy development
in Montana?
Answer. In the BLM's Montana/Dakotas State office, the agency has
staffed a renewable energy team of five positions (two permanent, three
limited term) to facilitate development of renewable energy on public
lands. While wind testing and monitoring locations approved on BLM-
administered lands over the last several years have not resulted in
development applications from industry, the BLM is reviewing lands to
determine if there are areas that have limited conflicts with other
resources and values where renewable energy development might be
focused. Funding is also being used to inventory for golden eagles and
cultural resources in areas across the State with high-potential wind
resources. The BLM also has been conducting proactive work with tribal
representatives to engage them in discussions on renewable energy and
enhance consultation protocols. Additionally, the BLM has placed a
priority on the processing and review of transmission projects crossing
BLM-administered lands in Montana that may result in opening markets
for energy generated in Montana, including the State's high potential
wind energy resources.
land and water conservation fund and conservation easements
Question. Mr. Secretary, your budget emphasizes conservation of our
special landscapes, and conservation easements can be a particularly
useful way of maintaining these assets for the future. In Montana's
Crown of the Continent and elsewhere, we've seen what an economic
driver to the local economy easements can be. I know Lyle Hodgskiss--a
banker from Choteau, Montana--has testified before the Congress that
easements create $4 in the local economy for each $1 invested.
They help ranchers get working capital protecting traditional land
uses and jobs on our ranches and in our forests, while safeguarding the
places we all care about.
In fiscal year 2012 you plan to continue the easement-based
conservation effort on the Rocky Mountain Front, as well as to acquire
key in-holdings including one at Glacier National Park.
Can you tell us how conservation easements fit into your
conservation strategy?
Answer. With more than 70 percent of the Nation's lands privately
owned, working lands are vital to conserve water resources, ecosystems,
and wildlife and to provide recreational opportunities for hunters,
anglers, and other outdoor enthusiasts. In the 21st century,
partnerships with both private and public stakeholders will be critical
to the success of conservation and restoration goals.
The 2012 Federal land acquisition request includes $41.3 million
for conservation easements. Conservation easements are one cost-
effective tool through which private landowners and the Federal
Government can enter into mutually beneficial agreements that help keep
our working lands--forests, farms, and ranches--in production, while
delivering conservation benefits to the broader landscape. These
voluntary agreements provide an economic boost for rural landowners who
wish to undertake conservation activities on their own lands, often
alongside agricultural operations.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Thad Cochran
gulf of mexico drilling
Question. Mr. Secretary, the Oil Spill Commission appointed by the
President recently concluded that the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico
(GOM) was the fault of one company's errors, and not a systemic issue
within the industry of offshore oil drilling.
The gulf coast remains plagued by issues related to the oil spill,
Hurricane Katrina, and the overall slow national economy, yet the
Department of the Interior continues to hold back drilling in the GOM
by dragging its feet in issuing permits and creating new hurdles for
offshore drilling companies to maintain operations. The offshore
drilling industry is incredibly valuable not only to the livelihood of
the gulf coast, but also to the Nation. As gas prices continue to
climb, it would be beneficial to all Americans to open up more waters
for drilling.
Question. How is the newly formed Bureau of Ocean Energy Management
(BOEMRE) working to accelerate operations in the gulf so that precious
American jobs are not lost to overseas operations?
Answer. There are some that dismiss Deepwater Horizon incident as
an isolated event that does not represent a systemic problem. The
evidence developed by the National Commission convincingly refutes the
notion that Deepwater Horizon was a one-in-a-million event. The
commission identified 79 loss-of-well control incidents in the GOM
between 1996 and 2009. That implies a much higher risk than one in a
million. Very recently, we saw a loss of well control in the GOM
involving a platform in shallow water. Thankfully, the consequences
were not dire, but that event certainly undermines the claim that such
events are exceedingly rare. Moreover, the National Commission cited
failures not only by BP, but by TransOcean and Haliburton as
contributors to the Deepwater Horizon accident and oil spill, which
supported its view that Deepwater Horizon reflected a systemic issue.
The primary focus of BOEMRE is to make future drilling and
production activities significantly safer than they were before the
Deepwater Horizon event. We are doing so through the issuance of new
prescriptive regulations to bolster safety, and to enhance the
evaluation and mitigation of environmental risks. BOEMRE has raised the
bar for equipment, safety and environmental safeguards in the drilling
and production stages of offshore operations; we will continue to do so
in open and transparent ways in the coming months and years. We have
also introduced performance-based standards similar to those used by
regulators in the North Sea. We have done this through the
implementation of two new rules.
The Drilling Safety Rule is an emergency rule prompted by the
Deepwater Horizon event. It has put in place tough new standards for
well design, casing, cementing and well control equipment, including
blowout preventers. Operators are now required to obtain independent
inspection and certification of each stage of the proposed drilling
process. In addition, blowout preventers must meet new standards for
testing and maintenance and must be capable of severing the drill pipe
under anticipated well pressures.
The second rule is the Workplace Safety Rule, which aims to reduce
the human and organizational errors that lie at the heart of many OCS
incidents. The development of this rule was in process well before the
Deepwater Horizon incident. Operators now are required to develop a
comprehensive Safety and Environmental Management System (SEMS) that
identifies the potential hazards and risk-reduction strategies for all
phases of activity, from well design and construction, to operation and
maintenance. Although many forward-looking companies developed SEMS
systems on a voluntary basis in the past; others had not.
In addition to these important new rules, we have issued Notices to
Lessees (NTLs) that provide additional guidance to operators on
complying with existing regulations.
--In June 2010, we issued NTL-06, which requires that operators' oil
spill response plans include a well-specific blowout and worst-
case discharge scenario--and that operators also provide the
assumptions and calculations behind these scenarios.
--In November 2010, we issued NTL-10 which requires that operators
provide a mandatory corporate statement that they will conduct
the applied-for drilling operation in compliance with all
applicable agency regulations. The NTL also confirms that
BOEMRE will be evaluating whether each operator has submitted
adequate information to demonstrate that it has access to, and
can deploy, subsea containment resources that would be
sufficient to promptly respond to a deepwater blowout or other
loss of well control.
We are working hard to ensure that this important industry
continues to operate successfully. Since February 17, 2011, when the
groups organized by industry established that they had developed a
suite of options capable of dealing with a subsea blowout, we have
approved eight deepwater permits for seven unique wells. More permits
will be approved in the coming weeks and months as operators
demonstrate that they meet our requirements. BOEMRE believes firmly
that developing programs and policies that ensure drilling safety must
be the Bureau's highest priority.
humanities and preservation funding cuts
Question. Secretary Salazar, for the second year in a row, you have
recommended stopping funding for the Save America's Treasures (SAT)
grant program and reducing funding for both the National Endowment for
the Humanities and the Historic Preservation Program.
I have been a supporter of such funding for years, and I believe
that refurbishing historic buildings has a rippling effect of good
throughout a community--from job building to improving blighted
neighborhoods. I understand budget constraints, but I notice that you
have created and seek funding for a new cultural investment program
called America's Great Outdoors.
Question. Can you please explain why you have replaced SAT, an
extremely popular and competitive program, with this new initiative?
Answer. The National Park Service (NPS) administers the Historic
Preservation Fund and within that appropriation, SAT grants. The
National Endowment for the Humanities is part of the National
Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities and is an independent grant-
making agency.
The America's Great Outdoors initiative recognizes that the
protection of the Nation's historic heritage is an objective shared by
all Americans and that lasting conservation solutions should arise from
the American people. The initiative seeks to empower all American
citizens, community groups, and local, State and tribal governments to
share in the leadership responsibility for protecting, improving, and
providing greater access to the Nation's historic heritage.
In a time of difficult budget trade-offs, the America's Great
Outdoors initiative focused the 2012 budget on nationwide historic
preservation goals. The 2012 budget includes a total increase of $6.5
million in the Historic Preservation Fund for grants-in-aid to States,
territories, and tribes to operate and provide grants through State and
Tribal Historic Preservation Offices (THPOs) to carry out Federal
responsibilities under the National Historic Preservation Act. The
budget eliminates funding for SAT grants that are duplicative of grants
available through SHPOs and THPOs and do not necessarily fund
priorities established in statewide comprehensive historic preservation
plans. Further, the Federal Government has no obligation to provide
historic preservation grant funding through this program under the
National Historic Preservation Act. Many high-quality projects have
been awarded through the SAT program, but there is no long term or
systematic strategy in awarding grants and at least half of SAT
projects are annually earmarked by the Congress without using merit-
based criteria.
The 2012 request includes an increase of $3.5 million for a total
of $50 million to fund historic preservation Grants-in-Aid to States
and territories to carry out Federal responsibilities under the
National Historic Preservation Act. Increased funding will facilitate
the ability of State Historic Preservation Offices (SHPOs) to respond
to the steadily increasing number of section 106 compliance reviews on
federally funded infrastructure projects Government-wide. It will also
increase the number of individual National Register of Historic Places
eligibility opinions, as part of compliance reviews, which have
increased by between 5,000 and 10,000 annually; from 73,900 opinions in
fiscal year 2005, to an estimated more than 110,000 determinations
nationwide in fiscal year 2010. In addition, the increased funding will
support additional and larger grants to Certified Local Governments
(CLGs) and more preservation activities at the local level. The number
of CLGs participating in the Federal Historic Preservation Program will
increase to approximately 1,870 in fiscal year 2012, an increase of
16.3 percent from the 1,608 CLGs participating in fiscal year 2007. The
National Historic Preservation Act requires that States pass 10 percent
of their HPF allotment to CLGs.
The 2012 request also includes an increase of $3 million for a
total of $11 million to fund grants-in-aid to tribes. This funding will
enable approved tribes to develop fully effective, ongoing cultural and
historic programs and provide the necessary funding for the steadily
increasing number of Indian tribes that are approved by the NPS to
assume Historic Preservation Officer duties on tribal lands pursuant to
the National Historic Preservation Act. In fiscal year 2010, there were
100 approved THPOs. The number of approved THPOs is expected to grow to
125 in fiscal year 2012.
bureau of indian affairs (bia)
Question. Why does your fiscal year 2012 budget provide for only 65
percent of actual need for education-related tribal support costs,
while it provides approximately 92 percent of actual need for contract
support costs (CSC) for all other tribally run programs?
Answer. The administration has committed to support and advance
tribal self-determination and self-governance for the 565 federally
recognized American Indian tribes. Approximately 63 percent of the
annual BIA appropriation is transferred to Indian tribes or tribal
organizations through Public Law 93-638 contracts and self-governance
compacts. Tribes and tribal organizations utilize the contracted funds
to employ individual Indians as tribal police officers, social workers,
school teachers, foresters, and firefighters. The Congress amended the
act to provide that, under self-determination contracts, tribes would
receive funds for CSCs in addition to the base program amount to manage
their contracts. Contract Support Funds (CSF) are used by tribal
contractors to pay a wide range of administrative and management costs
including, but not limited to, finance, personnel, maintenance,
insurance, utilities, audits, communications, and vehicle costs. The
BIA CSC policy stabilizes funding to each tribe, expedites annual
payments, and prevents the reduction of CSF from one year to the next.
In fiscal year 2012, the President's budget includes a $25.5
million increase in funding for CSC; this is an approximate 15 percent
increase more than the 2010 enacted level. The budget increase provides
almost all of the indirect CSC need and approximately half of the
direct contract support need. Indirect CSCs are incurred for a tribe's
common services, such as financial management and accounting. Direct
CSCs are the costs that tribes incur, but are not provided in program
funding or indirect funding, such as the cost of program-specific
training, and costs related to direct program salaries (i.e.,
unemployment taxes, workers compensation insurance, and retirement
costs).
Tribal Grant Support Costs (TGSC) are provided to schools to cover
administrative expenses and indirect costs incurred in operating
contract and grant schools. All 126 tribally controlled schools and
residential facilities receive TGSCs. During the fiscal year 2012
formulation process, tribal priorities led to the decision to increase
CSC over TGSCs.
Tribal priorities weighed heavily in the formulation of the fiscal
year 2012 budget request, as it includes additional funding to bring
both CSC and TGSC levels closer to full funding. However, given the
fiscal constraints of Federal funding for fiscal year 2012, the urgency
of funding increases was a factor that tribal representatives
considered during consultation. As a result, the budget request
prioritizes a larger funding increase ($25.5 million) for CSC primarily
because it impacts a larger number of tribes on a nationwide basis, as
the vast majority of tribes have at least one self-determination
contract or self-governance compact and are thus eligible to receive
CSC funding. Also included in the balance of tribal priorities in the
fiscal year 2012 budget, is a $3 million increase in TGSC to ensure
that progress continues to be made toward full funding in this critical
area as well.
Question. What is the impact of underfunding education-related
tribal support costs, particularly as it pertains to the self-
determination of tribes in the educational context?
Answer. By not funding TGSC, tribally controlled schools and
residential facilities have to resort to other funding sources to cover
administrative and indirect costs that include finance, procurement,
records management, insurance, and legal services.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Susan Collins
Question. Secretary Salazar, in the summer of 2009, we enjoyed a
wonderful visit to Acadia National Park, a jewel of Maine's coast and
an important economic driver in the region. Thank you for making that
trip, and we look forward to hosting you in Maine again soon.
As you saw during your visit, Acadia is unique among National Parks
in that it still contains many privately owned land parcels within the
Park's official boundaries. With the present uncertainty about the
remainder of fiscal year 2011, I wanted to highlight the $1.7 million
in Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) funding included in the
previous budget request for Acadia to purchase a key 39-acre parcel
near Lower Hadlock Pond, which is appraised at $3 million. Recognizing
that things are still very much in the air with the fiscal year 2011
budget, has the Department of the Interior (DOI) considered how it
might allocate funding within the LWCF if the account is not funded at
President's requests level for fiscal year 2011? How might a reduced
fiscal year 2011 funding level affect the prioritization of funding in
fiscal year 2012?
Answer. The National Park Service (NPS) has a prioritization
process that allows parks, their respective regional offices, and the
national office to calculate a priority for each request, as submitted
on an annual basis. In each of the fiscal years 2011 and 2012, more
than 300 projects were submitted through this process for funding. Once
the NPS has set its priorities, Department-wide criteria were applied
to come up with a final list for each fiscal year.
For the fiscal year 2011 request, the Acadia National Park's
request ranks number 26 of 27 line-item projects requested for funding.
This request of $1.76 million is to acquire approximately 23 acres that
border Round Pond located in a section of Mount Desert Island within
the park boundary. For the 2012 request, the Acadia National Park's
request ranks number 13 of 34 projects requested for funding. The
funding requested, $3 million, would be used to acquire approximately
37 acres located near Lower Hadlock Pond within the park boundary.
If the LWCF account is funded below the President's request level
for fiscal year 2011 projects would be funded by priority. Upon
enactment of the 2011 budget, the NPS and the DOI would have to re-
prioritize the projects requested in 2012 with those not funded in 2011
to ensure that the highest land acquisition priorities are addressed.
The projects requested but not funded in 2011 may or may not be funded
in 2012 under this scenario.
Question. The LWCF accrues $900 million annually, primarily from
offshore oil and gas revenues. These credited monies cannot be spent
unless appropriated by the Congress. From fiscal year 1965 through
fiscal year 2010, about $32.6 billion has been credited to LWCF, but
only about half that amount--$15.5 billion--has been appropriated. What
happens to the unappropriated balance of funds?
Answer. Unappropriated funds remain in the Treasury account. Today
there is approximately $17 billion in unappropriated balances within
the LWCF.
Question. One of the most important Federal programs to assist in
the preservation of recreation and environmental resources is the LWCF.
Secretary Salazar, you have been such a leader in this area, and I was
pleased to be able to work with you to support this important program
during your time in the Senate. In this challenging economy where
budgets are stressed and we are identifying ways to cut spending,
prioritization and partnerships are going to be absolutely essential.
With the recent release of the new America's Great Outdoors report, I
would like to pick up on your mention of landscape conservation
cooperatives.
Maine provides an outstanding example of how important it is to
engage and support the efforts of private landowners to sustain working
farms, ranches, and forests--we have been able to support a robust
forest products industry, protect biodiversity, public access to
recreation and increase opportunities for tourism.
What do you see as the role of private landowners when it comes to
the administration's efforts to focus on large-scale landscape
conservation? Do you see maintaining working lands as compatible with
conservation efforts?
Answer. About two-thirds of the landscape in the contiguous United
States is owned and managed by farmers, ranchers, and forest and other
landowners. A small portion of these private lands are under easement
and other arrangements that ensure that they are protected over the
long term; the majority is in active agriculture and forestry uses.
Even in areas with large Government ownership of land, privately owned
lands often provide important wildlife habitat and migration corridors.
These working lands are an essential piece of vibrant and diverse rural
communities that are part of the fabric of our Nation.
What is increasingly clear is that well-managed private lands also
support healthy ecosystems that provide clean water, wildlife habitat,
recreational opportunities and other environmental services that
benefit all of our communities. One of the goals of the America's Great
Outdoors initiative is to catalyze large-scale land conservation
partnership projects through economic incentives and technical
assistance. To implement this goal, the Federal Government will support
and catalyze landscape-scale efforts for conservation of working lands
by using the LWCF and other existing revenue sources and grant
programs. We will also obtain this goal by improving coordination and
alignment in use of technical and financial resources among Federal,
State, tribal, and local governments and other partners.
The 2012 budget provides some key tools to advance these goals. The
budget requests full funding of the LWCF, including a total of $117
million for a new competitive component of the NPS LWCF Stateside Grant
program. Projects that are consistent with State Comprehensive Outdoor
Recreation Plans and promote large-scale land conservation through the
use of voluntary conservation easements, among other criteria, will be
eligible for these funds.
Additionally, $41.3 million of the Federal land acquisition
component of the LWCF request is for conservation easements.
Conservation easements are a cost-effective tool through which private
landowners and the Federal Government can enter into mutually
beneficial agreements that help keep our working lands--forests, farms,
and ranches--in production, while delivering conservation benefits to
the broader landscape. These voluntary agreements provide an economic
boost for rural landowners who wish to undertake conservation
activities on their own lands, often alongside agricultural operations.
Question. As the ranking member of the Homeland Security and
Government Affairs Committee, I read with interest the recent findings
of the Government Accountability Office (GAO) and the Office of
Inspector General (OIG) with regard to weaknesses in the oversight and
collection and management of royalties. Specifically that the OIG has
listed revenue collections as a top management challenge for more than
10 years, and a finding that the Department's systems are too reliant
on industry-supplied data.
Can you elaborate on how the system is being updated to remedy this
situation to ensure the right revenues are being collected? Do we have
a clear picture at the moment of what is owed and has not been
collected?
Answer. The GAO's high-risk report identified three major
shortcomings in the DOI's revenue collection policies, including
ensuring that:
--the Federal Government receives a fair return on its oil and gas
resources;
--the DOI completes its oil and gas production verification
inspections; and
--Interior's data on production and royalties are consistent and
reliable.
In their related reports, GAO provided estimates of the amount of
revenue that the Department of the Interior did not collect due to
shortcomings with production and royalty data. Specifically, the GAO
``reported that MMS was missing about 5.5 percent of royalty reports
for fiscal years 2006 and 2007 that were due on sales of oil and gas
from leases in the Gulf of Mexico, potentially resulting in $117
million in uncollected royalties''.
The Office of Natural Resources Revenue (ONRR) has a comprehensive
risk-based audit and compliance program to target underpayments and to
ensure that royalties do not go uncollected. On average, over the last
5 years, the DOI's audit and compliance program collected payment of
approximately $110 million a year from companies. These amounts
represents companies' underpayments in their initial voluntary
reporting, which were discovered through on-going compliance
activities.
In 2008, the former Minerals Management Service agreed with GAO,
that detection of missing royalty reports cannot wait until an audit is
performed. Since GAO's 2008 report, ONRR has undergone several reforms
to catch underreporting sooner and ensure that the right revenues are
being collected. Up front system edits now put more emphasis on
industry to report correctly through a series of royalty and production
edits to ensure that data is correct before it arrives at ONRR. Current
technology and system capabilities have opened new avenues for ONRR to
identify and analyze erroneous data on a real-time basis. The ONRR has
initiated a data mining effort to provide earlier detection of missing
or inaccurate royalties. In our fiscal year 2012 budget request, we are
seeking funding of $1.98 million and 12 full-time equivalents to expand
data mining reviews addressing earlier detection of missing or
inaccurate royalties in direct response to GAO's recommendation. The
ONRR is also taking preliminary steps to evaluate alternative methods
of collecting output data.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Lisa Murkowski
energy fee increases
Question. The fiscal year 2012 budget proposes new fees on the oil/
gas industry to pay for both onshore operations administered by the
Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and offshore operations by the Bureau
of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement (BOEMRE). For
onshore operations, the new fees are $38 million and at BOEMRE you
propose to raise fees on offshore operators from $10 million to $65
million.
Can you tell me how you determined the amount of these fees and if
there are any circumstances under which they might be adjusted?
Answer. The proposed $55 million increase in inspection fees
roughly offsets the $56.4 million requested to increase inspection/
monitoring capability. Additional resources are essential to
effectively meeting industry demand for efficient, effective,
transparent, and stable regulatory environment given the increased
review that must occur. The need for additional resources is broadly
recognized and supported by industry, as evidenced by a letter, dated
November 17, 2010, to the House and Senate subcommittees on Interior,
Environment, and Related Agencies signed by the American Petroleum
Institute; American Exploration & Production Council; International
Association of Drilling Contractors; Independent Petroleum Association
of America; National Ocean Industries Association; and US Oil and Gas
Association.
The proposed level of inspection fees provides sufficient funding
in fiscal year 2012 to meet industry and public demands for efficient
and effective regulation of the OCS at no additional cost to the
taxpayer. Fees may be adjusted in the future as required to maintain as
recommended by the Department of the Interior (DOI) Inspector General
``. . . a robust, sufficiently staffed inspection program that
possesses the tools necessary to conduct inspections effectively.''
BLM fees are based on the cost of inspections onshore, and are
designed to recoup the majority of these costs. The fees will be re-
evaluated each year to ensure funding is adequate to fulfill the BLM's
inspection and enforcement responsibilities and to meet the needs of
the program.
Question. No one likes to pay more fees, but I also understand that
the oil/gas industry is always a convenient target. I think what many
companies are troubled by is that they paid for roughly one-half of the
budget of the Minerals Management Service (MMS) through rental payments
on their OCS leases from the Government. Under the fiscal year 2012
budget request they would pay for two-thirds of the BOEMRE budget,
while at the same time they see a confusing maze of new rules and an
organization that is becoming more of an obstacle to developing
projects that cost them billions of dollars. How would you address
these concerns?
Answer. Royalties and user fees are not interchangeable. The
purpose of royalties is to achieve a fair return to the taxpayer for
the use of Federal resources; while the purpose of a user fee is to
recover the costs the Federal Government must pay to regulate an
industry. Because these regulatory activities benefit the oil and gas
industry, it is in the interest of the industry to ensure a more robust
regulatory agency is available that can function efficiently and
timely.
The proposed level of inspection fees, with minor exceptions,
amount to less than 1 percent of gross revenues for companies incurring
those costs. The administration does not believe this to be an
unreasonable or burdensome cost. Findings from the numerous
investigations of the Deepwater Horizon incident highlighted the need
to reform the regulatory oversight of leasing, energy exploration, and
production to assure human safety and environmental protection. This
has resulted in new processes, rules, and regulations that must be
followed by the oil and gas industry.
The National Commission on BP Deepwater Horizon and Offshore
Drilling, after noting current contributions from the oil and gas
industry, stated that:
``The oil and gas industry, however, should do significantly more
and provide the funds necessary for regulation of offshore oil and gas
operations and oil spill preparedness planning. The amount of funding
needs to keep pace as industry moves into ever-more challenging depths
and geologic formations because the related challenges of regulatory
oversight likewise increase . . . No matter the precise mechanism, the
oil and gas industry would be required to pay for its regulators, just
as fees on the telecommunications industry support the Federal
Communications Commission. Regulation of the oil and gas industry would
no longer be funded by taxpayers but instead by the industry that is
being permitted to have access to a publicly-owned resource.''----
National Commission, Final Report p. 290.
Question. If these fees are approved by the subcommittee, can
industry expect more timely processing of permits with the new
personnel that you will hire?
Answer. BOEMRE continues to review and approve applications that
demonstrate the ability to operate safely and contain a subsea blowout
in deepwater. The rate of deepwater permit applications is increasing,
which reflects industry's growing confidence that it understands and
can comply with the applicable requirements, including the containment
requirement. BOEMRE expects additional permit approvals in the near
future. However, the need for additional resources to support this
function is widely recognized and supported by industry. With the
requested additional personnel in the fiscal year 2012 budget, BOEMRE
will ensure a thorough and timely review of permitting requests.
Question. The BLM fees are intended to cover the inspection and/or
processing of permits and will not affect the time necessary to
complete environmental reviews. The fee replaces existing
appropriations in order to shift costs from the taxpayer to the
industry that benefits from these activities; it does not supplement
existing appropriations to hire additional personnel. The BLM has a
good record of clearing pending permits. For example, fiscal year 2010
began with 5,370 pending Application for Permit to Drill (APD) and BLM
received an additional 4,251 new APDs. The BLM processed 5,237 APDs
during the year, reducing the pending APDs by nearly 1,000 to 4,384 at
fiscal year end.
There are still some smaller operators onshore--will there be any
exemptions for certain operators under your fee structure?
Answer. The proposed BLM inspection and enforcement fee is not a
blanket per-well fee, but is tiered in a way so that smaller producers
pay less than larger producers. For example, a producer with one lease
with 5 wells would pay a $1,200 inspection fee, while a producer with
one lease with more than 50 wells would pay $5,700. The following fee
schedule is tied to the number of active and inactive wells for each
lease or agreement:
--$600 for each lease or agreement with no active or inactive wells,
but with surface use, disturbance, or reclamation;
--$1,200 for each lease or agreement with 1 to 10 wells, with any
combination of active or inactive wells;
--$2,900 for each lease or agreement with 11 to 50 wells, with any
combination of active or inactive wells; and
--$5,700 for each lease or agreement with more than 50 wells, with
any combination of active or inactive wells.
blm/environmental protection agency hardrock mining financial
assurances
Question. Mr. Secretary, I sent a letter to both you and Secretary
Vilsack yesterday concerning the EPA's efforts to impose financial
assurance requirements on hardrock mining operations. Since you are
here today, I thought I'd raise the issue with you to get your initial
reaction. The BLM and the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) have required
financial assurances for hardrock mines on Federal lands since 1981 and
1974, respectively.
In light of the statutory authorities and years of experience that
those agencies already hold, do you think adding another layer of
bureaucracy to this process is warranted?
Answer. On February 25, 2009, the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California ordered the EPA to comply with the
requirements set forth under CERCLA Sec. 108(b) by identifying a
priority list of facility classes requiring financial assurance for
potential future cleanup activity (see, Sierra Club, et al., v.
Johnson, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14819). On July 28, 2009, the EPA
identified the hard rock mining industry as a facility class falling
under the financial responsibility requirements under CERCLA
Sec. 108(b) (see, 74 FR 37213-37219). The EPA has been coordinating
with the BLM as it develops the rule for this industry in order to
ensure that both agencies meet their statutory requirements while
demonstrating good government--protecting the public interest in
ensuring that the taxpayers do not bear the cost of addressing past and
future releases of hazardous substances, while ensuring that the
Federal Government provides a streamlined set of requirements for those
developing hardrock mineral resources. We defer further questions on
the timing and content of the rule to the EPA.
alaska conveyance cuts--tribal contracting impacts
Question. I mentioned the severe cut to the Alaska Conveyance
Program in my opening statement and some of the reasons that I find it
unacceptable. But I should also point out that it really is, for lack
of a better phrase, a ``double whammy'' for the Native Alaskan
community. Not only are they not getting the patents for lands that
they are entitled to in a timely manner, but much of the survey work is
in remote locations and is performed through tribal contracting. This
provides job opportunities for Native Alaskans where jobs are hard to
come by. I'm going to work with Chairman Reed and the House and I hope
to get funds restored for the program this year.
This is the second year in a row that the DOI has proposed
substantially reducing the Conveyance program. We've spoken about this
issue many times, is the real problem here, Office of Management and
Budget?
Answer. The budget reflects difficult choices. The administration
proposes to reduce funding for the BLM Alaska Conveyance Program as
part of an effort to re-evaluate and streamline the conveyance process
so that available resources are focused on completing the goal of
transferring title to 150 million acres the agency is required to
convey. The BLM has already issued final or interim conveyance on most
of these acres but now needs a strategy to complete final transfers.
The reduction will mean the BLM will reduce some work performed by
contractors and some by Federal employees, in the least disruptive
fashion possible. The DOI remains committed to working with tribal
governments to ensure the available funding for the land conveyance
program is used in the best manner possible.
izembek wildlife refuge environmental impact statement (eis)
Question. I am very pleased that the Fish and Wildlife Service
(FWS) is moving forward to complete the EIS required before a land
exchange approved in 2009 involving lands in the Izembek National
Wildlife Refuge can go forward. I understand the FWS plans to issue a
draft EIS this spring and a Record of Decision in 2012.
Can you assure me that this timeline will be met? This is critical
for the residents of King Cove, Alaska.
Answer. The FWS is planning to complete the draft EIS this fall and
deliver the final EIS to the Secretary by the early summer of 2012.
bia contract support costs (csc)
Question. Federal law and policy encourages Indian tribes to take
over direct operations of many Federal trust programs for the benefit
of tribal members. Tribes and tribal organizations that exercise these
responsibilities are entitled by law to receive Tribal Grant Support
Costs (TGSC) to cover the administrative or indirect costs incurred.
I am pleased that your budget increases both budget line items
which pay these CSCs, one for education-related costs and one for all
other tribally run programs. The budget line which pays for education-
related CSCs is funded at 65 percent of actual need. And the budget
line for all other tribally run programs is funded at 92 percent of
actual need.
When we don't fully fund the CSCs, the tribes are reducing teachers
and other personnel and diverting funds from the programs they are
administering to meet their statutorily mandated administrative
requirements. Do you have any thoughts on how we can improve the budget
for these costs?
Answer. During formulation of the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA)
budget, tribal consultation is engaged by the Assistant Secretary to
ensure that tribal priorities are reflected in the request each year.
This occurs formally through quarterly meetings of the Tribal/Interior
Budget Council, which is comprised of BIA senior leadership, two tribal
representatives from each of the 12 BIA regions, and two tribal co-
chairs. The tribal members are designated representatives of all tribes
in their respective regions to ensure that the priorities of tribes on
a nationwide basis are represented to the greatest extent possible
during budget consultation.
Tribal priorities weigh heavily in the fiscal year 2012 budget
request, as it includes additional funding to bring both CSC and TGSC
levels closer to full funding. However, given the fiscal constraints of
Federal funding for fiscal year 2012, the urgency of funding increases
was a factor that tribal representatives considered during
consultation. As a result, the budget request prioritizes a larger
funding increase ($25.5 million) for CSC primarily because it impacts a
larger number of tribes on a nationwide basis, as the vast majority of
tribes have at least one self-determination contract or self-governance
compact and are thus eligible to receive CSC funding. The budget
increase provides almost all of the indirect CSC need and approximately
one-half of the direct CSC need.
Also included in the balance of tribal priorities in the fiscal
year 2012 budget, is a $3 million increase in TGSC to ensure that
progress continues to be made toward full funding in this critical area
as well.
united states geological survey (usgs): national land imaging (landsat)
Question. The budget includes $100 million for the Landsat program
within the USGS, a $60 million increase. I understand almost $50
million, or half of Landsat's budget, is the amount that NASA
historically would cover and you are proposing that the USGS begin
paying for and managing the entire program. What is extremely troubling
is that your budget projects that this funding will triple to $159
million in fiscal year 2013 and balloon to $410 million in fiscal year
2014. The entire USGS budget is only $1.1 billion, so it's realistic
that the Landsat program could be 42 percent of the USGS's budget in
the near future.
At a time when budgets are staying flat and everyone is tightening
their belts, why would the USGS decide to take on this enormous
undertaking? It's obvious that this funding will come at the expense of
other programs within the USGS, many of which are core functions that
provide critical scientific information to Federal agencies including
State and local governments. One that is critical to us in Alaska is
the Alaska Volcano Observatory that ensures air traffic safety when
volcanoes erupt, which not uncommon.
Answer. The Landsat series of satellites has been an important
element of America's extensive suite of Earth observation capabilities.
With almost 40 years of recording both natural and human-induced
changes on the global landscape, Landsat is the world's gold standard
for Earth observation. Consecutive administrations have concluded that
Landsat is a vital national asset, and its importance to a broad array
of users across the country justifies its move from the realm of NASA
research missions to a sustained operational program within the USGS.
Landsat furthers the DOI's important role in land remote sensing under
the President's national space policy and provides invaluable data for
land change analysis, agriculture, forestry, water management, natural
resource management, geology, emergency response, wildfire mitigation,
and energy. The USGS has been involved with Landsat since its inception
and currently operates two Landsat satellites, is developing a new
ground system for the next Landsat mission, manages the Nation's
Landsat data archive, and distributes the data to users throughout the
United States and around the world. As the primary operational agency
responsible for Landsat, it's a logical step for the USGS to take
overall leadership of the program to ensure the next mission continues
to meet user requirements for highly calibrated land imaging data far
into the future.
The USGS recognizes the magnitude of this project relative to its
existing portfolio. For that reason, it has moved to establish a
separate Treasury account for Landsat, to responsibly fund an
operational Landsat program while ensuring the Bureau continues to
sustain its vital core functions, like the Alaska Volcano Observatory.
The new account will include funding for current satellites (Landsats 5
and 7), the Landsat Data Continuity Mission (Landsat 8), which is
scheduled to launch in December 2012, and the development of Landsats 9
and 10. Establishment of this account and the increase in funding will
provide the stable budgetary foundation needed for a continuous land
imaging capability. A permanent budgetary and managerial structure will
ensure the continued collection and maintenance of the important data
the Landsat satellite series provides.
coastal impact assistance program (ciap)
Question. The CIAP was created by the Energy Policy Act of 2005 and
provides funding to six Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) oil and gas-
producing States, including Alaska, to conserve and protect the coastal
environment. The fiscal year 2012 budget proposes to transfer the
management of this program from the BOEMRE to the FWS to allow the
BOEMRE to focus on its regulatory and enforcement mission. It's my
understanding that in the beginning the MMS and the BOEMRE had
regulations that were very confusing for the States to follow. I
believe that things have improved, but my staff tells me the DOI still
has approximately $700 million in unspent funds for the program.
I'm concerned that just as things appear to be improving with this
program now it's being moved to another agency and we may have a new
system that the States will have to comply with. Can the States be
assured that they won't have a new layer of ``redtape'' to deal with
when the program is moved to the FWS?
Answer. The purpose of moving administration of CIAP from BOEMRE to
the FWS is two-fold:
--to focus the role of BOEMRE on its regulatory and enforcement
mission; and
--to capitalize on the achievement record of the FWS to work
productively with States and other grantees to effectively and
efficiently implement grant programs while maintaining
accountability and public transparency. The FWS' Wildlife and
Sport Fish Restoration Program has been the FWS model to
implement conservation grant programs with State partners for
more than 50 years. The expectation is that efficiencies will
be gained by centralizing administration within an experienced
the FWS grant function to reduce delays in the internal review
and award processing. Every effort is being made to minimize
impacts to recipients during this transfer of CIAP
responsibilities within the DOI.
Question. Everyone knows that the budget is tight and it doesn't
look very good to have a program with such high unobligated balances.
Plenty of folks up here are looking to rescind money. When do you see
getting this money out to the States for the purposes intended by the
Energy Policy Act?
Answer. Currently, the BOEMRE has stated that all grant
applications are due from eligible CIAP applicants by December 31, 2013
and all CIAP projects are to be completed by December 31, 2016. These
milestones are not expected to change when the FWS takes on CIAP
administration duties. However, increased the FWS efficiencies in
administering the program are expected to decrease delays in awards and
more quickly address any backlog in application processing.
usgs--data preservation program
Question. I note the USGS budget proposal eliminates funding for
the Data Preservation Program claiming that this program is ``largely
duplicative of other Federal and private programs.''
Each year I am visited by the State geologists and each year they
remind me how very important this program is to their efforts dealing
with traditional and renewable energy programs. I worry that by
eliminating this program, we will lose the core samples and data
already collected and we will certainly not be adding new information
to the collection.
Can you tell me exactly what other Federal agencies are collecting
and maintaining these drill logs and whether those agencies are more
committed than the USGS at maintaining this information?
Answer. This program is not duplicative: it is the only Federal
program dedicated to preserving physical and analog geoscience data,
including rock and ice core samples, fossil and fluid samples, and
derived and indirect data, such as geochemical and geophysical data,
maps, and field notebooks. The Program cooperates with and grants money
to State geological surveys to facilitate these preservation efforts.
However, this program is a lower Federal priority than other USGS
programs, and therefore proposed for elimination.
Question. Your document also suggested that there are private
programs that are collecting and maintain similar information. Can you
assure me that those private programs will allow other potential users
of that data free and unfettered access to the information?
Answer. While private industry collects and maintains rock and ice
cores, fossils, and fluid samples, the data and information are
proprietary and generally not available for others to use. Some
commercial vendors supply similar data, but only at a significant cost
to the user.
land and water conservation fund (lwcf)
Question. The LWCF budget request provides a 100 percent increase
to $900 million. Of this request, $465 million is included for the
Federal Government to buy more land.
Can you address why, with such an enormous maintenance backlog
totaling billions of dollars, the DOI is focusing such a large amount
of money on acquiring more Federal lands?
Answer. Through the America's Great Outdoors (AGO) listening
sessions and public input process, the DOI learned there is a powerful
consensus across America that outdoor spaces--public and private, large
and small, urban and rural--remain essential to our quality of life,
our economy, and our national identity. Americans communicated clearly
that they care deeply about our outdoor heritage, want to enjoy and
protect it, and are willing to take collective responsibility to
protect it for their children and grandchildren.
Americans support concrete investments in conservation. Last
November, voters across the country overwhelmingly approved a variety
of measures for land conservation, generating a total of $2 billion in
new land protection funds. Of 36 proposals on State and local ballots
for conservation funding, 30 passed--an approval rate of 83 percent.
This is the highest rate during the past decade and the third highest
since 1988.
Consistent with these results at the State and local levels, the
feedback received during the AGO listening sessions indicated that full
funding of the LWCF program is a high priority for the American people.
Respondents also suggested that LWCF funding could be more effectively
used if it was strategically focused on specific project types and/or
locations.
The DOI's 2012 request, together with USFS' request, fully funds
the LWCF at $900 million. Activities funded under LWCF ensure public
access to the outdoors for hunting, fishing, and recreation; preserve
watersheds, viewsheds, natural resources, and landscapes; and protect
irreplaceable cultural and historic sites. LWCF funds are also used to
protect historical uses of working lands, such as grazing and farming.
According to a return-on-investment (ROI) analysis by the Trust for
Public Lands, for every $1 invested in Federal land acquisition through
LWCF, there is a return of $4--a ROI of 4 to 1. The ROI can be even
higher when future returns beyond 10 years are added to the equation.
The $675 million DOI LWCF request will contribute an estimated $1
billion in economic output and support about 7,600 jobs. Along with
this significant economic impact, full funding in 2012 will increase
the Federal Government's ability to engage in strategic conservation
that yields community benefits and measurable ecological outcomes.
The DOI's acquisition programs work in cooperation with local
communities, rely on willing sellers, and maximize opportunities for
easement acquisitions. Proposed acquisition projects are developed with
the support of local landowners, elected officials, and community
groups. This year, the Departments of the Interior and Agriculture took
a highly strategic approach to using LWCF land acquisition funds: The
Departments collaboratively identified opportunities throughout the
country where the LWCF could be used to leverage other Federal
resources, along with those of non-Federal partners, to achieve the
most important shared conservation outcome goals in the highest
priority landscapes.
More than 97 percent of the DOI's acquisition request will be used
for inholdings--isolated parcels of non-Federal land that lie within
the boundaries of parks, refuges, or other Federal units. Acquisition
of inholdings does not generally require any significant additional
operating costs as no new staff or equipment are required to manage new
lands within existing boundaries. In addition, these acquisitions
greatly simplify land management for Federal managers and neighboring
landowners. For instance, the National Park Service request for $2.5
million at Katmai National Park and Preserve would acquire an easement
interest in two tracts containing a total of 6,932 acres at the park.
The Igiugig Native Corporation owns the surface estate, and the Bristol
Bay Native Corporation owns the subsurface estate of these lands. The
Igiugig Corporation is in need of revenue and is considering offers
from developers. Increasing numbers of park visitors start float trips
on the Alagnak Wild River in this currently undeveloped area.
Acquisition of these easements would mitigate the threat of residential
or recreational development that would plague the NPS's ability to
protect the natural resources of this Alaskan park. The corporations
are interested in selling a conservation easement to the NPS that would
prohibit any large-scale development. Within the Togiak National
Wildlife Refuge, a request for $1.2 million would acquire 720 acres in
six riparian parcels within the Western Alaska Landscape Conservation
Cooperative. All six parcels provide vital habitat for moose, bears,
wolves, wolverines, and caribou and are currently owned by Native
Alaskans who wish to sell for financial reasons, but prefer the lands
remain undeveloped and available for subsistence uses. This acquisition
would also protect world-class salmon and trout fisheries, threatened
eiders, and to promote landscape-level conservation.
The LWCF funds for Federal acquisition will: support simpler, more
efficient land management; create access for hunters and anglers;
create long-term cost savings; address urgent threats to some of
America's most special places; and support conservation priorities that
are set at the State and local level.
Question. Can the DOI use land exchanges to acquire the in holdings
of sensitive lands rather than paying to acquire new property?
Answer. Land exchanges are used to acquire inholdings when the
opportunity is available. Land exchanges are one of the tools that can
be used to acquire land or access to the land along with fee title,
conservation easements and donations. However, the seller of the
property has to be willing to accept a land exchange, which is also
dependent on the sellers' interest in the land that the government has
available for exchange. There are also expenses involved with land
exchanges that include appraisal fees, surveys, permits, closing costs,
and relocation costs.
SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS
Senator Reed. Thank you, Mr. Secretary, Deputy Secretary
Hayes, and Ms. Haze. I assume there will be written questions
we will submit. I would ask my colleagues to submit the
questions to the respective clerks so we can get them to you
and would ask for your speediest response so we can complete
the record.
Again, thank you, Mr. Secretary, and the hearing is
adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 5:15 p.m., Wednesday, March 9, the hearing
was concluded, and the subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene
subject to the call of the Chair.]
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, ENVIRONMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES
APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2012
----------
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 16, 2011
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 2:02 p.m., in room SD-124, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. Jack Reed (chairman) presiding.
Present: Senators Reed, Nelson, Murkowski, Cochran,
Collins, and Blunt.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
STATEMENT OF HON. LISA P. JACKSON, ADMINISTRATOR
ACCOMPANIED BY BARBARA J. BENNETT, CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR JACK REED
Senator Reed. Let me call the hearing to order and welcome
the Administrator.
And, on behalf of my colleagues, I would like to welcome
you to the hearing on this year's 2012 budget request for the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
I am very pleased to welcome Administrator Lisa P. Jackson
to testify before the subcommittee. Administrator Jackson, it's
my understanding that this hearing will be your seventh
appearance before a congressional committee during this
Congress. I know all of your colleagues in the Cabinet are
jealous, but tell them to try to contain themselves. We are
extremely glad that you and Chief Financial Officer Barbara
Bennett are here this afternoon to discuss these very important
issues.
Like many in the room, I'm old enough to remember, in 1969,
before President Nixon led the enactment of the EPA, when the
Cuyahoga River, in Ohio, was on fire. Sometimes we forget the
progress that we've made, and it's a result of legislation that
has traditionally been supported on a bipartisan basis. And
that's helped us improve the environment, which improves the
health and, I think, also the productivity of the United
States.
We do face significant challenges to continue to improve
air and water quality. And they're particularly difficult at a
time when our economy is under huge pressure and it is
struggling, and we recognize that. We are under budget
constraints. We also realize that we have to balance all of
these factors: the need for environmental protection, to
protect public health, and the need to wisely use public
resources.
I want to make sure that the progress that we've made in
the last several years--indeed, several decades--is not lost,
and do so in a way that is wise and prudent for Americans, and
particularly in their capacity as taxpayers.
If you turn to the budget, the administration has requested
a total of $8.973 billion for the EPA this fiscal year 2012.
That's a decrease of $1.318 billion below fiscal year 2010
enacted level, or a 13 percent cut. We all recognize that 2010
represented a significant increase in funding. But, I think,
looking between the lines, a great deal of that funding went to
sewer and drinking water infrastructure and clean-up
operations, which had directly contributed to jobs and to
stimulus, you know, around the country, at a time we needed it.
With the amount that has been requested, the budget
proposes targeted investment to increase State air and water
pollution control grants, and increased funding to climate
change and chemical safety programs.
And I'm particularly pleased to see the request includes $5
million for work on new fuel-efficiency standards for passenger
cars that will save consumers money at the pump and further
reduce carbon pollution. At a time when we see gas prices, not
inching up, but galloping up, the long-term need to increase
the efficiency of our fleets should be obvious.
But, I'm somewhat disappointed that there's a cut of about
$1.1 billion from water infrastructure programs. These are the
very programs that were funded so robustly in 2010, and
represented, for communities, not only a chance to improve the
quality of life, but also to put people to work. For example,
the there's a $550 million cut for the Clean Water State
Revolving Fund (CWSRF), a $397 million cut of the Drinking
Water State Revolving Fund (DWSRF); there is a 26 percent cut
for sewer projects and a 29 percent cut for DWSRF projects. And
these may seem somewhat mundane, but literally it's the
plumbing of our national economy and it's the way to keep
people working and keep improving the quality of the
environment.
It's been estimated that we'll lose about 300 fewer
infrastructure projects because of the funding requests. And it
will reduce jobs in the construction industry, which is already
reeling from a 22 percent unemployment rate; these are the
tradesmen and women who really need to get off the bench and
get back to work.
In my home State of Rhode Island, we've lost 6,000
construction jobs since 2008. And, at the same time, we have
more than $1.2 billion of CWSRF projects that have been
identified. So, we are far from, sort of, responding to the
identified needs, in terms of sewage and water projects
throughout the State. The magnitude of cuts is even greater
over time, because many such States stretch their CWSRF and
DWSRF programs by leveraging through their own resource and
other resources. So, this also has a multiplier effect.
I also note that the National Estuary Program has been cut
by about 17 percent, for a total of a cut, about $27 million.
And there has been a complete elimination of Diesel Emissions
Reduction Act program. These have, again, particular concerns
to my home State. We, in Rhode Island, are participating in the
Estuary Program, through our Narragansett Bay.
I know we are going to have a very good discussion today. I
know the issues here are very difficult conceptually and they
have consequences, both in terms of environmental quality, but
also in terms of the overall economy. We do have to provide
balance. And I hope, at the result of our discussions and
deliberations, we will be able to provide you with the
resources necessary to keep your mandate to protect the
environment and also to help stimulate our economy.
With that, I'd like to recognize the ranking member,
Senator Murkowski.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR LISA MURKOWSKI
Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Welcome, Administrator Jackson. Appreciate you being here
today, and I note the Chairman's comments about your many
appearances before subcommittees already yet this year. But,
good to have you here today.
I recognize that today's hearing is about our fiscal year
2012 budget request, but most of the questions that I will
direct to you this afternoon involve policy. I think you
recognize that many of the agencies that the EPA has taken have
immediate consequences to the State of Alaska.
When I travel around the State--and I do, a lot--I think,
in this past year, I have just been about everywhere and one
agency that gets more public scorn than any out there is that
of the EPA. And I can tell you that the EPA is in a league of
its own. We've got all of the other Federal agencies involved
in all aspects of our life, but it really is the EPA that takes
the brunt. And it is because people literally feel concerned
that their economic livelihoods are being put at risk. I've had
so many people approach me and say, ``Lisa, you've got to reign
in,'' Lisa, this Lisa ``you've got to rein in the EPA. They're
out of control. They're going to put me out of business.''
And it's somewhat amazing to me that the EPA has decided to
make Alaska, of all places, its problem child. And I hate to
put it in those terms, but I want you to understand what it is
that I hear from the people in my State. We've got cleaner air
and cleaner water than just about anywhere else in the world.
We've been mining, drilling oil--for oil and gas for decades.
And yet, we have, seemingly, been so singled out by the EPA.
As I look at the fiscal year 2011 CR that we voted on the
H.R. 1 that we voted on last week, it's clear to me that
Alaskans are not alone in their view about the EPA. Of the 21
amendments that were related to energy and the environment that
were voted on by the House, 9 of them placed funding
limitations on various EPA policies. I know that you had a
chance to look at those.
One of those amendments that was passed was offered by my
colleague from Alaska, and it concerned the air permits that
Shell Oil has applied for in the Beaufort. Shell has spent 5
years and $50 million in pursuing these air permits from the
EPA for no more than two drill ships to operate in the Arctic
Outer Continental Shelf (OCS). Just last month, the EPA's
Environmental Appeals Board rejected those permits, remanded
them back to the EPA's Region 10 for more analysis. Shell has
now dropped its plans to drill in the Beaufort this summer. It
costs the company even more money, certainly more jobs and
economic opportunity within the region. And the delay truly
is--it's 100 percent attributable to the EPA.
I cannot understand I just cannot understand how it can
take so long for an agency to approve an air permit for a
drilling rig that will operate 25 to 75 miles offshore less
than one quarter of the year. The kinds of permits that are
routinely issued in the Gulf of Mexico take 6 weeks to issue.
And these are in air sheds where there are many more drilling
rigs operating year round, you've got more communities in close
proximity.
In Shell's case, there was supposed to be one drill ship,
and the nearest area that would possibly face any impacts on
air quality is the North Slope Borough. The borough is 88,000
square miles. It's bigger than 39 States, has roughly 7,000
people spread out across this area. The activities, right in
their backyard, over in Prudhoe Bay and other fields, haven't
had to go through this level of delay.
So, again, we're trying to understand. You're issuing an
air-quality permit, it takes 6 weeks in one region of the
country, and after 5 years we are still waiting.
Another issue that I'll have an opportunity to ask you, in
questioning, that is equally frustrating, and this relates to a
permit that we're trying to get in the National Petroleum
Reserve (NPR-A). ConocoPhillips has submitted an application to
the Corps of Engineers (COE) for a project known as CD-5 that
would bring the first oil to market from the NPR-A. But, in
order to do this, they've got to get a bridge over the Colville
River. Contrary to the statutes passed by the Congress,
establishing the reserve for the expeditious exploration and
development of oil and gas resources, the EPA used an arbitrary
designation that is neither in statute nor in regulation this
is the Aquatic Resource of National Interest (ARNI) to threaten
or override the COE decision and prohibit construction of the
bridge.
Now, I sent you a letter about the designation of the ARNI,
what standards are used in applying them. I just did receive a
response. And, while I thank you for the response, it does not
alleviate the concerns that I have. I'm very concerned that, by
using this designation, the EPA has, essentially, the ability
to pre-emptively signal a veto for projects under section
404(c) of the Clean Water Act (CWA). And what's troubling to
many in Alaska is that this designation appears to have been
used only 16 times in an 18 year period, up until last year,
but was then used twice in Alaska in 16 months. So, people are
coming to me saying, ``What's going on? What is happening
within the agency? And is this something that we should be
concerned about?'' And I think the answer to that is yes.
One of the other issues that I'd like to raise is the
process that the EPA is using to conduct the watershed
assessment there in Bristol Bay.
I have to admit, Administrator, you probably have one of
the tougher jobs in this town right now. I think your agency
has become a lightning rod. Many people would like to see it
abolished, or your budget completely eliminated. And I want you
to know, ahead of the questions here, I do not believe that
that is the solution that many of us have with the issues in
the EPA. I do not want to abolish the EPA. I simply want the
EPA to do its job.
And implicit in the EPA doing its job is fair treatment to
those that you regulate. It should not take 6 years and $50
million to approve air permits for leases that companies have
paid billions of dollars for, at the invitation of the Federal
Government. The EPA shouldn't be using arbitrary designations,
like ARNIs, to override statutes that are passed by the
Congress, in order to block critical projects that support our
Nation's energy security. And the EPA shouldn't be using
processes that can effectively pre-empt projects before
applications have even been submitted.
Again, I appreciate that you have a very difficult job and
the balancing act is tough. Part of our job, here on the
subcommittee, is to ensure that you have the resources
necessary to do just that. And again, we want to work with you
to make sure that you have that, but, again, the expectation is
that you work to do that job.
Senator Murkowski. I thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Reed. Thank you, Senator Murkowski.
Before I recognize the director, first, all statements will
be made part of the record, but if any of my colleagues want to
make brief opening remarks, I'd definitely entertain such
remarks.
Senator Cochran. Mr. Chairman.
Senator Reed. I'll----
Senator Cochran. Oh. Go ahead.
Senator Reed. Let me just go, Senator Leahy, then Senator
Cochran.
Senator Leahy.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR PATRICK J. LEAHY
Senator Leahy. Mr. Chairman, I'll be brief. Unfortunately,
like everybody else, I've got another issue to attend to.
I do welcome the Administrator here. I do agree that it's
one of the most difficult jobs. I once said that I didn't know
whether to offer her a congratulations or condolences on the
job.
But, I'm delighted you're there. You've worked a lot with
us in Vermont. You've--and, since the Lake Champlain
Designation Act, 20 years ago--the EPA's been a strong partner
in the cleanup of Lake Champlain. I think both Vermont and New
York have valued that. We've worked with Republican and
Democratic administrations, Republican and Democratic
Governors, alike, to identify and test the quality of Lake
Champlain. We want to preserve it; we think it's a natural
wonder, but it's also an integral part of our economy. So, I
thank you for your help in facilitating the movement on the
ECHO grant in Vermont. I understand this. These funds may be
available the first part of April, which will be very helpful
in that program.
The EPA's interest in Lake Champlain is stronger than ever,
especially with your move, earlier this year, to require that a
new Phosphorous Total Maximum Daily Load Plan be written by the
EPA. And I know that in Vermont the Governor's office will be
working closely with you on that.
But, we welcome the EPA's participation, but we also want
to see a commitment. While the EPA budget for other watersheds
has grown significantly over the past few years, the budget
request for Lake Champlain remains relatively flat. In fact,
the fiscal year 2012 budget request recommends a reduction from
the level in fiscal year 2010.
So, I hope that Vermont and New York can work together on
that. I know you were disappointed when the gulf oil spill
required you to postpone a planned visit to Vermont, but I want
you to know we'll all be welcoming you when you get there.
And so, that's my whole statement, which may have actually
sounded somewhat parochial, Mr. Chairman, but it is an area of
some concern. I have talked with Ms. Jackson before about these
subjects.
Senator Reed. Thanks.
Senator Cochran.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR THAD COCHRAN
Senator Cochran. Mr. Chairman, I'm pleased to join you in
welcoming the administrator of the EPA to the subcommittee to
review the EPA's budget request for fiscal year 2012.
The mission of the EPA is to protect human health and
preserve the environment, which is vital to the sustainability
and quality of life. Our subcommittee recommends the levels of
funding for all Government agencies to fulfill their missions,
as authorized by law.
PREPARED STATEMENT
We appreciate your cooperation with our subcommittee, and
we look forward to hearing your testimony.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Senator Thad Cochran
Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to join you in welcoming the
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), to the
subcommittee to review the EPA's budget request for fiscal year 2012.
The mission of the EPA is to protect human health and preserve the
environment is vital to the sustainability and quality of life. Our
committee recommends the levels of funding for all Government agencies
to fulfill their missions as authorized by law. We appreciate your
cooperation with our subcommittee, and I look forward to hearing your
testimony.
Senator Reed. Thank you.
Senator Blunt.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR ROY BLUNT
Senator Blunt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm going to have
to leave in a minute, and I hope to get back for some of the
questions; but, just in case I don't, I wanted to say a couple
of things, and end with a story that I heard last year on the
impact of energy prices.
I am concerned, as the discussion on the Senate floor has
indicated this week that many are, that the EPA not use its
regulating authority to do what I believe legislatively would
never happen now with cap and trade. New Source Review would be
one of those authorities.
In our State, the Ameren Corporation upgraded a plant
almost a decade ago so it could burn some low-sulfur coal. And
now the EPA's there, attempting to achieve, in my view, what
the administration couldn't achieve legislatively. And that's a
real problem. Our State's a State where, I think, 82 percent of
the electricity comes from coal. All the utility providers went
together, after the House passed bill last year, and paid for a
study, that no one has found fault with, of the impact of that
bill in our State. And it was that the utility bill would
almost double in the first decade.
And as I was talking to people all over Missouri last
year--I think it was sometime in September--a guy walked up to
me, who was an hourly employee somewhere he didn't I know he
didn't have a Ph.D. in economics and here's what he said. He
said, ``If my utility bill doubles, that's a bad thing. If my
retired mother's utility bill doubles, that's a worse thing.
But, if the utility bill at work doubles and my job goes away,
the other two bills don't matter much anyway, because I can't
pay mine and I can't help my mother pay hers.'' And I do think
that's the impact of policies that go too far too quickly.
I think the country has reached a conclusion on this, and I
hope the administration and the EPA follow along with that. You
know, my mom and dad were dairy farmers. The whole discussion
of spilt milk is incredible to me, as is the discussion of
farming without dust, or fugitive dust. You know, when I go
later to talk to the Missouri Farm Bureau today, the concept
that you have to control where the dust goes when you're
harvesting or getting a field ready to plant is astounding to
them, and it is to me.
And I have a statement for the record, Mr. Chairman. Thank
you for letting me make those remarks.
Senator Reed. Thank you very much, Senator Blunt.
Senator Nelson, do you have a--comments? Or----
Senator Nelson. No, Mr. Chairman. We'll wait for the
questions. Thank you.
Senator Reed. Thank you. Senator Collins.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR SUSAN COLLINS
Senator Collins. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'll put my full
statement in the record and just make a couple of brief
comments.
The EPA performs absolutely vital functions in helping to
protect the public health by ensuring that the air we breathe
is clean and the water we drink is safe. We need, however, to
make sure that, as the EPA issues new regulations, that it does
not create so many roadblocks to economic growth that it blocks
out private investment, which is the key to a prosperous
future.
According to the White House's own assessment, as posted on
its online ``Dashboard'', the EPA is responsible for roughly 1
out of every 5 pending regulatory actions currently under
review. That is an astonishing number of rules that are under
consideration by any one agency, especially at a time when the
President has said that he wants to pull back unnecessary,
inefficient, or outmoded regulations that make our economy less
competitive.
Speaking of new regulations, in my questions today I am
going to talk about the very negative potential impact of the
EPA's new Boiler MACT rules on the forest products industry in
my State and throughout the Nation. I know that Maine's forest
product businesses and its employees are extremely worried
about the effects of this onerous regulation. I do recognize,
in response to a letter that I spearheaded, that 40 Senators
signed, the EPA's taking another look at those regulations. And
I do look forward to discussing that issue.
But, I would just note to my colleagues that we saw a great
lack of flexibility within the EPA on display last spring, when
the EPA did not provide enough time nor enough training
opportunities to allow small businesses to comply with lead
paint abatement rules. If I had not been successful in my
efforts to require the EPA to provide more time for compliance,
small contractors would have faced steep fines, up to $37,500
per violation, per day, that could have forced many of them out
of business, through no fault of their own, since there simply
were not enough the EPA trainers to ensure compliance.
So, those are some of the issues that concern me, Mr.
Chairman. I also associate myself with your remarks on the
State Revolving Fund budget cuts. Those programs have worked
extremely well in my State.
Thank you.
Senator Reed. Thank you very much, Senator Collins.
Madam Administrator, your statement will be made part of
the record. And any comments you'd like to make now, please go
ahead.
SUMMARY STATEMENT OF LISA P. JACKSON
Ms. Jackson. Thank you so much, Chairman Reed. Thank you,
Ranking Member Murkowski and members of the subcommittee.
Thanks for inviting me to testify about President Obama's
budget request for the EPA.
The Congress enacted laws, such as the Clean Air Act (CAA)
and the CWA, on a broadly bipartisan basis. It did so to
protect Americans from pollution that otherwise would make
their lives shorter, less healthy, and less prosperous. It did
so to make the air and drinking water in America's communities
clean enough to attract new employers. It did so to enable
America's local governments to revitalize abandoned and
polluted industrial sites. It did so to safeguard the pastime
of America's 40 million anglers. It did so to protect the
farms, whose irrigation makes up a one-third of America's
surface freshwater withdrawals. And it did so to preserve the
livelihoods of fishermen in America's great waters. The
Congress directed the EPA to implement and enforce those laws.
And each year, the Congress appropriates the money that makes
the EPA's work possible.
As the Administrator of the EPA, I am accountable for
squeezing every last drop of public health protection out of
every dollar we're given. So, I support the tough cuts in the
President's proposed budget. But I am equally accountable for
pointing out when cuts become detrimental to public health.
Without adequate funding, the EPA would be unable to implement
or enforce the laws that protect Americans' health,
livelihoods, and pastimes. Big polluters would flout the laws
against dumping contaminants into the air, into rivers, and
onto the ground. Toxic plumes, already underground, would reach
drinking water supplies, because ongoing work to contain them
would stop. There would be no EPA grant money to fix or replace
broken water treatment systems. And the standards the EPA has
set to establish for harmful air pollution--I will mention one
of those in just a minute--would remain missing from a
population of sources that is not static, but growing.
So, if the Congress slashes the EPA's funding,
concentrations of harmful pollution would increase from current
levels in the places Americans live, work, go to school, fish,
hike, and hunt. The result would be more asthma attacks, more
missed school and work days, more heart attacks, more cancer
cases, more premature deaths, and more polluted waters.
Needless to say, then, I fervently request and deeply
appreciate bipartisan support for funding the essential work
that keeps Americans, children, and adults safe from
uncontrolled amounts of harmful pollution being dumped into the
water they drink and the air they breathe.
Decreasing Federal spending is no longer just a prudent
choice, it is now an unavoidable necessity. Accordingly,
President Obama has proposed to cut the EPA's annual budget
nearly 13 percent. That cut goes beyond eliminating
redundancies. We have made difficult, even painful, choices. We
have done so, however, in a careful way that preserves the
EPA's ability to carry out its core responsibilities to protect
the health and well being of America's children, adults, and
communities.
You've been reviewing the budget request for a month now,
so I will save the details for the question period. Before
turning to your questions, I will describe an action the EPA
took earlier today to reduce toxic air pollution that poisons
children's brains and causes cancer.
In the 1990 amendments to the CAA, the Congress directed
the EPA to establish standards for limiting toxic air pollution
from coal- and oil-fired powerplants. More than 20 years later,
the EPA had still had not established those basic safeguards,
even though coal-fired powerplants are responsible for 99
percent of the toxic mercury dumped into America's air every
year. Mercury is a neurotoxin, a brain poison. It harms the
brain and the developing brains of children, leaving them with
learning disabilities.
Earlier today, I signed long-overdue proposed standards to
require coal- and oil-fueled powerplants to spend the next
several years installing the technologies that are already
widely available for sharply reducing the amounts mercury,
arsenic, chromium, and other toxic pollutants that they dump
into the air. Many of America's powerplants already control
toxic air pollution, despite the lack of Federal standards.
But, nearly one-half of the country's coal-fired plants
continue to do nothing to limit the amounts of these poisons
that they spew into the air.
PREPARED STATEMENT
The EPA's new action will ensure that companies all across
the country follow the same rules. The equipment for capturing
neurotoxic mercury and cancer causing arsenic and acid gases
also traps fine-grain soot, which kills people by lodging deep
in their lungs. So, these new standards will, each year,
prevent up to 17,000 premature deaths in America, not to
mention 120,000 cases of aggravated asthma. The health benefits
will swamp the compliance costs by a factor of about 10 to 1.
Thank you, Chairman Reed. I look forward to yours and the
panel's questions.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Lisa P. Jackson
Chairman Reed, Ranking Member Murkowski, and members of the
subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you to
discuss the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) proposed budget. In
the State of the Union Address--as President Obama laid out a plan to
win the future--he made clear that we ``will not hesitate to create or
enforce common-sense safeguards to protect the American people,'' and
explained that these safeguards are ``why our food is safe to eat, our
water is safe to drink, and our air is safe to breathe.''
These are the services the EPA provides. The EPA's activities
prevent thousands of illnesses such as asthma, cancer, and other
diseases. They help keep students and workers healthy so they can be
more productive. And, they save lives. Preliminary estimates show that
last year, the Clean Air Act (CAA) alone is estimated to have saved
160,000 lives and prevented more than 100,000 hospital visits.
President Obama also understands, however, that as millions of
families are cutting back and making sacrifices, they expect the same
level of good fiscal sense out of their Government.
This budget reflects that good fiscal sense, and makes many tough
choices.
Fiscal year 2010's budget of $10.3 billion was the EPA's highest
funding level since its creation. This fiscal year 2012 budget request,
while a deep cut resulting in a total budget of $8.973 billion, will
allow the EPA to carry out its core mission and fund the most critical
efforts to protect the health of American families.
The choices in this budget reflect the EPA's commitment to core
regulatory work and preserving the hard-won progress made over the last
40 years in protecting and restoring the quality of our air, water, and
land; ensuring the safety of our chemicals; and providing strong
enforcement of environmental laws and regulations.
At the same time, we have heeded the President's call for deficit
reduction and made some painful choices to reduce funding for important
programs. As it does every year, the EPA has worked to find
efficiencies within our programs and in some cases made reductions
trusting that further efficiencies can be found. The $8.973 billion
proposed for the EPA in the fiscal year 2012 President's budget will
allow the EPA to maintain its core programs while investing in areas of
urgent need and will support key priorities during this time of fiscal
challenges. This budget represents a nearly 13 percent reduction over
the fiscal year 2010 budget and reflects our priorities: supporting
action on climate change and improving air quality; protecting
America's waters; building strong State and tribal partnerships;
strengthening enforcement and compliance; enhancing chemical safety;
supporting healthy communities; and maintaining a strong science
foundation. Because of the constrained fiscal environment, the budget
decreases the State Revolving Funds (SRFs) by nearly $950 million while
supporting a long-term goal of providing about 5 percent of total water
infrastructure spending and spurring more efficient system-wide
planning. The budget also reduces the Great Lakes Restoration
Initiative by $125 million, eliminates about $160 million in targeted
water infrastructure earmarks, and eliminates $60 million for clean
diesel grants. Our priorities are aligned with the Government-wide
effort to identify near-term, high-priority performance goals. For the
EPA, our goals include reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions,
improving water quality, and delivering improved environmental health
and protection to our communities. The EPA will work toward meeting
these goals over the next 18 to 24 months. Chairman and members of the
subcommittee, let me touch on some of the highlights of this budget,
both the painful choices and the targeted investments that will protect
our health and the environment.
Supporting Action on Climate Change and Improving Air Quality
We are committed to meeting the EPA's obligations under the CAA,
the landmark law that all American children and adults rely on to
protect them from harmful air pollution. We will continue to take
meaningful, common sense steps to address climate change and improve
air quality. Making the right choices now will allow the EPA to improve
health, drive technology innovation, and protect the environment; all
without placing an undue burden on the Nation's economy. Indeed, the
EPA's implementation of the CAA has saved millions of lives and avoided
hospital visits; enhanced American productivity by preventing millions
of lost workdays and growing the clean energy sector; and kept American
children healthy and in school.
Our budget requests $46 million for additional regulatory efforts
aimed to reduce GHG emissions and address the Climate and Clean Energy
Challenge. This includes $30 million in State grants and support for
permitting, which will ensure that our State partners develop the
technical capacity to address GHG emissions under the CAA. Also
included is $6 million in additional funding for the development and
implementation of new emission standards that will reduce GHG emissions
from mobile sources such as passenger cars, light-duty trucks, and
medium-duty passenger vehicles. These funds also will support the EPA's
assessment and potential development, in response to legal obligations,
of standards for other mobile sources. Also included is $7.5 million
for the assessment and potential development of New Source Performance
Standards for several categories of major stationary sources through
means that are flexible and manageable for business. Finally, this
amount includes an additional $2.5 million for priority measurement,
reporting and verification activities related to implementing the GHG
Reporting Rule, to ensure the collection of high-quality data. Our air
toxics strategy prioritizes standards that provide the greatest
opportunity for cost-effective emissions reductions. This budget
requests an additional $6.4 million to conduct integrated pilots in
several communities, including disadvantaged communities, to
systemically evaluate and reduce risks from toxic air pollutants
through regulatory, enforcement, and voluntary efforts. An additional
$3.7 million will improve air toxic monitoring capabilities and
dissemination of information between and among the EPA offices, the
State, local and tribal governments, and the public. We anticipate a
more than four-fold increase in the number of vehicle and engine
certificates the EPA issues. In addition, as a result of diverse and
sophisticated technologies, we anticipate more challenging oversight
requirements for both the vehicle/engine compliance program and fuels.
We will upgrade vehicle, engine, and fuel-testing capabilities through
a $6.2 million investment in the National Vehicle and Fuel Emissions
Laboratory.
Protecting America's Waters
By leveraging partnerships and traditional and innovative
strategies, we will continue to sustain and improve water
infrastructure and clean-up America's great waterbodies. The EPA, the
States, and community water systems will build on past successes while
working toward the fiscal year 2012 goal of assuring that 91 percent of
the population served by community water systems receives drinking
water that meets all applicable health-based standards. The Clean Water
State Revolving Fund (CWSRF) and Drinking Water State Revolving Fund
(DWSRF) provide grants to States, which use the funds to make
affordable loans to local communities for public drinking water and
wastewater infrastructure projects. The President's budget requests
$1.55 billion for the CWSRF and $990 million for the DWSRF. This
request level reduces funding for SRFs by $947 million from fiscal year
2010 levels. As part of the administration's long-term strategy, the
EPA is implementing a Sustainable Water Infrastructure Policy that
focuses on working with States and communities to enhance technical,
managerial, and financial capacity. Important to the technical capacity
will be enhancing alternatives analysis to expand ``green
infrastructure'' options and their multiple benefits. Future year
budgets for the SRFs gradually adjust, taking into account repayments,
through 2016 with the goal of providing, on average, about 5 percent of
water infrastructure spending annually. Federal dollars provided
through the SRFs will serve as a catalyst for efficient system-wide
planning and ongoing management of sustainable water infrastructure. We
will also leverage our partnership with States and tribes through an
additional $21 million in Water Pollution Control (section 106) grants
to enhance water quality and to provide additional resources to address
Total Maximum Daily Load, nutrient, and wet weather issues. An
additional $4 million is requested for Public Water Systems Supervision
grants to support management of State and drinking water system data,
improve data quality, and allow the public access to compliance
monitoring data not previously available. This will improve
transparency and efficiency and reduce the need for State resources to
maintain individual compliance databases.
This budget supports the EPA's continued efforts to clean up
America's great waterbodies. It includes $67.4 million for the
Chesapeake Bay program, a $17.4 million increase, which will allow the
EPA to continue to implement the President's Executive order on
Chesapeake Bay protection and restoration. The increased funding will
support Chesapeake Bay watershed States as they implement their plans
to reduce nutrient and sediment pollution in an unprecedented effort to
restore this economically important ecosystem. This budget has $350
million included for programs and projects strategically chosen to
target the most significant environmental problems in the Great Lakes
ecosystem, a $125 million decrease from fiscal year 2010, the first
year of the initiative. Led by the EPA, and engaging the capabilities
of a number of Federal agencies, the initiative will implement the most
important projects for Great Lakes Restoration and achieve visible
results. The administration is committed to restoring and protecting
the gulf coast ecosystem following decades of environmental harm,
including the BP Deepwater Horizon oil spill. As chair of the Gulf
Coast Ecosystem Restoration Task Force, established by Executive Order
13554, I will work with the Federal and State Task Force members to
lead environmental recovery efforts in the region. The EPA is also
working to support the Federal and State trustees on the Deepwater
Horizon Natural Resource Damage Assessment and Restoration Trustee
Council as they develop a restoration plan to restore the region's
natural resources to pre-spill conditions. As a complement to these
efforts, the EPA's request of $6.6 million for the Mississippi River
basin program will address excessive nutrient loadings that contribute
to water-quality impairments in the basin and, ultimately, to hypoxic
conditions in the Gulf of Mexico.
Building Strong State and Tribal Partnerships
Strong partnerships and accountability are vital to the
implementation of environmental programs, and we are committed to
strengthening State and tribal capacity. This budget includes $1.2
billion for State and tribal grants which is an overall increase of
$84.9 million over fiscal year 2010 within this amount is a reduction
to Nonpoint Source (section 319) Grants and Local Government Climate
Change Grants. This request will provide critical support to State and
local governments who are working diligently to implement new and
expanded requirements under the CAA and Clean Water Act. These include
implementation of updated National Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS) and addressing complex water-quality issues such as nutrient
pollution, which I discussed earlier.
To help tribes strengthen environmental protection capacity and
move forward with implementation of environmental programs, an $8.5
million increase is included for Tribal General Assistance Program
grants and $20 million is budgeted for the competitive Tribal Multi-
media Implementation grant program.
Strengthening Enforcement and Compliance
Regulated entities, Federal agencies, and the public benefit from
easy access to tools that help them understand environmental laws and
find efficient, cost-effective means for putting them into practice.
This budget includes a request of $27.5 million for the Regaining
Ground in Compliance Initiative. Through this initiative, the EPA will
begin to harness the tools of modern technology to address some of
these areas and make EPA's Enforcement and Compliance Assurance program
more efficient and effective. We also will increase the number of
inspections at high-risk facilities regulated under the Spill
Prevention, Control and Countermeasures and the Facility Response Plan
regulations. By increasing the use of electronic reporting, monitoring
tools, and market-based approaches, we will improve the effectiveness
and efficiency of our limited resources, and ensure a level playing
field for American businesses. By maximizing the use of advanced data
and monitoring tools, we can focus our limited inspection and
enforcement resources and focus our attention on identifying where the
most significant vulnerabilities exist.
Enhancing Chemical Safety
America's citizens deserve to know the products they use are safe.
One of my highest priorities is making significant and long-overdue
progress in assuring the safety of chemicals. We are taking immediate
and lasting actions to eliminate or reduce identified chemical risks
and develop proven alternatives. fiscal year 2012 represents a crucial
stage in our approach for ensuring chemical safety. The program has
attained its ``zero tolerance'' goal in preventing the introduction of
unsafe new chemicals into commerce. However, many ``pre-TSCA''
chemicals already in commerce remain un-assessed. With the $16 million
investment for the Enhancing Chemical Safety Initiative included in
this budget, we will increase the pace of chemical hazard and risk
assessments, strengthen chemical information management and
transparency, and take action to address identified chemical risks
including careful consideration of the impact of chemicals on
children's health and on disadvantaged, low-income, and indigenous
populations. The additional funding will help to close knowledge and
risk management gaps for thousands of chemicals already in commerce
through actions that will decrease potential impacts to human health
and the environment. We also will continue promoting use of proven
safer chemicals, chemical management practices, and technologies to
enable the transition away from existing chemicals that present
significant risks.
Supporting Healthy Communities
We are committed to protecting, sustaining, or restoring the health
of communities and ecosystems by bringing together a variety of
programs, tools, approaches and resources directed to the local level.
Partnerships with international, Federal, State, tribal, local
governments, and nongovernmental organizations have long been a common
thread across the EPA's programs. This diversity of perspectives and
experiences brings a wider range of ideas and approaches, and creates
opportunities for innovations. The budget includes a $20.4 million
multidisciplinary initiative for Healthy Communities. It supports
States and communities in promoting healthier school environments by
increasing technical assistance on school siting, environmental health
guidelines, and Integrated Pest Management in schools. It also provides
resources to address air toxics within at-risk communities, and to
enhance the important joint DOT/HUD/EPA outreach and related efforts
with communities on sustainable development.
We proudly support the America's Great Outdoors Initiative to
develop a community-based 21st century conservation agenda that can
also spur job creation in the tourism and recreation industries.
Leveraging support across the Federal Government, the EPA will join the
Department of the Interior, the Department of Agriculture, and the
Council on Environmental Quality to lead the coordinated effort to
protect and restore our outdoor legacy. The area-wide planning and
community support focus of existing EPA programs and initiatives like
urban waters and brownfields programs align well with the goals and
objectives of this new initiative.
Maintaining a Strong Science Foundation
To develop a deeper understanding of our environmental challenges
and inform sustainable solutions, we are requesting a science and
technology budget of $826 million, $22 million lower than our fiscal
year 2010 enacted funding level, reflecting both efficiencies and
difficult choices in order to ensure support for the highest-priority
science needs. We will strengthen planning and delivery of science
through an integrated research approach, which will help us more deeply
examine our environmental and public health challenges. By looking at
problems from a systems perspective, this new approach will create
synergy and produce more timely and comprehensive results beyond those
possible from approaches that are more narrowly targeted to single
chemicals or problem areas. Within the request, we are including
increases for research on endocrine disrupting chemicals, green
infrastructure, air-quality monitoring, e-waste and e-design, green
chemistry, and the potential effects of hydraulic fracturing on
drinking water. To make progress on these research priorities and
leverage the expertise of the academic research community, funding
redirections will support additional Science to Achieve Results grants
and fellowships. This budget also supports the study of computational
toxicology, and other priority research efforts with a focus on
advancing the design of sustainable solutions for reducing risks
associated with environmentally hazardous substances. Two million
dollars is also included to conduct a long-term review of the EPA's
laboratory network. These increases are offset by redirections from
other areas, such as human health and ecosystems, biofuels, homeland
security, mercury, and ground water remediation. We look forward to
working with the Congress to cut spending and cut the deficit. But to
win the future, we cannot cut in a way that will undermine our ability
to win the future and out-educate, out-innovate, and out-build our
economic competitors. The budget that the President announced is a
responsible plan that shows how we can live within our means and invest
in the future. It makes tough choices to cut spending and cut the
deficit. It includes a 5-year nonsecurity discretionary freeze, saving
more than $400 billion over the decade and reducing nonsecurity
discretionary spending to its lowest level as a share of the economy
since President Eisenhower, and the budget reduces the deficit by more
than $1 trillion, putting us on a path to fiscal sustainability. Thank
you again for inviting me to testify today, and I look forward to
answering your questions.
Senator Reed. Well, thank you very much, Madam
Administrator.
And let me start off a first round of questions, with the
anticipation that we'll do two, if your time allows.
GREENHOUSE (GHG) GASES
One issue that has been addressed both explicitly and
implicitly has been the whole regulation of GHG. The EPA and
the States are required to start issuing GHG permits January 2
of this year for modifications of the largest existing sources,
with additional facilities scheduled to be phased in, this
July. And there has been some discussion, obviously, about
whether the EPA and the States would be ready to process the
permits in time or they would, in fact, contribute to delay in
construction parts, delay in modifications to these plants.
Can you tell us where we stand? Are the States and the EPA
ready to process GHG permits in all 50 States? And how many
permits are under review? And how many have already been
granted?
Ms. Jackson. Yes, Chairman, together we are ready. In every
jurisdiction in the United States there is a permitting
authority that is ready and able to process permit
applications, to issue legally valid permits, upon review of
applications. In those places where the State government has
been unable or unwilling to process permit applications for GHG
emissions, the EPA is now in place, by law, as the permitting
authority for that portion of their permits, for the GHG
portion of their permits.
We have approximately 100 permit applications in process
for GHG emissions at this time. Twenty-six of those 100 have
already completed their BACT analyses that are required as part
of the permitting process. Two permit applications have been
reviewed and already issued. One is in my home State of
Louisiana. I'm not quite sure of the location of the other one.
It may be California.
Senator Reed. Thank you very much. Throughout our
discussions, and implicit in everything we do, is this
tradeoff, this balance between environment quality, public
health, and economic development/economic productivity. And
it's an ongoing debate. On one hand, when modifications are
made and you permit and require changes in facilities, that
usually implies hiring construction workers to go in--and
contractor and engineers--and that creates jobs. But, there's
also, on the other side, as we've all heard, the suggestion
that this somehow impedes employment, impedes productivity.
CAA
We've seen different studies. There's one study reference I
saw where, over the life of the CAA, the estimate of about 1.5
percent positive GDP as a result of the contributions of the
CAA. But, the question really is, is there evidence that these
rulemakings have produced the kind of job losses that some
people have cited? Or, in fact, have they contributed to
positive job creation? Any comments you may have?
Ms. Jackson. Every objective analysis of the history,
looking back at the CAA, not projections of worst-case
scenario, but what has actually happened on the ground, shows
that the CAA has actually helped the economy. The CAA was
passed in 1970; our economy has grown more than 200 percent.
Our gross domestic product (GDP) is up, in that time.
Pollution, in that same time period, is down more than 50
percent. We were required to do a study recently--a peer-
reviewed study. From 1990, when the CAA amendments passed,
through 2020, the monetary value is projected to exceed the
cost of the Act by a factor of 30--three-zero--to 1. Public
health benefits are expected to reach $2 trillion, with a
``t''--$2 trillion in 2020, due to the 1990 amendments of the
CAA.
We know it's positive for our trade balance. There was an
$11 billion surplus in 2008. We export more environmental
technology and goods than we use in this country, so we
actually are positive, with respect to the trade balance. It's
a $300-billion-a-year revenue generator. And I think you might
have mentioned the University of Massachusetts study, which
talked about just two standards under the CAA having the
potential to create as many as 1 million to 1.5 million jobs
over the next 5 years.
H.R. 1
Senator Reed. Just a final question in my remaining time,
and that is: The House has a series of proposals in H.R. 1,
which have been mentioned. In your view, would they in any way
inhibit, the ability of the EPA to protect the public health?
And I'll leave it to you to respond, Madam Chairman.
Ms. Jackson. There are two portions to H.R. 1. There are
the budget cuts and then there are the series of riders, which
we heard mentioned. And I believe that the budget cuts are
draconian. They cut across the EPA and will, in my mind, result
in more pollution in our air and in our water and on our land.
And because pollution is so closely tied to public health, my
belief is, when it comes to air pollution, we will see more
asthma attacks, more heart attacks, more premature deaths. That
is the work of the EPA. And when the EPA is not able to do its
work, cuts like that, in my mind, cut into our ability to do
our job.
The riders, themselves, bring up a range of issues where
the EPA's hands are, essentially, tied to address issues of
pollution that aren't generally in controversy. People see the
pollution, there is concern, justifiable concern, of the cost
of addressing pollution, certainty for businesses, so that they
know, if they need to get a permit, they can get it, and that
the rules are what the rules are, and that they're the same
rules across the board. But, my belief is that the cuts, as
well as many of the riders, are going to result in holes in the
environmental safety net.
Senator Reed. Thank you very much.
Senator Murkowski.
Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
OSC PERMITS
Administrator Jackson, I want to followup with the
statement that I made initially, as it relates to the OCS
permits and the length of time that we're talking about. I
mentioned that Shell has been in process now for over 5 years.
I made reference to the fact that, in the Gulf of Mexico, an
air-quality permit can be issued within about 43 days. So,
you're looking at a situation where you've got about 6 weeks on
one end and almost close to 6 years on the other. I guess just
a basic question is: Do you think that this is reasonable?
Ms. Jackson. I believe that what the EPA's job is, is to
give prompt answers when permit applications come in. The EPA
has certainly issued permits in that area. And, as you know,
they've been subject to litigation and controversy. But, my
preference, all other things being equal, is timely and as-
quick-as-possible response when we get permit applications in.
Senator Murkowski. We're trying to figure out, in Alaska,
as we're advancing this--we're looking at other projects that
are out there. Shell had applied for an application to nearly
double to size of one of their refineries in Port Arthur--
essentially building a brand new refinery. That permit was
issued, or just signed off, 11 months later.
Again, am I trying to compare apples to oranges here? How
long does it take, typically, to issue a permit for--for
instance, for an auto factory or a--I mean, how long does
something like that take?
Ms. Jackson. Permits can take months to many, many years.
One of the issues that I think accompanied the Shell permits,
without in any way trying to be inflammatory, Senator, is that
there's some amount of controversy over the activity of the
drilling in the Chukchi. That doesn't influence the EPA's
decision, but----
Senator Murkowski. Right.
Ms. Jackson [continuing]. It probably means--and I've
discussed this with Shell, and with you, as well--that we know
that we're subject to challenge for the permits we've issued.
And we issued, I think, five all together. Two in 2007, one in
2008, another two in 2010.
Senator Murkowski. But, again, what we're asking you to
do--and I said this in my statement--we're asking for the EPA
to do its job, which is to issue the air-quality permit, not to
make a determination as to whether or not exploration activity
offshore Alaska is a go or no-go. Your job is to----
Ms. Jackson. And I absolutely agree with that----
Senator Murkowski [continuing]. Issue the permits.
Ms. Jackson. Senator.
Senator Murkowski. Right.
Ms. Jackson. That is not our job----
Senator Murkowski. Right.
Ms. Jackson [continuing]. In any way. I just want to, if I
might, just give a bit of history on with regard to the two
2010 permits that I know are of great concern to you. The EPA
issued the proposed permit a month after we got the final set
of analyses from Shell and the permit application was deemed
complete. That was July 2009. We received so many public
comments that we needed to repropose the permit; that was
January 2010. The final permit was issued just 2 months later,
March 2010.
There are examples here where, 6 days after receiving an
application, the EPA took action on the final application.
Much of the delay--and I don't mean this as excuse, but
just a statement of fact--has been the litigation, where these
permit decisions are challenged. We just recently, a few days
ago, received the final decision from the Environmental Appeals
Board on the two permits. And the administrative court upheld
the EPA on 3 of the remaining 4 permit issues that we have been
sued by outside groups on. So, it means the permit we issued
was upheld.
On the fourth issue, there's a bit more work to be done,
but I met with Shell. My staff has been meeting with Shell. And
we believe that the we are on a path to address not only that
issue, but the other ones raised.
NITROGEN DIOXIDE STANDARDS
Senator Murkowski. One of the things that came up in this
process--and you referenced the litigation, that's one thing--
but, there were some different standards that were in place
initially for nitrogen dioxide and no requirement for GHG
emissions. Now both of those new requirements are being applied
retroactively on permits that were applied for 4 years ago. It
gets you in a situation where you've got a lengthy permit
process. And, working in all due diligence, you've got new
requirements that then come in, and all of the sudden you don't
meet them, so it pushes you back even further.
Now, the EPA decided, last month, to grandfather at least
one project. I know that the Avenal, the power center there in
San Joaquin Valley, was grandfathered in so that it would be
exempted from new rules that had been imposed on new air-
quality standards. You saw fit to grandfather a much larger
facility from the new requirements, and yet not considering, on
a smaller certainly, a smaller facility, in terms of emissions
that we're talking about--you're basically pushing it back and
saying, ``Well, these now new requirements are now in place, so
now you must meet them.'' Isn't that a bit arbitrary?
Ms. Jackson. It's not entirely accurate, if I might,
Senator. The permit that the EPA issued to Shell, the two
permits, did not require compliance with the 1-hour
NO2 standard or any GHG standard. The permits were
challenged. And one of the things the Environmental Appeals
Board said was, because of environmental justice, we should at
least make an analysis of what those standards would mean.
I just have to say that I believe that the analysis will
clearly show that there is no public health concern here.
Environmental justice, I think, is extremely important--but, I
believe it's important that we be able to show people that this
wasn't going around a standard, that, in fact, these activities
will not cause air pollution that will endanger health. And my
belief is that, as we work, and we've put more resources into
this. I can get that information to you, I just gave it to
Shell to make sure that we are not holding anything up, that
we'll be able to show that.
[The information follows:]
RESOURCES FOR AIR PERMITS FOR OCS EXPLORATORY DRILLING OPERATIONS IN THE
ALASKA
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FTE \1\ for FTE for 2010
Position 2011 \4\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senior Air Management Lead............. \3\ 0.5 \3\ 0.75
Senior Policy Advisor/Peer reviewer.... \3\ 0.8 \3\ 0.75
Project Manager........................ 1.0 ..............
Permit Writer (including regular 1.0 \3\ 1.0
analysis) #1..........................
Permit Writer #2....................... \3\ 0.8 1.0
Permit Writer #3....................... 0.5 0.5
First Line Supervisors................. 0.3 0.2
Attorney 1............................. 0.8 \3\ 0.8
Attorney 2............................. 0.8 0.8
Paralegal.............................. ............... \3\ 0.3
Alternative Model Approval; Air Quality 1.3 0.9
Modeler 1.............................
Air Modeler 2 and possibly 3........... \3\ \5\ 1.0 \3\ \6\ 0.9
Air Quality Monitoring Expert.......... 0.2 0.1
Stationary Source Engineer; source 0.5 0.3
testing and monitoring expert #1......
Stationary Source Engineer #2.......... \3\ 0.5 ..............
Community Involvement Specialist....... 0.4 0.5
Tribal Consultation Specialist and 0.2 0.2
Liaison 1.............................
Tribal Liaison 2....................... 0.1 0.2
ESA Specialist and EJ Specialist....... 0.1 0.1
Administrative staff................... 0.2 0.25
IT services and Web page management.... 0.1 0.1
Service Center Contract (copying, 0.1 0.1
mailing) \2\..........................
Records Management Contract \2\........ \3\ 0.5 \3\ 0.5
Oil and Gas Program Coordinator........ ............... ..............
--------------------------------
Total Region 10 FTE.............. 11.7 10.25
================================
Headquarters legal, policy, and 2 2
technical support.....................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ FTE = Full-time equivalent.
\2\ Contract support expressed as FTE (approximate).
\3\ Resources temporarily assigned to OCS permitting from other programs
until current permits are completed (total of 5 FTE in 2010 and 4.1
FTE in 2011). Note: In 2011, Region 10 redirected 2 FTE permanently to
OSC work: Permit Writer and Attorney.
\4\ Source of this information is from the Environmental Protection
Agency's Report to Congress on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS)
Permits as requested in the fiscal year 2010 Conference Report on the
Department of Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies
Appropriations Act, 2010 (House Report 111-316).
\5\ Loan from another Region; salary funds to be used to temporarily
hire a State modeler.
\6\ On loan from Region 5.
Senator Murkowski. Well, and I appreciate the fact that you
have just said that you don't believe that these that this will
endanger human health, and that's what we're looking at in the
issuance of these permits. So, then again, it begs the
question, why it's taking 5 years plus to issue the air-quality
permits.
Ms. Jackson. Ma'am----
Senator Murkowski. Mr. Chairman, my time is expired, and
I've got some other issues that I want to talk about, but it'll
be round two.
Senator Reed. Thank you very much, Senator Murkowski.
Senator Nelson.
Senator Nelson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
CWA PERMITS
Administrator Jackson, welcome. I want to begin by thanking
you for, not only coming before the subcommittee today, but
also for appearing with Secretary Vilsack before the Senate
Agriculture Committee recently. And I hope we can follow up on
some of the issues that we discussed at that time.
One of the concerns that I continue to have is in
connection with the CWA permits for pesticide application.
Before the Senate Agriculture Committee, you indicated that
there was possible misunderstanding on the application of the
rule and where permits would be necessary. In other words,
those applicating on cropland would not be subject to a permit.
I was hoping that maybe you could followup on that and help me
understand, so that there isn't any misunderstanding.
Ms. Jackson. Thank you, Senator. I'll try to do it quickly,
so I don't run out your clock.
But, remember this permit was required because the EPA had
made a finding that an additional CWA permit was not needed. We
were challenged on that finding. And the Sixth Circuit Court of
Appeals decision in National Cotton said, ``If you were
applying pesticide permits to the water, you need a CWA permit
in addition to the FIFRA label and licensing requirements.''
So, only those applicators whose intention is to apply to
water--so they are applying pesticides to water--need this
additional permit. If----
Senator Nelson. So, if they apply it to crops, then it's
not applying it to water?
Ms. Jackson. That's absolutely right. If you're applying to
crops, that's not water. Even we know sometimes there small
amounts that run off. We know farmers and applicators do not
like that, because they want the pesticides to stay where they
put them. But and it's not intended to apply to those
situations, either.
PESTICIDE APPLICATION
Senator Nelson. Also wanted to raise a concern that I had.
In Nebraska, pesticide application is done along rivers and
canals to help control invasive species which impact waterflow.
And my concern is that if it's done along rivers or canals,
would that automatically trigger a requirement for a permit on
water, as long as it's being applied to invasive species and
not intended to be applied to water?
Ms. Jackson. I believe it's if it's applied over an area,
including a wetland, that is considered to be a water then you
would need the permit. I just want to most of the people we've
been working with are mosquito control districts and people who
do deal directly in applications either in water or along the
bank line. And so, that's why we made it a general permit,
because they generally need a permit anyway in order to apply
that pesticide. So, this is a notification and will require
some certifications that you're using minimal amounts of
pesticide. But, I do believe it would, although we can double
check that for you, sir.
[The information follows:]
Nebraska Pesticide Application
The need for a permit is based on whether the pesticide application
results in a discharge of pollutants to waters of the United States.
The permit does not cover, nor is permit coverage required, for
pesticide applications that do not result in a point source discharge
to waters of the United States. If a pesticide is applied along waters
of the United States, such as many rivers and canals, and results in a
discharge of pollutants to waters of the United States (i.e., a
discharge is unavoidable), then a permit will be required.
Senator Nelson. Okay.
Ms. Jackson. And I want to remember we are asked the court
for more time, until next October, so we don't have a permit.
So, I'm speaking a bit speculatively.
PLATTE AND REPUBLICAN RIVER BASINS
Senator Nelson. Okay. Well, there are some 50 projects
along the Platte and Republican River basins, and 80 percent of
our Nebraska's crop's irrigated, so there are significant
numbers of canals that run across the State that have to be
considered, as well.
So, our people from our natural resources districts were
just in town, and are in town today. This is one of the
concerns that they have. And so, if we can find a way to get
that clear, it would be very, very helpful to them and to our
office, as well.
Ms. Jackson. We're happy to sit down with them or your
staff, sir.
Senator Nelson. And I want to thank you also for the prompt
action on the E15 ethanol blend. I think that, clearly, is an
important thing for us, given the fact that we're facing
constant challenges with foreign sources of oil at the present
time. And anything we can do to continue pursue and support
renewable energy domestic renewable energy, we ought to
continue to do that. So, I appreciate what you're doing there.
SEWER SEPARATION PROJECT
The final thing I have is sort of a plea for some
consideration, some help, to figure out how we can deal with
very expensive long term compliance issues. In Omaha, we have
the Sewer Separation Project that will cost nearly $1.6
billion. And, even with any effort to try to get through
revolving loan funds or other sources of income for that, or
sources of money, it's virtually impossible to bring that level
down so that it isn't a huge burden on the ratepayers in Omaha.
I was struck by what Senator Blunt said about his
situation, where what the impact could be for businesses could
result in job losses. It's estimated that the cost to comply in
Omaha can more than double the within a very short period of
time--the sewer fees. And so, it's not only the ratepayers, who
are individuals of the family homes and apartment houses, but
applies as well, as you know, to businesses, and particularly
manufacturing operations and others, that might, in fact, have
higher costs associated with their businesses.
And I would hope that perhaps we could explore ways to have
revolving funds of a greater amount. We're talking about this
in tough budget times, I understand, but if it can be done with
lower interest rates so that we don't have to go to bonding
bonded indebtedness. The Nebraskans don't like bonded
indebtedness, and it doesn't go over very well. The State
doesn't have any. So, what I would hope is that we might put
our heads together and see if there are ways to help finance
those more expensive projects for communities.
Ms. Jackson. Thank you, Senator. I think that would be a
great idea, because my experience in these is, oftentimes I'll
just guess, I do not know for certain that these are the
results of judicial orders that have strict schedules. No one
wants raw sewage in the water. That's what the whole point is.
But, in tough times, we have had a number of municipalities
come in and say, ``Can we talk about either alternate methods
or alternate timetables that would give us a bit of relief?''
So, I would be happy to have my Region 7 office have those
conversations with Omaha.
Senator Nelson. Thank you. And again, thanks for being
here.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Reed. Thank you, Senator Nelson.
Senator Cochran.
GULF COAST RESTORATION
Senator Cochran. Madam Chairman, in looking at your
statement, on page 4, I noticed this provision. It says, ``As
chair of the Gulf Coast Ecosystem Restoration Task Force
established by Executive Order 13554, I will work with the
Federal and State task force members to lead environmental
recovery efforts in the region. The EPA is also working to
support the Federal and State trustees on the Deepwater Horizon
Natural Resource Damage Assessment and Restoration Trustee
Council as they develop a restoration plan to restore the
region's natural resources to pre-spill conditions.'' Then
there's this sentence, which concludes the paragraph, ``As a
complement to these efforts, the EPA's request of $6.6 million
for the Mississippi River Basin Program, will address excessive
nutrient loadings that contribute to water quality impairments
in the Basin and ultimately to hypoxic conditions in the Gulf
of Mexico.''
I was following that pretty well until I got down to the
end and saw that last sentence. And I read it again, and I
thought what in what does that mean? Can you answer my
question? What does that mean?
Ms. Jackson. I'll try, Senator. It's meant to outline a
number of initiatives, all of which, I hope, will have the
impact of a better Gulf of Mexico.
On the hypoxic issue, the end of the statement, there's
obviously nutrients that come down the Mississippi River to its
mouth. We now have created a zone along the gulf coast of the
United States, in parts of Texas and Louisiana--I think a bit
in your State, as well--that where the nutrient levels have
caused algae to grow so much that they've taken the oxygen out
of the water. That's harmful for the ecosystem. Obviously,
clearly harmful for the seafood and other fish that breed, the
nurseries of life that they are. And that growing area of
hypoxia has been a concern of the EPA's since long before the
spill.
I believe we either have or very shortly are putting out a
framework. It's State leadership that's needed here. And it is
not--there's been some concern that the EPA's going to sort of
take over and come up with nutrient standards along the Basin.
I don't think that will work. I don't think that kind of
command-and-control approach will work. But, States have
started to do wonderful things on bringing their nutrient
loadings down so that, by the time that the water gets to the
mouth of the Mississippi, we see a significant reduction in
nitrogen and phosphorous.
BP OIL SPILL
Senator Cochran. Well, I'm a little skeptical that we may
be--if we do nothing and don't say anything in our report about
monitoring this program, that we are really writing a blank
check, not just for $6.6 million, which is a lot of money to
me, to deal with a problem that obviously existed before, and
will exist after, the calamity of the BP oil well that was way
out in the Gulf of Mexico and was not affected at all by what
comes down the Mississippi River.
Ms. Jackson. No----
Senator Cochran. You know, it looks like a big reach--a
reach for added jurisdiction and a blank check, really. Well, a
$6.6 million check----
Ms. Jackson. Right.
Senator Cochran [continuing]. Which is kind of big.
Ms. Jackson. I apologize if my statement is confusing,
Senator. The Gulf of Mexico programs and the Gulf of Mexico
Alliance have been working together with upstream States to
deal with the hypoxia issue for a long time. And the EPA has
actually had that program working for quite some time. They are
unrelated to the actual incident of the Deepwater explosion,
but not entirely unrelated from the purpose of the Gulf Coast
Task Force, which I chair, which is to help the gulf become
healthier overall. And, of course, if you talk to people who've
been watching this growing red area of hypoxia off their shores
for a long time. It's one of the things, in our first two
public meetings, that we have heard about already.
So, they are intersecting, but they are certainly not meant
to say that the oil spill had anything to do with the hypoxia.
Senator Cochran. Okay.
Thank you.
Senator Reed. Senator Collins.
Senator Collins. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
ETHANOL-BLENDED GASOLINE
Administrator, let me start with an issue that I hear about
frequently from my constituents. I get calls, emails, letters,
conversations all the time about constituents who are finding
great difficulty in using an ethanol blended form of gasoline,
because it causes problems in their older cars, their boats,
their snowmobiles, lawnmowers, offshore, or off road vehicles.
And this comes up over and over again. And my constituents are
experiencing these problems even with an ethanol blend of just
10 percent.
So, Senator Cardin and I wrote to you, and introduced
legislation as well, urging the EPA not to grant a waiver
allowing E15 to be sold until we resolved some of the problems
that ethanol was causing for these smaller engines.
Unfortunately, the EPA went ahead and granted this waiver for
use in automobile model years, I guess, 2001 and higher, and
newer light duty vehicles. But, of course, the problem is that
a lot of times the ethanol blends are not going to be
segregated at gas stations, and it's going to cause some
misfueling and some further problems.
Let me say, right up front, that I am not a fan of the $6
billion that we spend each year on corn-based ethanol. If I
were making cuts in the budget, that would be very high on my
list. But, we do have mandates existing--ethanol mandates--that
the energy, agricultural, and automotive sectors of our economy
are already struggling to comply with. So, why did the EPA make
it worse by approving E15?
Ms. Jackson. Well, the EPA received a waiver request from
Growth Energy, an industry group, asking for us to review their
application for 15 percent ethanol.
I have to be clear, this not a mandate. The EPA does not
mandate that E15 be sold. In fact, what the EPA is required to
do by law is to respond to, or make determinations about, the
safety of various ethanol blends in gasoline. We did that by
relying on extensive testing of cars, most of it done by the
Department of Energy. This took them $40 million. It took many,
many months. The waiver is based on the science, and only the
science. The EPA is currently required by law to work on a
label to prevent misfueling at stations.
For E15 to enter the market there are several other things
that have to happen--most of them absolutely unrelated to the
EPA, they have to do with State law and other Federal
agencies--and the EPA's not--it's not the EPA's job to make
those determinations about what gets sold, but simply to answer
the questions that were put to us under Integrated Science
Assessments (ISAs).
Senator Cochran. Well----
Ms. Jackson. ISAs gives us that.
Senator Cochran [continuing]. You didn't have to approve
the waiver request, however.
Ms. Jackson. That's absolutely right, Senator. But, the
requirements of the CAA basically tell us that a waiver can be
granted when you can show that it will not harm vehicles, among
a number of criteria, I don't have them in my head right now.
Senator Cochran. But, it is harming vehicles. I'm going to
start sending over to you every email I get from Maine from a
Mainer who's had his snowmobile engine ruined or his lawnmower
or boat engine fouled because of the concentration of ethanol.
In Maine, we have a lot of older cars. Maine is a low-income
State. And a lot of people are driving older vehicles and are
already experiencing problems with the E10 mix. And they're
really concerned about what it's going to mean when you go to
E15.
And think of the gas station. I mean, you're correct that
they can still sell E10 as well as the E15, but there's
infrastructure costs in having a separate pump, a separate
label. How is the EPA going to deal with that?
Ms. Jackson. Again, Senator, the EPA denied the waiver for
snowmobiles and yard equipment and marine engines. What we did
was make a science-based finding that, for automobiles only, in
model years newer than 2001 and including 2001, there wasn't a
reliability or safety problem with E15. The EPA doesn't have a
mandate that E15 be used, but I understand your concerns. Our
jurisdiction, if you will, extends to a labeling rule, to
putting out a label to help consumers know what the fuel can be
used for, which is only 2001-and-newer cars.
Senator Collins. But, I think you're ignoring the reality
that there are already problems for these--for the
snowmobilers, for the lawnmower operators, for boat,
lobstermen, et cetera, using E10. So, it is not of comfort to
me when you say, ``Well, there'll be a label for E15.'' Plus,
there's a considerable cost to a small gas station to have
another pump that has E15--it is separate. Why should they
carry two kinds?
I just hope the EPA will take a closer look at the
implications. And I really am going to start sending over those
complaints so that you can explain to my constituents why their
engines are being fouled.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm going to save my next
question, because I'm out of time.
Thank you.
GHG REGULATIONS
Senator Reed. Thank you very much, Senator Collins.
I'll begin the second round by following up with a final
question in the whole context of the GHG regulations. And the
proposal in H.R. 1 might sort of create a catch 22 situation.
That is, as I understand it, you would be prevented from,
essentially, issuing permits. Yet the law would still be on the
book, which could open projects to legal challenges under the
CAA, et cetera. But, can you sort of help us understand how--if
H.R. 1 or something like it was passed, how it would impact the
ability of the States and the EPA to issue permits and to avoid
this unwitting, or witting, sort of gridlock, if you don't have
the authority, yet the law's on the books, and people can go
into court and say they're violating the law.
Ms. Jackson. Right, well, as I mentioned earlier, Chairman,
we have 100 permits already filed for GHG. So, there is a GHG
rider that was included in H.R. 1, and it would preclude the
EPA from issuing preconstruction permits, which are the permits
that these 100 applications are for, in those States and
territories and areas where the EPA is the permitting
authority. It is sometimes the State and sometimes the EPA.
So, you're talking about California, Florida, Idaho,
Kentucky, Massachusetts, Oregon, Texas, Wyoming, Puerto Rico,
Virgin Islands, OCS, offshore deepwater ports, Arizona--I think
there's one other.
And you're right, it would be something of a catch 22,
because the CR doesn't affect the obligation, the underlying
statutory obligation to obtain a permit; it simply affects the
EPA's ability to issue or act on the permits. And so, people
would have an obligation to obtain a permit the EPA could not
issue, by law.
FUEL-EFFICIENCY STANDARDS
Senator Reed. Thank you. Turning now to fuel-efficiency
standards, we are already extremely sensitive to rising
gasoline prices. They're about $3.57 in Rhode Island, but when
I go back this weekend, they'll probably be closer to $3.80.
And I think we all recognize that one of the ways to deal with
this energy crisis is simply demand reduction. And, what's
happened with the car industry--beginning with the 1970s and
CAFE standards, is that increased mileage has helped avoid
millions of gallons of gasoline use.
You're now talking about 35.5 miles per gallon by 2016,
with your fuel-efficiency standards. Some people have suggested
that'll save about $3,000 over the life of the car, in terms of
avoided gasoline cost. Of course, that number goes up as the
price of gasoline goes up. And there's a proposal, I believe,
to increase it to 60 miles per gallon by 2015, with additional
savings.
Today, in this budget, there's $5.2 million for developing
fuel-economy standards out to 2025 and $10 million for a first-
time program to try to improve the efficiency of medium and
heavy trucks.
Can you share with us, or confirm the savings that seem to
be inherent in these proposed investments of, relatively, a
small amount of money?
Ms. Jackson. Certainly, sir. I think you kind of hit it on
the head in your question. I think the current law actually
required us to get to 35.5 miles per gallon by 2020. The
President's clean car rules got us to 35.5 by 2016. So, we're 4
years early. And he's already ordered the EPA and the
Department of Transportation to work together on the next
generation, which is 2017 model year, all the way out to 2025.
We are doing that.
We are also working and sharing data with the State of
California, because the CAA gives California different
jurisdiction over pollution emission from automobiles. The
EPA's role is actually under the CAA and has to do with GHG
emissions. The CAA is a really important piece of the puzzle,
because the CAA has strong enforcement teeth. Companies can't
build a bigger gas-guzzling car and simply pay small fine, as
they could under the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration (NHTSA) rules and under NHTSA's authority. Under
the CAA, they must comply.
And we have estimated that, in the rules done so far, if
you took the CAA out of that equation, you'd lose hundreds of
millions of barrels of oil savings, because companies would
simply just pay the fine rather than build the more fuel-
efficient cars that we need and that Americans are buying.
STATE REVOLVING LOAN--FUNDS CUTS
Senator Reed. Thank you. A final point, my time is rapidly
declining--Senator Collins alluded to this, I've said it also--
the State revolving loan-fund cuts. There was, as I understand
it, a significant increase in the 2010 budget. And a lot of
that was directed at, not only helping communities struggle--
and I think Senator Nelson was talking about it also--in terms
of dealing with required improvements in sewer systems and
other systems, that ultimately get passed on to ratepayers if
the local agency is the only source of funds.
We are proposing now, in this budget, to reduce,
significantly, those funds, which shifts the burden onto local
communities and also may very well have the effect of stopping
projects or not even putting projects in even a planning phase,
which means jobs.
Have you looked at the job effect of these proposed cuts?
Ms. Jackson. We haven't done a jobs analysis of the
proposed cuts. I would only offer a few things.
This is one of those tough choices that's certainly hard,
as Administrator of the EPA, to swallow, but I swallow it and I
embrace it, because I think we looked across at a couple of
things on the landscape that--when the President came into
office, the Recovery Act put $6 billion to water and
wastewater. Most of that money was required to be obligated
within 18 months, and it was; but some of it is still hitting
the streets in the form of projects that continue to be
constructed and people who are getting paid, therefore have a
paycheck as a result of that. His first budget also
dramatically increased the amount of money for water and
wastewater funding again. And so, yes, this is a cut, but it's
still much higher than these funds we're seeing when he came
into office.
And so, I would simply say that, yes, there is great
leveraging that goes on, both in the drinking water and
wastewater side. They're also revolving funds. So, part of what
we're also hopeful of is to see some of those $6 billion in
loans start coming back into the fund, repay the fund, and
hopefully get us to a state where we can ensure that our
communities have clean drinking water and adequate sewage.
Senator Reed. Thank you very much.
I'm going to recognize Senator Murkowski. And since Senator
Blunt hasn't had his first round--my preference, unless you
have a problem, Senator--would be to recognize Senator Blunt
then Senator Collins.
Senator Collins. Absolutely.
Senator Murkowski. I'll defer to Senator Blunt before I ask
my second round.
Senator Reed. Thank you.
Senator Blunt.
Senator Blunt. Thank both of you. And thank you for having
patience with me.
Administrator, I may have asked questions here that have
been asked before. And, if I do, I apologize for not being here
to hear your answers before.
COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS
So, one of my questions would be--the Supreme Court
recently rejected the idea that, because cost-benefit analysis
isn't expressly authorized, it can't be used. And I'm wondering
when and where you use cost-benefit analysis in your rulemaking
process?
Ms. Jackson. We do cost-and-benefit analysis, as well as
jobs analysis, with most of our rules, not absolutely all of
them. We do have some laws--the CWA is one of them--which
require us to consider additional factors. We still look at
cost, we still look at benefits, but often public health or
safety are issues in the statute that we are specifically told
that trump a cost-benefit----
Senator Blunt. Is that cost-benefit analysis available? Is
it part of the record? How does somebody access that, that
isn't at the EPA?
Ms. Jackson. Yes, sir. It's part of the rulemaking docket.
It's part of the rulemaking record. So, it would be part of the
rule, there'd be an explanation of those analyses. And they
would be part of the docket, if someone wanted to get into
looking at the full analysis.
Senator Blunt. And there are cases like--what did you say,
CWA and CAA?--where the overall mandate, in your view,
overrides that as a criteria?
Ms. Jackson. Well, it's not my view, sir. The law will, in
some cases, make clear that the job of the Administrator is not
to balance cost at this stage or another. So, in parts of the
CWA, parts of the----
Senator Blunt. So, the law actually says that in some
places, that you shouldn't balance economic cost?
Ms. Jackson. In setting health standards under the CAA, the
NAAQS, the law says that those standards are to be based on
protecting public health with a reasonable margin of safety,
specifically not asking for cost analysis. We do them anyway,
as a matter of information, because people ask. But, there are
places where the law constrains us, to some degree. It's not
very often. And, even in those cases, I think the EPA leans
into the idea of presenting cost and benefit and jobs analysis,
where we can do it, because it always comes up.
Senator Blunt. Well, I'd say lean harder, when you can.
It's really an important part of what you're doing.
AGRICULTURAL DUST
You know, I mentioned a couple of areas earlier that impact
the agricultural economy. On this pursuit of the rule on dust
and fugitive dust, is there any known technology available that
would really be able to stop dust from moving around? I mean,
I'm enough of a farm boy to know you can't farm in the mud. So,
you're going to have some dust in farming; you're going to have
some dust in harvesting. I'd love it if you'd tell me that the
whole--the rural concern about this is blown out of proportion
and you really understand that you're going to have dust, and
you know that even the Federal Government's not big enough to
do anything about that. But, I'm anxious to hear what you think
can be done about fugitive dust.
Ms. Jackson. The EPA has not proposed to regulate
agricultural dust. The EPA does not have any plans to regulate
agricultural dust. The EPA understands, as I said in a earlier
hearing, that dust happens, especially in rural America.
The confusion seems to stem from a requirement of the CAA
for particulate matter, for the particles, that lodge in lungs.
There's fine particles and coarser particles. Every 5 years,
the requirement, under the CAA, is that a scientific advisory
board, independent of the EPA, acts in an advisory role and
advises the Administrator on whether current standards for
coarse and fine particles are protective. That report has come
in, but no staff recommendations about any standards have been
made to the Administrator.
Senator Blunt. And would that particulate matter
occasionally be something we call dust?
Ms. Jackson. It could include dust, yes. But, fine
particles are not dust. Coarser particles can include dust.
But, the EPA's standards, which would be health standards, back
to your earlier question, could potentially include coarser
particles.
I should note, the EPA's in the process of holding
listening sessions with stakeholders across the country. We've
particularly focused on rural areas. I think there was just one
in Idaho. We're looking, we're listening. And, by this summer,
I will be required to either propose to retain the current
PM10--that's, of course, the particle standard--or
change it. That would be a proposal, subject to public comment,
with the full record for review by anyone who has an interest.
Senator Blunt. Well, I think the one thing--one of the
things Government always wants to do is be sure that public
comment doesn't become public ridicule, that anytime we set
standards, or even have discussions that are outside of the--of
a possible solution. And I'll look carefully at what you all
propose. But, I know this is something that just seems like the
Government, even having this discussion, really doesn't
understand what happens out there to feed and clothe the
country.
SPILL PREVENTION, CONTROL, AND COUNTERMEASURES (SPCC) RULES AND MILK
On the milk issue, I think your own internal estimate was
that this new regulation could cost dairy farm families, dairy
farmers, $155 million. And as--I believe this is because the
EPA's view is that, since butterfat includes oil, that it
triggers a hazardous spillage when your milk tank ruptures or
something. Are you really pursuing that?
Ms. Jackson. No, sir.
Senator Blunt. No.
Ms. Jackson. No, sir.
Senator Blunt. We're you asked about this by the
Agriculture Committee, also?
Ms. Jackson. Yes, sir. It was one of my five myths about
the EPA and agriculture.
The EPA has actually proposed an exemption from the SPCC
rules. Those are rules that generally handle large amounts of
oil to prevent them from spilling into waterways. The EPA
proposed an exemption for milk, because, without a clear
exemption, you could read the law or our current regulations as
somehow bringing milk in. So, it was the EPA who was working
with the dairy industry and its representatives to come up with
the idea of an exemption. And that exemption will be finalized,
I believe, within the month.
Senator Blunt. Are you telling me the dairy industry asked
you to look into this?
Ms. Jackson. I wouldn't say--I cannot attest to whether
they asked or we asked. I would say our staff were in
conversations long before I became administrator. And one of
the things that was agreed upon, and was hailed by the dairy
industry, was clarification that milk was not subject to SPCC
requirement.
Senator Blunt. Well, I'm generous with your time, Chairman.
I think I've used my initial time up.
Senator Reed. Senator Murkowski.
Senator Murkowski. Thank you.
Not coming from a farm or an agriculture State, I think the
common person would look at this and can't believe that we're
having a conversation that we would be regulating milk as an
oil product and need to have some kind of a response plan. But,
that's not my question, Administrator. We're--you're good with
that.
GHG REGULATION UNDER CAA
It does go back, though, to a question that Senator Blunt
had raised. And this goes to the cost-benefit analysis and all
that goes into that. At a hearing that we had before the Energy
Committee last year, I asked you a number of questions about
the implementation of the new GHG regulations under the CAA.
And, at that time, after those questions that I posed, I sent
you a pretty lengthy letter asking a series of questions. I am
still awaiting a response to many of those.
But, one of the questions that I asked was whether or not
the EPA had conducted a full analysis of the economic costs,
including job losses. And I heard your response to the Chairman
about what you perceive to be the job gains. But, the question
is whether or not such an analysis has been conducted of the
full implementation of the GHG emissions once you have fully
phased in even the small emitters. And, if the answer to that
question is yes, I would ask that you provide the subcommittee
with a copy of that. And, if you have not yet conducted an
analysis, I guess the question would be, Are you considering
conducting such an analysis?
Ms. Jackson. Senator, there is no analysis to give you.
Looking forward many, many years, I think the accuracy of such
an analysis would be subject to a wide margin of error, because
we are doing these rules slowly, methodically almost, starting
with the very largest sources, and mindful and hopeful that, at
some point, the Congress may choose to take actions that will
impact smaller sources in different ways.
So, we are doing cost analysis as we roll out actual rules.
For example, in the summer, when we propose GHG efficiencies
and steps for the power sector, there would be analyses there.
Senator Murkowski. And those analyses, as you have
indicated to Senator Blunt, would be available through the
whole rulemaking process that you have, that that cost analysis
would be included.
Ms. Jackson. Yes, Senator.
ARNI AND COE
Senator Murkowski. Okay. I want to gain a little more
understanding about ARNI. ARNI is now the first name that
everybody has gained an association with in Alaska. And any of
you that have rivers in your State, I would suggest you get to
know ARNI, too. This is the ARNI. I mentioned this in my
opening statement.
I had asked you, Administrator Jackson, for just an
understanding as to how does an ARNI designation come about,
when is it applied. In response, I'm told that--you've
indicated that you've only designated ARNIs on 1 percent of COE
permits. But, you're citing 6-year-old data. And the letter
goes on to state that you don't have any more recent nationwide
data on how often or where the authority is being invoked.
So, what I'm trying to figure out is, Do we know, or does
anybody within the EPA know, what, precisely, is or is not an
ARNI, and exactly how often this designation is being used
nationwide?
Your letter refers to a case-by-case designation within
regions, which, from where I'm sitting, makes it sound--it
sounds pretty arbitrary. What we are faced with--we just had
the--a project in the interior of the State be denied because
of an ARNI designation on the Tanana River. If you are an
investor or if you are--in this case, the railroad was looking
to put a bridge across--had no idea that the Tanana River would
be designated as an ARNI. How do you anticipate, in advance,
whether a given body of water is subject to such a designation?
So, I'm trying to understand a little bit more about how
this operates within the EPA, in terms of a given designation.
Ms. Jackson. Thank you, Senator. As I think I said in the
response, the designation is triggered in response to permit
actions. It is--it grows out of a 1992 agreement between the
EPA and the COE. And the designation of ARNI specifically does
not have the effect of denying a permit. I can't confirm for
you, but I will check and get back to your staff. I know--I
believe the ARNI designation on CD 5 came after the COE
determination that the permit proposal wasn't compliant with
404. I could be wrong on that, Senator----
Senator Murkowski. I think----
Ms. Jackson [continuing]. But I will double check.
Senator Murkowski [continuing]. We want to check on that.
Ms. Jackson. Yes, okay. I will. So, I'll take that
statement back.
[The information follows:]
Designation Within Regions (Tanana River)
On June 9, 2009, the Environmental Protection Agency sent the Corps
of Engineers (COE) a comment letter identifying that the CD-5 pipeline,
as proposed, may result in substantial and unacceptable impacts to the
Coleville River Delta, and identified the Coleville River Delta as an
Aquatic Resource of National Importance (ARNI). After completing their
review of the proposed project, the COE denied the application for the
CD-5 pipeline in February 2010.
Ms. Jackson. But--we need to look at timing--but, I think
the important thing is that I don't see the ARNI designation,
which, as you mentioned, is used pretty infrequently. Looking
back historically, the data we had in-house said 1 percent of
CWA action, section 404 individual permit (IP) actions. The COE
reviews 3,000 to 5,000 IPs, permit applications, annually. I'm
told that the working relationship right now between the COE
and with the State of Alaska and the EPA regional office out
there is very good, and that this coordination's going to be
important, because I think everyone involved understands the
importance of these resources, not only to ConocoPhillips, but
to the Nation's energy and economic security.
Senator Murkowski. Well, we all need to be working together
on it, but I--part of the concern that we saw with CD-5 and the
designation up there is, the COE had approved a project. All
the stakeholders involved had agreed that this was the project.
Great public input on that. And then the EPA designation comes
in and essentially circumvents that public input. And there is
no public process with an ARNI designation, is the concern.
Ms. Jackson. Yes.
Senator Murkowski. And again, with very vague, or seemingly
vague, criteria so that you do not know--you have no idea,
going into it--whether or not this designation will be made
after the fact, after the process has been well underway, and
after a great deal of money, in many cases, has been put toward
it. And again, we're seeing and we have seen this now in two
critical, critical infrastructure projects, one that would
advance oil and gas development in the NPR-A, one that would
allow for access to military training grounds for our military,
and we can't get a bridge across yet another river. So, we need
to better handle, in terms of what is what the criteria is and,
more importantly, avoiding any arbitrary definitions that we
might see on a region by region or, as you say, a case-by-case
basis.
Ms. Jackson. Senator, just three things. It is important to
recognize that the COE permit denial was because the COE found
that there was a less damaging alternative that was available
to ConocoPhillips to meet the project purpose, not because of
the EPA's ARNI designation.
Number two, that being the case, I do believe--I want to
state again that the ARNI designation is not in any way a
denial of a permit, or does not mean that a permit is denied.
It is simply a recognition of extraordinarily sensitive natural
resources that may be in the area. And I don't think that it is
indicative of the permit.
And, last but not least, we are not regulating milk. We are
not regulating milk.
Senator Murkowski. And I would just add for the record
here, cracker-jack staff says that the ARNI designation on CD-5
was the summer of 2009, and the COE denial of the--of going
forward with the bridge was February 2010. So, the ARNI was, in
fact, designated first. Or that's what I'm told.
Ms. Jackson. Yes, and I think that the COE denial talks
about the need to look at less-damaging alternatives. And I
think that gives us some real places to work with the State and
the COE, I think--I hope, productively.
Senator Murkowski. Mr. Chairman.
Senator Reed. Senator Collins.
Senator Collins. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
BOILER MACT RULES
Administrator, I want to go back to an issue that I raised
in my opening statement about the EPA's proposed maximum
achievable control technology rules for boiler emissions.
As I mentioned to you back in September, 41 Senators wrote
to you to express great concern about the proposed EPA rules in
this area. And they joined a letter that Senator Mary Landrieu
and I led. But, I would note that what's remarkable about this
letter is, it's almost equally divided between Democrats and
Republicans, reflecting widespread concern, bipartisan concern,
about the proposed boiler MACT rules. And we wrote then that we
were concerned that they would result in significant job losses
to the forest products industry at a time when the industry was
really struggling, laying off workers, mills were closing, and
that we also were concerned that it would discourage the use of
wood biomass in woodpulp and paper facilities.
To the EPA's credit, you answered our letter very quickly
and said that you would take another look at the rules. And I
know you tried to get additional court time, and could only get
an additional month, rather than the 15 months, I think it was,
that you requested. Nevertheless the final rules came out last
month. And the initial estimates by the American Forest and
Paper Association is that even the final rules would lead to
the loss of thousands of jobs, at a time when our economy can
least afford it.
I know the EPA has claimed that the final rule--the cost of
the final rule has been lowered by 50 percent. I have to tell
you that that's cold comfort to me, because the initial rule,
according to industry estimates at least, was something in the
neighborhood of $3 billion in capital costs, and more than $11
billion for all manufacturing. The $3 billion was just for the
forest products industry. In Maine, the forest products
industry estimated that the initial rules would cost $640
million in compliance costs. So, even if you cut that in half,
that is huge. It's still a huge, onerous, costly burden on an
industry that is just barely starting to recover from the deep
recession.
So, I have a number of questions for you. One is, it's my
understand that, under the CAA, the Congress has given the EPA
the authority to develop alternative standards for emissions
with health thresholds in cases where the regular MACT limits
may be, quote, ``far more stringent than necessary to protect
public health.'' Back in 2004, the EPA did use a health-based
approach. Why wasn't a health-based approach used this time?
Ms. Jackson. There was significant analysis, Senator, of
exactly that point, whether there was justification for a
health-based emission limit--they're called HBELs--under the
law. And those standards were not justified, in our opinion.
There was significant comment on it. We heard from many, many
people. But, at the end of the day, in the final standards, we
did not believe that they were justifiable, and did not provide
the protection from toxic air pollutants that the law required.
Senator Collins. Well, I have to say that the Congress gave
you that authority for a reason. And to set limits that are far
more stringent than necessary to protect public health, at a
time, particularly, when the economy's very fragile, really
concerns me. Is the EPA going to accept further public comments
on the rules that were published last month, on February 23?
Ms. Jackson. Yes, Senator. Using the reconsideration
process, which is part of the CAA that's----
Senator Collins. Yes.
Ms. Jackson [continuing]. Built into the law, we are
soliciting, and now accepting, comments from members of the
public, because the final rule was significantly different than
the proposal.
Senator Collins. And how long--since, as you point out, the
final rule is significantly different--how long do you expect
that public comment period to be?
Ms. Jackson. I believe it's 60 days, Senator. I don't know;
I believe it's 60 days. But, we'll get back to you for the
record.
[The information follows:]
Boiler MACT
Groups representing sources covered by the rules have recently
filed a petition for an administrative stay of the Boiler MACT rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has also received a petition
for judicial review of the rule and a petition for reconsideration of
aspects of the rule. The EPA intends to make a decision regarding a
stay of the effective date of the rule by May 20, 2011, when the rule
is scheduled to go into effect. At the time the EPA makes a decision,
we will discuss a tentative schedule for the process which would
include an opportunity for public comment.
Senator Collins. I hope that it would be as long as
possible, 60 to 90 days, so that there can be ample time to
review the rules. The mills in my State have started doing
their analysis. They still have many, many concerns about what
the impact would be. I know the White House is asking the EPA,
and indeed all agencies, to take a hard look at pending rules
that have an impact on job creation and preservation. And I
certainly think this falls in that category.
Ms. Jackson. Thank you, Senator. We are--there is a 3-year
compliance period for these standards. And I expect, as part of
the reconsideration, we may be asked to delay the effective
date, while we're in the reconsideration process.
I do want to point out, because I think I might not have
been clear, that when we looked at the health-based emission
limit, we looked as to whether there was another standard that
would be protective for mercury, lead, arsenic, all of the acid
gases included in the rule. But, the rule, while being much
cheaper, has phenomenal public health benefits that I don't
want to have overlooked. By the year 2014, when it's
implemented, you know, 2,500 to 6,500 premature deaths avoided,
1,600 cases of bronchitis, 4,000 nonfatal heart attacks.
I am all for finding the absolute cheapest way to get
public health protection, but I didn't want you to think that
we had rejected that kind of approach. In fact, we looked at it
and determined that the technology allows us to get protection
without the need for any additional health-based standard.
Senator Collins. Well, I would suggest that all of us want
those public health benefits. They're extremely important. The
CAA was authored by Senator Ed Muskie, and our State is very
proud of that fact. But, clearly, the proposed rules--the
initial rules were a gross overreach. I think the EPA is making
progress in reducing the costs and coming up with a more
practical approach. But, I still think we can achieve the
health benefits that we desire without putting thousands of
people out of work.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Reed. Thank you.
Senator Blunt, questions?
Senator Blunt. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
On that boiler MACT issue--I signed a letter on that
recently, myself--would you have somebody send me the cost-
benefit analysis out of that rulemaking process?
Ms. Jackson. Certainly, sir. We can get you--
[The information follows:]
Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) for the Boiler MACT
The URL for the RIA is http://www.epa.gov/airquality/combustion/
docs/boilerria
20100429.pdf
Senator Blunt. Thank you.
NEW SOURCE REVIEW
On the New Source Review--I mentioned the Ameren action
earlier, that I've sent a couple letters on. I think that that
was almost 10 years ago, almost decade ago, when that change
was made so they could burn more low-sulfur coal. It seems
like, to me, that's a pretty long reachback for a review. I
wonder why nobody did that in the EPA before now. And how long
do you think the reachback from New Source Review might go?
Ms. Jackson. The New Source Review requirements of the CAA
came into place, I believe, in the 1977 amendments. And----
Senator Blunt. Right.
Ms. Jackson [continuing]. So, what they essentially do is
say that, when a plant is making a significant investment to
upgrade or rebuild, they should also invest in pollution
control. So, the cases, which have been pursued since 1999, not
necessary against Ameren, are lookbacks to see if companies,
when they made significant changes to their operations, did
indeed comply with the law by also upgrading their pollution
controls. Ameren announced, I think in February, that it's
going to install scrubbers to address sulfur dioxide at two
facilities. I can't talk about the specifics of the case that's
pending. It's in litigation over at Department of Justice. But,
that is a nonattainment area for sulfur dioxide. It's one of
the largest sources of pollution in the State.
Senator Blunt. And how do you find out that these plants
are making these changes in the plant?
Ms. Jackson. I haven't done these cases in a very, very
long time, sir--but, generally, back when I did them, it relied
on information from the energy administration. You would see
large increases in energy output or in bids into the grid,
depending on whether they're a regulated or nonregulated
utility. And then from there you could use information
gathering authority under the CAA to determine whether a
violation of the law had----
Senator Blunt. And if you see those output increases, then
you just routinely go in and check and see if they've done
anything to change the facility?
Ms. Jackson. There's also the routine checks that come as
part of the permit process. But, that would be the first thing
that might get an inspector or an enforcement agent concerned;
if they start to see huge amounts of energy increase, that
means you're burning more fossil fuel, which means more
pollution. And the question is, Has there been an investment in
reducing the air pollution that's concurrent with that?
Senator Blunt. Yes, it just seems to me it took an awful
long time to--either for them to get their output up or for the
EPA to decide this was something they wanted to look at, if
it's almost a decade after the change was made and then
suddenly there's an enforcement action. But, we'll continue to
talk about that. I am concerned about it.
COOLING TOWERS
On the cooling-tower issue, I think I've seen one estimate
of cost of added cooling towers to powerplants, to all the
powerplants that may need them, would cost up to $60 billion. I
think all that--in virtually every State, there's a process to
pass that along as part of the utility rate or--how do you
think--what's your sense of how you approach the cooling-tower
requirement? Are you going to look at every powerplant and try
to come up with--help them come up with the best cost-effective
thing for them? Or is there going to be a cookie-cutter
process, here, that you have to meet these criteria in this
size plant? Or what are you going to do there?
Ms. Jackson. Well, the EPA is working on a rule, sir.
That's as a result of a couple of Supreme Court--I think
they're Supreme Court cases. I really do not want to get in
front of the rulemaking process--we'll make a proposal; it'll
be out for public comment. The one thing I have said publicly
is that I don't believe in a one-size-fits-all approach on that
issue. So, I think that there is certainly some amount of
judgment. New facilities are different than older facilities.
Senator Blunt. Well, we're--you know, that's obviously a
big change in all of these facilities, if it happens. And I'll
watch that, as well. But, I'm going to be particularly
interested to see the cost-benefit analysis from the boiler
MACT rulemaking, and look forward to getting that.
Thank you, Chairman.
Senator Reed. Thank you, Senator Blunt.
At this point, Madam Administrator, I think we can--with
your permission--wrap it up.
Senator Murkowski. Could I just ask----
Senator Reed. Absolutely.
Senator Murkowski [continuing]. Very quickly?
Senator Reed. Madam Senator.
ALASKAN NATIVE VILLAGES PROGRAM
Senator Murkowski. You know, I've been very critical of the
EPA throughout this hearing, but I was raised by a mother who
is very generous. And she says if there is something good to be
said, you need to make sure that that is said, as well. And one
of the areas where Alaskans have benefited from the EPA and
their programs has been the Alaska Native Villages Program.
This, of course, helps us with water and sewer infrastructure.
We are seeing a reduction in this, in the budget area, this
year. This is a program that is run by the State, but the
assistance that we receive from the EPA has been extremely
helpful.
The question to you, Administrator Jackson, is whether or
not the EPA has done an assessment in understanding what the
overall needs of rural Alaska are for water and sewer
improvements? Do you have that? Do you work with the State on
that? We want to try to make the improvements that are
necessary in this area. We know that the need is great, but I'm
just wondering if an assessment has been made.
Ms. Jackson. Yes, Senator. There's an annual inventory of
need in Alaska. It's tracked by the Indian Health Service. As
of November 2010, the total drinking water need in Alaska was
413 million gallons, and the wastewater need was 300 million
gallons. So, obviously, it totals more than 700 million
gallons. I can tell you that, while the need is not going away,
in 1995, when the program began, only 45 percent of the
population had water and wastewater. In 2010, 93 percent has
water and wastewater. It is a program that is effective, that
is working. Forty-three percent of the need that's out there is
still to address first-time service to homes that have no pipes
or haul service. Forty-four percent of the needs address health
threats that are quite substantial.
Senator Murkowski. Well, we want to work with you on that.
We recognize that these are tight budgets. We understand that.
But, I think you know and appreciate, as I do, that these are
critical infrastructure needs for the health of those
residents. So, we will be working with you as we seek to find
ways to advance the funding. So, I appreciate that.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity for an
additional question.
ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS
Senator Reed. Thank you, Senator Murkowski.
And let me just amplify her remarks by simply saying
``sewers.''
Not just in Alaska, but around. We have many things in
common. And our concern for infrastructure is a common passion
amongst us.
Madam Director, we--Administrator--excuse me. We may have
additional written questions which we will submit to you; from
my colleagues that may not have been able to attend the
hearing. We'd ask you to respond very quickly. And I will ask
the staff to see if they can coordinate any written questions
by this Friday.
With that, Madam Administrator, thank you for your service
and your testimony.
Ms. Bennett, thank you, too.
[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 Jack Reed
rhode island narragansatt bay estuary--funding reduction
Question. Rhode Island is home to 1 of the Environmental protection
Agency's (EPA) 28 national estuaries, the Narragansett Bay Estuary
Program. These estuaries raise $15 for every $1 that the EPA provides
them through a Federal grant. I'm concerned that the administration
chose to reduce funding for the National Estuary Program (NEP) by 17
percent--for a total of $27 million--despite the program's excellent
track record of leveraging Federal investment. Your budget request
means that every estuary will receive a $200,000 cut to its budget next
year. That's a 25 percent cut. Can you explain why this program wasn't
a higher priority in your budget?
Answer. The EPA is maintaining its strong commitment to an
effective NEP, which is a long-standing example of the EPA's commitment
to work with communities to achieve water-quality goals on a watershed
basis. However, given budget constraints, we had to make difficult
decisions regarding where to pursue increases in funding and where to
reduce funding or maintain current funding levels. The President's
fiscal year 2012 request provides $600,000 per NEP, the same level the
administration requested in fiscal year 2010. The EPA believes that
this level of funding is sufficient to maintain continued positive
momentum in the NEP.
state grant funds
Question. Your budget request includes a 35 percent increase for
State and local air-quality grants and a 9 percent increase for water
pollution control grants. These increases will fund additional staff to
process permits more quickly and to enforce pollution limits. In
contrast, H.R. 1 includes a $50 million cut in fiscal year 2011 for
grants to State programs that fund air and water pollution control,
hazardous waste financial assistance and nonpoint source prevention.
That's a 5 percent cut. I am concerned that these cuts will have the
exact opposite effect of your budget request and result in employee
furloughs, slower permitting and reduced enforcement--particularly when
States would be forced to absorb them so late in the year. What kind of
measurable improvements do you expect your budget request to have on
State permitting and enforcement programs? Conversely, what impact do
you believe the cuts proposed in H.R. 1 would have on the ability of
States to do their work this year
Answer. I am concerned that inadequate funding for State and local
air-quality grants could slow down the preconstruction permitting
process for new and modified sources. A portion of the increased air
grant funding for State and local agencies ($25 million) will support
States as they begin to update their programs for issuing title V
operating permits and prevention of significant deterioration permits
to include the largest sources of greenhouse gases (GHGs). Air
operating permit programs are usually supported by permit fees paid by
sources of emissions. However, the new requirement to issue permits to
the largest sources of GHGs will require additional staffing and
training by State permitting agencies which are not initially paid by
fees. This increase will ensure that States have the necessary trained
and equipped staff to issue permits to sources in a timely and
efficient manner.
Another portion of the increase will support States' efforts to
implement revised NAAQS and regulations to address air toxics. Under
the previous administration, the EPA committed to review each NAAQS
within the 5-year timeframe prescribed by the Clean Air Act. In most
instances, the review of the latest science has resulted in the
Administrator lowering the NAAQS to be more stringent and more
protective of human health. As part of the implementation workload,
States will need additional resources to conduct compliance assistance
for regulated sources.
At this critical time in air pollution control programs and the
severe budget cuts within State agencies, reductions in support to
State and local agencies will delay public health gains from improved
air quality and negatively impact the private sector as sources are
delayed in obtaining construction and operating permits to construct
new facilities.
States use the 106 State grant program to implement their water
pollution control programs, including permitting, enforcement, water-
quality standards, Total Maximum Daily Loads, and ambient water-quality
monitoring. States target these grant resources for water issues of the
highest priority as identified by the States and the EPA. Over the past
decade, the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
universe of permitted facilities has expanded significantly from
approximately 372,700 to an estimated 1 million. This is a result of
industry trends and court decisions that have expended the scope of the
NPDES Program.
Increases are needed to address this expansion, to implement new
NPDES regulatory requirements, and support initiatives such as the
EPA's Clean Water Act Action Plan which seeks to revamp NPDES
permitting, compliance, and enforcement. Under this new plan, the EPA
is working with States to develop joint annual plans, integrate permit
and enforcement reviews to focus on the greatest water-quality threats,
improve transparency, and strengthen oversight to improve results and
consistency.
Permit issuance backlog is an issue in many States, and decreases
in State budgets have generally exacerbated the issue. An increase in
Federal grant funding could improve permit issuance rates, while cuts
in funding provided from the Federal budget could worsen the problem.
Finally, budget cuts could also result in States being unable to
meet their program commitments, and being forced to return their
authorized programs to the EPA. Due to resource concerns, Missouri is
currently investigating this option, and other States could follow.
Since Federal funding generally covers only a small percentage of the
overall cost of running a State water pollution control program,
operating a returned State NPDES Program would result in far higher
costs to the Federal Government.
diesel emission reduction act (dera) funding elimination
Question. I'm concerned that the EPA's budget request eliminates
$60 million for the DERA grant program, a program which the Congress
reauthorized for another 5 years just last December. The administration
has suggested that the DERA Program is no longer necessary because
older diesel engines will eventually age out of service on their own.
Yet the EPA's diesel emission standards do not address replacement of
the estimated 11 million older diesel engines that are still in use.
These engines are some of the worst producers of particulate matter and
smog-forming compounds, and they have service lives that can last 20 to
30 years. That's why the EPA estimates that every $1 invested in
funding diesel retrofits yields $13 in public health benefits. Can you
explain to us why you chose to eliminate this program? Do you really
believe that the DERA Program has run its course?
Answer. Since 2008, the Congress has appropriated more than $460
million for the DERA program, including $300 million as part of the
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. With this funding,
approximately 50,000 engines have been retrofitted (of the estimated 11
million vehicles and engines in the legacy fleet), and the EPA has
awarded:
--$249 million in competitive grants to fund implementation of EPA-
or CARB-verified and certified diesel emission reduction
technologies;
--$137 million in funds to participating States to implement grant
and loan programs for clean diesel projects;
--$45 million in competitive grants through the SmartWay finance
program to establish national low-cost revolving loans or other
financing programs that help fleets reduce diesel emissions;
and
--$32 million in competitive awards through the Emerging Technologies
Program to foster the development and field evaluation of
cutting-edge technologies.
Budget constraints for fiscal year 2012 required the EPA to make
tough choices; clearly the cost-effective DERA Program is an example.
While the DERA grants accelerate the pace at which dirty engines are
retired or retrofitted, pollution emissions from the legacy fleet will
be reduced over time without additional DERA funding as portions of the
fleet turnover and are replaced with new engines that meet modern
emissions standards.
misfueling of vehicles and engines with e15
Question. The EPA recently released a decision allowing 15 percent
ethanol to be used in model-year 2001 and newer cars. Without providing
consumers with clear labels and lower blend alternatives, this decision
could lead to accidental misfueling of vehicles and engines, such as
marine vehicles. What steps is the EPA taking to implement this
decision? How is the EPA working with the States or other parties to
address consumer concerns regarding misfueling or lack of availability
of lower ethanol blends?
Answer. Last fall, concurrently with the first partial waiver
decision for E15, the EPA issued a proposed rule to help mitigate the
potential for misfueling of vehicles, engines and equipment (including
boats and other marine vehicles) not covered by the partial waiver. The
proposed rule called for labeling of E15 pumps and product transfer and
survey requirements to help ensure E15 is properly labeled. The EPA
expects to issue a final rule later this spring. The EPA has also begun
discussions with stakeholders about establishing a public outreach and
education campaign to accompany the introduction of E15 into the
marketplace. The EPA recently received a petition from engine
manufacturers and owners asking the Agency to require the continued
availability of E10, and we are in the process of considering that
petition.
impact of h.r. 1 preventing the epa from issuing new cwa guidance
Question. H.R. 1 contains language that would prevent the EPA from
issuing new guidance to clarify which waters in the United States are
subject to regulation under the Clean Water Act (CWA). I am concerned
about what kind of impact this could have on the wetlands and waters we
have in Rhode Island. Would you please explain what efforts to block
the EPA issuing new CWA guidance actually mean in terms of public
health and water quality?
Answer. H.R. 1 would have prohibited the EPA from implementing,
administering, or enforcing new guidance or a new rule intended to
clarify the definition of ``waters of the US,'' after Supreme Court
decisions in SWANCC and Rapanos. The practical effect of the rider
would be to prevent EPA from taking administrative steps to improve
protections for the Nation's streams, lakes, wetlands, and other
waters. H.R. 1, if enacted, would have prevented the EPA from taking
actions to better protect all of our Nation's waters from chemical
wastes, sewage, animal wastes, oil spills, and a variety of other
contaminants. The result would be continued ambiguity regarding the
scope of waters regulated by CWA programs, which has increased workload
for field staff and contributed to uncertainty and delay for permit
applicants.
Efforts to block the EPA from clarifying waters of the United
States subject to the CWA could have negative effects on public health.
People use our Nation's waters for recreation, including activities
that put them in direct contact with the water, such as swimming,
waterskiing, jetskiing, and kayaking. Protecting smaller, upstream
waters protects larger downstream waters. However, under current
guidance interpreting the Supreme Court decisions, waters that flow for
only part of the year (intermittent and ephemeral streams), many
headwater streams, wetlands adjacent to these streams, and
geographically isolated wetlands are difficult to protect.
At least 117 million Americans--more than one-third of the U.S.
population--receive their drinking water from public systems fed at
least in part by waters that currently lack clear protection from
pollution and destruction.\1\ In Rhode Island, almost 565,000 people
receive drinking water from public drinking water systems that rely at
least in part on these intermittent, ephemeral, or headwater
streams.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ U.S. EPA, July 2009. ``Geographic Information Systems Analysis
of the Surface Drinking Water Provided by Intermittent, Ephemeral and
Headwater Streams in the U.S.'' Available at: http://water.epa.gov/
lawsregs/guidance/wetlands/surface_drinking_water_index.cfm
\2\ U.S. EPA, July 2009. ``Geographic Information Systems Analysis
of the Surface Drinking Water Provided by Intermittent, Ephemeral and
Headwater Streams in the U.S.'' Available at: http://water.epa.gov/
lawsregs/guidance/wetlands/upload/2009_12_28_wetlands_science_
surface_drinking_water_surface_drinking_water_results_state.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wetlands absorb flood waters and mitigate the impacts of flooding.
Filling of unprotected wetlands can lead to increases in the frequency
and magnitude of ``downstream'' flooding.
Water quality in larger downstream rivers, lakes, and coastal
waters depends in large part on water quality in the many small streams
and on wetlands that filter out pollution and improve water quality
before it reaches downstream waters. In addition, small streams and
wetlands provide habitat, food, spawning sites, and nursery areas for a
wide variety of plants, fish, amphibians, birds, and mammals.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Patrick J. Leahy
lake champlain
Question. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has been a very
strong partner in the clean-up of Lake Champlain for the past 20 years.
The EPA's interest in Lake Champlain seems stronger than ever,
especially given the Agency's move earlier this year to require a new
Phosphorus Total Maximum Daily Load Plan, likely to be written by the
EPA. Given the EPA's long-standing commitment then, I was disappointed
to see the President's budget proposal cut Lake Champlain funding by 65
percent from the fiscal year 2010 level. The proposed funding level for
Lake Champlain is especially hard to understand when in your testimony
you highlight the continued efforts to clean up America's great water
bodies and you propose increasing the Chesapeake Bay funding by 35
percent. Both the Bay and Lake Champlain watersheds face similar water-
quality issues as they seek to reduce nutrient and sediment pollution
in important ecosystems that span multiple States. Yet it appears the
Champlain basin is asked to do more with far less. How does the EPA
intend to fulfill its 20-year commitment to the Lake Champlain program
at such a reduced funding level?
Answer. The EPA is maintaining its commitment to the Lake Champlain
Program. We believe that this level of funding is sufficient to
continue forward momentum in the implementation of the Lake Champlain
Basin Management Plan, ``Opportunities for Action.'' For example, in
fiscal year 2012, this funding will enable the EPA to continue to work
with its partners to continue monitoring of phosphorus and other water-
quality parameters in the lake and tributaries, and to work with
partners to implement projects that will help reduce phosphorus loads
from all categories of sources (point, urban, and agricultural
nonpoint).
superfund
Question. The Superfund Program, while creating a wonderful legacy,
is often criticized for its slow clean-up pace. At an estimated 62
percent of listed Superfund sites, half or more of the job remains
undone. In Vermont, we have four sites still awaiting final cleanup.
How do you propose to tackle the ongoing cleanups and take on new
sites, especially in light of budget cuts while you face cleaning up
increasingly larger and more expensive sites?
Answer. To manage the EPA's clean-up programs more effectively and
efficiently, seeking to maximize the efficiency of the resources
available, the Agency has initiated a multi-year effort to integrate
and leverage our land clean-up authorities to address a greater number
of contaminated sites, accelerate cleanups where possible, and put
sites back into productive use while protecting human health and the
environment. One of the principal elements of the Integrated Cleanup
Initiative is to increase the project management focus and manage
projects to completion.
Cleanup of Superfund sites, typically the Nation's most
contaminated, presents significant challenges. Sites on the National
Priorities List (NPL) include, but are not limited to, contaminated
sediment sites that may cover miles of river bed or harbor bottoms;
mining sites with tailings piles causing acid mine drainage; landfills;
and abandoned factories, mills, smelters, and other industrial
facilities associated with wide-spread contamination. Often this
contamination is found both on the surface and subsurface of a site,
and frequently includes the contamination of groundwater. As a result,
cleanup is often complex and frequently takes many years to complete.
Before the EPA may initiate the on-site clean-up work, studies must
take place to determine appropriate remedies. Once studies are
complete, the remedies must be constructed or designed. Then the
physical on-site construction work begins. All of this work takes place
while the EPA works to ensure appropriate input from States, tribes,
and local communities. Despite these challenges, the EPA has made
substantial progress--67 percent of NPL sites (more than 1,060 sites)
have completed on-site construction--but the EPA recognizes that more
needs to be done.
In times of fiscal constraints, the EPA will endeavor to prioritize
its activities within the Superfund Program. For example, certain new
construction projects may be delayed at sites where the contamination
is determined to be relatively stable and the potential for human
exposures are low. However, the public should be assured that the EPA
will continue to take emergency actions should an immediate threat to
human health or the environment be identified.
Question. Has the expiration of the industry taxes affected the
EPA's ability to move cleanups forward?
Answer. The EPA continues to make progress cleaning up Superfund
sites through a combination of annual Congressional appropriations,
responsible party settlement funding, and State cost share
contributions. The level of funding appropriated by the Congress
annually for the Superfund Program is funded through the Superfund
trust fund as supplemented by general revenues as necessary.
Historically, Superfund Program appropriation levels have not been
contingent on the trust fund balance due to the supplementation from
general revenues. However, the revenues from the Superfund taxes will
provide a stable, dedicated source of revenue and decrease the burden
on individual taxpayers to foot the bill for the cleanup of sites where
no viable party has been identified.
Question. Have budget shortfalls for Superfund hindered your
enforcement for efforts, leading responsible parties to drag their feet
in negotiations in order to get a better deal, knowing that you do not
have the funds to conduct a cleanup?
Answer. The enforcement tools available to the EPA to compel
responsible parties to pay for or conduct cleanup are strong and do not
change. Responsible parties are aware that if they ``drag their feet''
during negotiations, the EPA has the authority to issue enforcement
orders unilaterally. Responsible parties are also aware that if they do
not comply with a unilateral order, the EPA may bring an action to
enforce the order or to conduct the cleanup and recover its clean-up
costs as well as seek treble damages. The level of funding for
enforcement proposed in the fiscal year 2012 budget ensures that the
EPA will have sufficient funds so that, if responsible parties fail to
perform their clean-up obligations, the EPA can use all available tools
to ensure that contaminated sites are cleaned up to protect human
health and the environment.
formaldehyde standards
Question. As your agency implements the Formaldehyde Standards for
Composite Wood Products Act, that passed both the House and Senate with
overwhelming bipartisan support and was signed into law by President
Obama last July, I urge you to carefully consider the implications for
small manufacturers of low-risk-engineered veneer and similar product
components. I am very concerned that if our small niche market
companies that produce smaller hardwood products, like guitar bodies
and gun stocks, that pose little if any health risks based on end usage
are held to the same standards as those items which were involved in
the original focus of this legislation it will have a crippling effect
on these companies.
Can you assure me that the EPA will take into account if these
regulations will be overly burdensome and costly to these
manufacturers? Or if it would have devastating financial impacts on
these companies?
Answer. The Formaldehyde Standards for Composite Wood Products Act,
enacted by the Congress in 2010, establishes formaldehyde emissions
standards for hardwood plywood, particleboard, and medium-density
fiberboard. As directed by the act, the EPA is evaluating all available
and relevant information from State authorities, industry, and other
available sources to determine whether the definition of the term
``hardwood plywood'' should exempt engineered veneer or any laminated
product. The EPA intends to address these products in its rulemaking in
a way that is protective of human health and the environment, taking
into account the concerns of manufacturers, particularly small business
manufacturers.
In addition, the Regulatory Flexibility Act, as amended by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA), requires
the EPA to estimate the number of small entities affected by a rule and
assess the impacts on those entities. As part of developing the
proposed rule to implement the Formaldehyde Standards for Composite
Wood Products Act, the EPA convened a Small Business Advocacy Review
(SBAR) Panel on February 3, 2011. The Panel is made up of
representatives from the agency conducting the rulemaking (the EPA in
this case), the Small Business Administration, and the Office of
Management and Budget. The SBREFA further requires the Panel to solicit
the advice and recommendations of Small Entity Representatives (SERs).
Outreach meetings on this rulemaking were held with the Panel and the
SERs on January 6, 2011, and February 17, 2011. The Panel also
solicited two rounds of written comments from the SERs. The EPA is
currently reviewing the comments received during the SBAR Panel
process.
Additional analysis is required for regulations that impose more
than a certain level of costs on society or raise novel policy or legal
issues. For example, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act requires, among
other things, a cost-benefit analysis and consideration of a reasonable
number of regulatory options for regulations that require the
expenditures of funds by State, local, or tribal governments in the
aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more in any one
year. Executive Order 12866 gives the Office of Management and Budget
the authority to review regulatory actions that are categorized as
significant, including rules that may have an annual effect on the
economy of $100 million or more. Although the EPA has not yet
determined the total costs that will be imposed by the formaldehyde
implementing regulations, the EPA is planning to prepare an economic
analysis that complies with the applicable requirements of the
Executive order.
The EPA has already received a great deal of input from
stakeholders, including small businesses, and will continue to do so as
we develop the implementing regulations. Pursuant to the Administrative
Procedures Act,\1\ the EPA typically provides at least 60 days for the
public to comment on proposed rules. The EPA is particularly interested
in information on the effects of potential regulatory options on small
businesses and on how the EPA can reduce the regulatory burden on small
businesses while fulfilling its statutory mandates and its mission to
protect human health and the environment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The Administrative Procedures Act governs the process by which
Federal agencies develop and issue regulations, establishes
requirements for publishing notices of proposed and final rulemaking in
the Federal Register, and provides opportunities for the public to
comment on notices of proposed rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Ben Nelson
combined sewer mandates
Question. Administrator Jackson, like many cities in the United
States, Omaha has a combined sewer system that was originally designed
to carry both storm water and sewage into the Missouri River and
Papillion Creek. That system is from the 1800s and we can all agree it
makes sense to upgrade this infrastructure and protect water quality
for citizens in Omaha. The reality though, is that it is going to cost
ratepayers more than $1.6 billion to meet the Environmental Protection
Agency's (EPA) combined sewer overflow (CSO) mandate. This will result
in a doubling of sewer fees over the next 15 years. Now I believe
States and localities have to be responsible for some costs, but in
cases like this when we're talking about enormous sums of money, I
think the Federal Government should be a partner when it is mandating
the upgrades. So my question is, how can the EPA be a partner in the
case of combined sewer mandates? Outside of the revolving loan funds,
which are something but far too small for projects like this, what
tools can the EPA make available to help cities comply with the
mandates it sets forth?
Answer. The Clean Water State Revolving Fund (SRF) is an important
Federal component that is helping to improve wastewater infrastructure
across the country. The President's fiscal year 2012 budget request
continues this administration's historic commitment to funding
wastewater infrastructure and brings the 4-year total for the SRFs to
approximately $16 billion (fiscal year 2009-fiscal year 2012).
The EPA also promotes the use of green infrastructure for CSO
mitigation. Green infrastructure reduces the volume of stormwater
entering combined sewer systems while simultaneously improving air
quality, reducing urban heat island effects and energy use, mitigating
climate change and its impacts, and fostering community redevelopment
by improving urban aesthetics. These multiple benefits can make green
infrastructure a cost-efficient method of upgrading combined sewer
systems but also, importantly, make it potentially eligible for a broad
range of Federal funding. By September 2011, the EPA will provide a
resource guide identifying Federal grant programs, (e.g., HUD, DOT) for
which green infrastructure projects may qualify for consideration along
with case studies, where available, of how these grant funds have been
applied to green infrastructure projects.
federal numeric nutrient criteria (nnc)
Question. Administrator Jackson, last November, the EPA finalized
Federal NNC for Florida's flowing waters and lakes. While few dispute
the need to reduce nutrients in Florida's waters, the EPA's proposal
has raised questions about the data underlying the proposal, the
potential costs of complying with numeric standards when they are
incorporated into discharge permit limitations, and disputes over
administrative flexibility. The concern I have is the EPA's actions in
Florida, will be a precedent for similar regulatory action elsewhere.
For example, environmental advocacy groups have petitioned or filed
lawsuits seeking to require the EPA to establish numeric nutrient
water-quality standards in Kansas and for the upper Mississippi River
basin. For Nebraska, this could require the EPA to establish standards
for discharge from hog and cattle feeding operations, or any point
source from livestock feeding, but it isn't clear that the means to
comply currently exist. I know you have stated several times that the
EPA does not intend to apply numeric standards to other States, but
with the petitions and lawsuits that are out there; what steps are you
taking to insure this will not be the case?
Answer. Nitrogen and phosphorus pollution is a widespread, serious
and growing problem. This pollution threatens our waters used for
drinking, fishing, swimming, and other recreational purposes. It can
hurt the tourism industry, decimate people's home and property values,
and cause illnesses. At this time, the EPA is not working on any
Federal standards for phosphorus and nitrogen for any States other than
ongoing efforts in Florida, but we are ready to provide support and
technical assistance as States work to tackle this serious water
pollution problem. To help States address this pollution, on March 16,
2011, the EPA sent a memorandum to our regions that builds on our
commitment to build partnerships with States and collaboration with
stakeholders on this issue. The EPA will use this memorandum as the
basis for discussions with interested and willing States about how to
move forward on tackling this issue recognizing that there is no one-
size-fits-all solution. The EPA strongly believes States should address
phosphorus and nitrogen pollution through standards they develop and
supports these critical State efforts.
Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of Water,
Washington, DC, March 16, 2011.
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Working in Partnership with States to Address Phosphorus and
Nitrogen Pollution through Use of a Framework for State
Nutrient
Reductions
FROM: Nancy K. Stoner
Acting Assistant Administrator
TO: Regional Administrators, Regions 1-10
This memorandum reaffirms EPA's commitment to partnering with
states and collaborating with stakeholders to make greater progress in
accelerating the reduction of nitrogen and phosphorus loadings to our
nation's waters. The memorandum synthesizes key principles that are
guiding and that have guided Agency technical assistance and
collaboration with states and urges the Regions to place new emphasis
on working with states to achieve near-term reductions in nutrient
loadings.
Over the last 50 years, as you know, the amount of nitrogen and
phosphorus pollution entering our waters has escalated dramatically.
The degradation of drinking and environmental water quality associated
with excess levels of nitrogen and phosphorus in our nation's water has
been studied and documented extensively, including in a recent joint
report by a Task Group of senior state and EPA water quality and
drinking water officials and managers.\1\ As the Task Group report
outlines, with U.S. population growth, nitrogen and phosphorus
pollution from urban stormwater runoff, municipal wastewater
discharges, air deposition, and agricultural livestock activities and
row crop runoff is expected to grow as well. Nitrogen and phosphorus
pollution has the potential to become one of the costliest and the most
challenging environmental problems we face. A few examples of this
trend include the following:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ An Urgent Call to Action: Report of the State-EPA Nutrients
Innovations Task Group, August 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
--50 percent of U.S. streams have medium to high levels of nitrogen
and phosphorus.
--78 percent of assessed coastal waters exhibit eutrophication.
--Nitrate drinking water violations have doubled in eight years.
--A 2010 USGS report on nutrients in ground and surface water
reported that nitrates exceeded background concentrations in 64
percent of shallow monitoring wells in agriculture and urban
areas, and exceeded EPA's Maximum Contaminant Levels for
nitrates in 7 percent or 2,388 of sampled domestic wells.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Nutrients in the Nation's Streams and Groundwater: National
Findings and Implications, US Geological Survey, 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
--Algal blooms are steadily on the rise; related toxins have
potentially serious health and ecological effects.
States, EPA and stakeholders, working in partnership, must make
greater progress in accelerating the reduction of nitrogen and
phosphorus loadings to our nation's waters. While EPA has a number of
regulatory tools at its disposal, our resources can best be employed by
catalyzing and supporting action by states that want to protect their
waters from nitrogen and phosphorus pollution. Where states are willing
to step forward, we can most effectively encourage progress through on-
the-ground technical assistance and dialogue with state officials and
stakeholders, coupled with cooperative efforts with agencies like USDA
with expertise and financial resources to spur improvement in best
practices by agriculture and other important sectors.
States need room to innovate and respond to local water quality
needs, so a one-size-fits-all solution to nitrogen and phosphorus
pollution is neither desirable nor necessary. Nonetheless, our prior
work with states points toward a framework of key elements that state
programs should incorporate to maximize progress. Thus, the Office of
Water is providing the attached ``Recommended Elements of a State
Nutrients Framework'' as a tool to guide ongoing collaboration between
EPA Regions and states in their joint effort to make progress on
reducing nitrogen and phosphorus pollution. I am asking that each
Region use this framework as the basis for discussions with interested
and willing states. The goal of these discussions should be to tailor
the framework to particular state circumstances, taking into account
existing tools and innovative approaches, available resources, and the
need to engage all sectors and parties in order to achieve effective
and sustained progress.
While the Framework recognizes the need to provide flexibility in
key areas, EPA believes that certain minimum building blocks are
necessary for effective programs to manage nitrogen and phosphorus
pollution. Of most importance is prioritizing watersheds on a state-
wide basis, setting load-reduction goals for these watersheds based on
available water quality information, and then reducing loadings through
a combination of strengthened permits for point-sources and reduction
measures for nonpoint sources and other point sources of stormwater not
designated for regulation. Our experience in almost 40 years of Clean
Water Act implementation demonstrates that motivated states, using
tools available under Federal and state law and relying on good science
and local expertise, can mobilize local governments and stakeholders to
achieve significant results.
It has long been EPA's position that numeric nutrient criteria
targeted at different categories of water bodies and informed by
scientific understanding of the relationship between nutrient loadings
and water quality impairment are ultimately necessary for effective
state programs. Our support for numeric standards has been expressed on
several occasions, including a June 1998 National Strategy for
Development of Regional Nutrient Criteria, a November 2001 national
action plan for the development and establishment of numeric nutrient
criteria, and a May 2007 memo from the Assistant Administrator for
Water calling for accelerated progress toward the development of
numeric nutrient water quality standards. As explained in that memo,
numeric standards will facilitate more effective program implementation
and are more efficient than site-specific application of narrative
water quality standards. We believe that a substantial body of
scientific data, augmented by state-specific water quality information,
can be brought to bear to develop such criteria in a technically sound
and cost-effective manner.
EPA's focus for nonpoint runoff of nitrogen and phosphorus
pollution is on promoting proven land stewardship practices that
improve water quality. EPA recognizes that the best approaches will
entail States, Federal agencies, conservation districts, private
landowners and other stakeholders working collaboratively to develop
watershed-scale plans that target the most effective practices to the
acres that need it most. In addition, our efforts promote innovative
approaches to accelerate implementation of agricultural practices,
including through targeted stewardship incentives, certainty agreements
for producers that adopt a suite of practices, and nutrient credit
trading markets. We encourage Federal and state agencies to work with
NGOs and private sector partners to leverage resources and target those
resources where they will yield the greatest outcomes. We should
actively apply approaches that are succeeding in watersheds across the
country.
USDA and State Departments of Agriculture are vital partners in
this effort. If we are to make real progress, it is imperative that EPA
and USDA continue to work together but also strengthen and broaden
partnerships at both the national and state level. The key elements to
success in BMP implementation continue to be sound watershed and on-
farm conservation planning, sound technical assistance, appropriate and
targeted financial assistance and effective monitoring. Important
opportunities for collaboration include EPA monitoring support for
USDA's Mississippi River Basin Initiative as well as broader efforts to
use EPA section 319 funds (and other funds, as available) in
coordination with USDA programs to engage creatively in work with
communities and watersheds to achieve improvements in water quality.
Accordingly the attached framework envisions that as states develop
numeric nutrient criteria and related schedules, they will also develop
watershed scale plans for targeting adoption of the most effective
agricultural practices and other appropriate loading reduction measures
in areas where they are most needed. The timetable reflected in a
State's criteria development schedule can be a flexible one provided
the state is making meaningful near-term reductions in nutrient
loadings to state waters while numeric criteria are being developed.
The attached framework is offered as a planning tool, intended to
initiate conversation with states, tribes, other partners and
stakeholders on how best to proceed to achieve near- and long-term
reductions in nitrogen and phosphorus pollution in our nation's waters.
We hope that the framework will encourage development and
implementation of effective state strategies for managing nitrogen and
phosphorus pollution. EPA will support states that follow the framework
but, at the same time, will retain all its authorities under the Clean
Water Act.
With your hard work, in partnership with the states, USDA and other
partners and stakeholders, I am confident we can make meaningful and
measurable near-term reductions in nitrogen and phosphorus pollution.
As part of an ongoing collaborative process, I look forward to
receiving feedback from each Region, interested states and tribes, and
stakeholders.
Attachment
Cc: Directors, State Water Programs
Directors, Great Water Body Programs
Directors, Authorized Tribal Water Quality Standards Programs
Interstate
Water Pollution Control Administrators
recommended elements of a state framework for managing nitrogen and
phosphorus pollution
Prioritize Watersheds on a Statewide Basis for Nitrogen and Phosphorus
Loading Reductions
--Use best available information to estimate Nitrogen (N) &
Phosphorus (P) loadings delivered to rivers, streams, lakes,
reservoirs, etc. in all major watersheds across the state on a
Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) 8 watershed scale or smaller
watershed (or a comparable basis.)
--Identify major watersheds that individually or collectively account
for a substantial portion of loads (e.g. 80 percent) delivered
from urban and/or agriculture sources to waters in a state or
directly delivered to multi-jurisdictional waters.
--Within each major watershed that has been identified as accounting
for the substantial portion of the load, identify targeted/
priority sub-watersheds on a HUC 12 or similar scale to
implement targeted N & P load reduction activities.
Prioritization of sub-watersheds should reflect an evaluation
of receiving water problems, public and private drinking water
supply impacts, N & P loadings, opportunity to address high-
risk N & P problems, or other related factors.
Set Watershed Load Reduction Goals Based Upon Best Available
Information
Establish numeric goals for loading reductions for each targeted/
priority sub-watershed (HUC 12 or similar scale) that will collectively
reduce the majority of N & P loads from the HUC 8 major watersheds.
Goals should be based upon best available physical, chemical,
biological, and treatment/control information from local, state, and
Federal monitoring, guidance, and assistance activities including
implementation of agriculture conservation practices, source water
assessment evaluations, watershed planning activities, water quality
assessment activities, Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDL) implementation,
and National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permitting
reviews.
Ensure Effectiveness of Point Source Permits in Targeted/Priority Sub-
Watersheds for:
--Municipal and Industrial Wastewater Treatment Facilities that
contribute to significant measurable N & P loadings;
--All Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs) that discharge
or propose to discharge; and/or
--Urban Stormwater sources that discharge into N & P-impaired waters
or are otherwise identified as a significant source.
Agricultural Areas
In partnership with Federal and State Agricultural partners, NGOs,
private sector partners, landowners, and other stakeholders, develop
watershed-scale plans that target the most effective practices where
they are needed most. Look for opportunities to include innovative
approaches, such as targeted stewardship incentives, certainty
agreements, and N & P markets, to accelerate adoption of agricultural
conservation practices. Also, incorporate lessons learned from other
successful agricultural initiatives in other parts of the country.
Storm Water and Septic Systems
Identify how the State will use state, county and local government
tools to assure N and P reductions from developed communities not
covered by the Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4) program,
including an evaluation of minimum criteria for septic systems, use of
low impact development/green infrastructure approaches, and/or limits
on phosphorus in detergents and lawn fertilizers.
Accountability and Verification Measures
--Identify where and how each of the tools identified in sections 3,
4 and Swill be used within targeted/priority sub-watersheds to
assure reductions will occur.
--Verify that load reduction practices are in place.
--To assess/demonstrate progress in implementing and maintaining
management activities and achieving load reductions goals:
establish a baseline of existing N & P loads and current Best
Management Practices (BMP) implementation in each targeted/
priority sub-watershed, conduct ongoing sampling and analysis
to provide regular seasonal measurements of N & P loads leaving
the watershed, and provide a description and confirmation of
the degree of additional BMP implementation and maintenance
activities.
Annual Public Reporting of Implementation Activities and Biannual
Reporting of Load Reductions and Environmental Impacts
Associated With Each Management Activity in Targeted Watersheds
--Establish a process to annually report for each targeted/priority
sub-watershed: status, challenges, and progress toward meeting
N & P loading reduction goals, as well as specific activities
the state has implemented to reduce N & P loads such as:
reducing identified practices that result in excess N & P
runoff and documenting and verifying implementation and
maintenance of source-specific best management practices.
--Share annual report publically on the state's website with request
for comments and feedback for an adaptive management approach
to improve implementation, strengthen collaborative local,
county, state, and Federal partnerships, and identify
additional opportunities for accelerating cost-effective N & P
load reductions.
Develop Work Plan and Schedule for Numeric Criteria Development
Establish a work plan and phased schedule for N and P criteria
development for classes of waters (e.g., lakes and reservoirs, or
rivers and streams). The work plan and schedule should contain interim
milestones including but not limited to data collection, data analysis,
criteria proposal, and criteria adoption consistent with the Clean
Water Act. A reasonable timetable would include developing numeric N
and P criteria for at least one class of waters within the state (e.g.,
lakes and reservoirs, or rivers and streams) within 3-5 years
(reflecting water quality and permit review cycles), and completion of
criteria development in accordance with a robust, state-specific
workplan and phased schedule.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Thad Cochran
superfund national priority list (npl)
Question. I noticed that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
added 10 hazardous waste sites to the Superfund NPL, and 15 sites were
proposed to be added to the list. Two of these proposed sites are in
Mississippi. How long do you expect it will take for these two sites to
be placed on the NPL? What can the communities expect from the EPA
during this process?
Answer. The two Mississippi sites, Red Panther and Kerr-McGee
Columbus were proposed to the NPL on March 10, 2011. There is a 60-day
public comment period to provide support or opposition to the inclusion
on the NPL of any site included on the proposal. The EPA will evaluate
these comments before making any final decision; the earliest a
decision on either site will be made is September 2011.
There have been a number of public meetings on these sites related
to both removal actions and potential NPL listing. There have been
three public meetings for the Red Panther site specifically related to
listing, with another meeting set for this summer. There has been one
public meeting on the Kerr-McGee site related to listing, and the EPA
personnel involved with the site maintain frequent communications with
the community and have a very visible on-site presence.
The EPA works very closely with the community at all stages of the
investigation and cleanup of sites. For example, before a remedial
investigation begins, the EPA conducts community interviews to solicit
people's concerns and determine how and when people want to be involved
with the cleanup. Based on the community interviews and other relevant
information, the EPA prepares a Community Involvement Plan that
identifies the outreach activities the Agency expects to undertake. In
addition, the EPA establishes an information repository and
administrative record that will contain relevant site documents, and
notifies the community about where to find the information. The EPA
also informs the community about the availability of Technical
Assistance Grants. These activities and more are designed to provide
opportunities for the community to be involved in the site cleanup, and
to help shape the decisions that are made about how the site will be
addressed.
community water systems training and technical assistance
Question. Mississippi has approximately 850 community water
systems. The majority are located in small rural communities with
limited resources to comply with Federal environmental regulations, and
are operated by part-time operators. The training and technical
assistance funded through your agency allow these communities to
protect their drinking water while enhancing public health. I have
heard from hundreds of communities over the years regarding this
assistance that has been in effect for more than 30 years and the
positive impact on a local community's ability to have adequately
trained personnel necessary to comply with complex EPA regulations. I
have also been told that without this assistance, communities with
limited means would be forced to hire outside entities for compliance,
raise rates, or remain out of compliance. Do you believe this
assistance is directly related to increased compliance, sustainability,
and enhanced public health in rural America?
Answer. The assistance provided to States via the EPA's Public
Water System Supervision (PWSS) grant programs and the technical
assistance ``set-asides'' of the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund
(DWSRF) are key components for assuring that drinking water systems are
sustainable and deliver water that meets safe standards to consumers
For example, the Mississippi Department of Public Health utilizes their
PWSS grant funds to provide staff engineering assistance to small water
systems struggling to address disinfection byproducts and other
compliance challenges. States also utilize DWSRF set-asides to fund
circuit riders to help small systems with technical compliance issues,
as well as fund third-party technical assistance providers to assist
with energy and water loss audits and associated projects.
Question. Your budget does not explicitly include any funding to
assist small rural water systems to comply with EPA rules and
regulations. If we adopt your budget proposal, how will you assure the
committee that these communities will be able to provide safe and
affordable drinking water?
Answer. Since 1976, the EPA has annually received a Congressional
appropriation under section 1443(a) of the Safe Drinking Water Act
(SDWA) to assist States, territories, and tribes in carrying out their
PWSS programs. Designated State agencies, territories, and tribes that
have been delegated Primary Enforcement Responsibility for the PWSS
Program are eligible to receive grants. The 2012 budget includes a
request to again fund the PWSS programs. These grants help eligible
States, territories, and tribes develop and implement a PWSS Program
adequate to enforce the requirements of the SDWA and ensure that water
systems comply with the National Primary Drinking Water Regulations.
The EPA continues to be an active partner in the PWSS State Program to
assist drinking water communities. Also, the EPA is upgrading the data
management component of Safe Drinking Water Information System (SDWIS)
that States can use during administration of their State drinking water
programs. SDWIS/State houses information related to State inventory of
systems, as well as required sampling and monitoring regiments. The
modified system is expected to enable States to redirect resources to
areas other than data management including providing increase attention
to technical assistance needs of small systems.
In addition, the SDWA allows States to utilize several ``set-
asides'' of their DWSRF to provide technical assistance to community
water systems serving 10,000 or fewer persons to fund technical
assistance initiatives. These ``set-asides'' include: small systems
technical assistance (2 percent); administrative and technical
assistance (4 percent); State program management (10 percent); and
local assistance and other State programs (15 percent). Activities paid
for with these funds include project planning, circuit riders, and
special small system training. States use ``set-aside'' funds to
provide technical assistance and training to help small systems build
the capacity they need to comply with current and future drinking water
rules.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Susan Collins
water infrastructure funding
Question. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
cut $960 million from the fiscal year 2010 level for the Clean Water
and Drinking Water State Revolving Funds. Even with the extra infusion
of funds we have seen in recent years, Maine, like many other States,
faces ongoing need for water infrastructure funding and significant
budget pressures. Waste management experts estimate that the capital
need for repair and replacement projects in Maine over the next 5 years
will cost at least 10 times the amount that the State was allocated in
fiscal year 2010. Given that already overburdened municipalities are
attempting to satisfy the EPA wastewater and drinking water mandates,
how can we work to ensure adequate funding is available for States to
meet such requirements?
Answer. The President's fiscal year 2012 budget request maintains
this administration's historic commitment to funding drinking water and
wastewater infrastructure across the country. As part of the
administration's long-term strategy, the EPA is implementing a
Sustainable Water Infrastructure Policy that focuses on working with
States and communities to enhance technical, managerial, and financial
capacity. Important to the technical capacity will be enhancing
alternatives analysis to expand ``green infrastructure'' options and
their multiple benefits. Future year budgets for the State Revolving
Funds (SRF) gradually adjust, taking into account repayments, through
2016 with the goal of providing, on average, about 5 percent of water
infrastructure spending annually. When coupled with increasing
repayments from loans made in past years by States, the annual funding
will allow the SRFs to finance a significant percentage in clean water
and drinking water infrastructure. Federal dollars provided through the
SRFs will act as a catalyst for efficient system-wide planning and
ongoing management of sustainable water infrastructure. Overall, the
administration requests a combined $2.5 billion for the SRFs. This
request brings the 4-year total for SRFs to approximately $16 billion
(fiscal year 2009-fiscal year 2012, including American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act funds. These historic levels of funding demonstrate an
unprecedented level of support for these programs and the communities
that depend on them to help finance their water infrastructure needs.
emission standards for heavy-duty vehicles
Question. As the EPA works with the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration (NHTSA) to implement the program to improve fuel economy
for cars and trucks, I am interested in learning more about the EPA's
plans to issue new regulations to curtail the emissions of certain
heavy-duty vehicles.
Agriculture and forest products businesses in Maine rely on heavy-
duty trucks to receive raw materials and ship products more
economically, thus helping to preserve and create jobs. I support
helping to produce a new generation of clean vehicles to lower our
dependence on foreign oil and cut down on pollution, and have worked on
legislation to advance the research and development of heavy-duty
hybrid technology for trucks and to curb emissions by keeping the
heaviest trucks on Federal interstates, rather than diverting them to
local secondary roads and downtowns.
Can you discuss how the EPA intends to use the $4 million it is
requesting for fiscal year 2012, and detail what steps the EPA plans to
take to work with industry and NHTSA in developing emissions for heavy-
duty vehicles, which play such an integral role in our economy?
Answer. The EPA and the Department of Transportation's ongoing
heavy-duty greenhouse gas (GHG) and fuel-economy rule has received
unprecedented support from the trucking industry, including engine and
truck manufacturers, trucking associations, and others. We have worked
closely with industry and other stakeholders throughout the standards
proposal process, including holding two public hearings in fall 2010.
We are also continuing to meet with the regulated industry to make sure
we have fully understood their comments. We are confident that the
final action will be one that both improves trucking efficiency overall
and maintains the full and broad functionality of trucking in our
economy.
In support of the heavy-duty GHG Program, the EPA will have
significant implementation needs to facilitate the success of the
program. This includes the development of new testing capabilities, new
IT structures, and the development of additional models and test
protocols to ensure compliance. Unlike the light-duty sector we do not
have existing protocols, test procedures, and baseline models for the
heavy-duty sector. Putting this infrastructure into place will take 2
to 3 years, and with program implementation beginning in early fiscal
year 2014, fiscal year 2012 will be a critical year for these heavy-
duty GHG activities.
emergency preparedness
Question. We have all watched in horror over the last week as the
disaster in Japan continues to unfold. Our hearts obviously go out to
all those who are suffering amid that country's worst crisis since
World War II. Here at home, I think many people were surprised this
week to awake to news reports that the nuclear crisis in Japan could
lead to radiation clouds that travel with the jet stream and make their
way to the Western United States.
Administrator Jackson, I note the EPA is requesting $38.7 million
in fiscal year 2012 for homeland security functions related to
emergency response in the event of an incident involving harmful
chemical, biological, and radiological substances. Can you elaborate on
the status of plans for interagency coordination should such an event
or test occur here in the United States?
Answer. The Nuclear/Radiological Incident Annex to the National
Response Framework (NRF) describes the policies, situations, concepts
of operations, and responsibilities of the Federal departments and
agencies governing the immediate response and short-term recovery
activities for incidents involving release of radioactive materials to
address the consequences of the event. Domestic incidents may occur on
Federal-owned or licensed facilities, privately owned property, urban
centers, or other areas and may vary in severity from the small to the
catastrophic. Coordinating agencies provide leadership, expertise, and
authorities to implement critical aspects of the response in accordance
with authorities and capabilities. The EPA serves as a coordinating
agency for environmental response and cleanup for incidents other than
those involving the Departments of Defense and Energy, NASA and NRC
facilities or assets. The EPA may serve as a cooperating agency in
support of any domestic nuclear incident. Incidents are generally
managed at the lowest possible level and will adapt to meet
requirements under the NRF.
The EPA's primary capabilities to support a domestic nuclear
incident include:
--Integration into the Federal Radiological Monitoring and Assessment
Center as well as participation in the Advisory Team for
Environment, Food, and Health.
--Resources, including personnel, detection equipment, sample
collection and laboratory analysis support for site
characterization and defining the extent of contamination.
--Providing nationwide environmental monitoring data from the RadNet
for assessing the national impact of the incident.
--Expertise and support on use of data from initial assessments and
extent of contamination efforts for guidance on health and
safety recommendations of response personnel and for use by
decisionmakers to prioritize areas of decontamination.
--Application of its extensive experience in addressing hazardous
waste sites to support the cleanup of the contaminated area.
Question. How would the EPA work with other Federal agencies to get
messages out to the general public? What is your interaction with the
Department of Homeland Security (DHS) on general public messaging pre
and postdisaster?
Answer. As part of the DHS' responsibility to coordinate incident
management under Homeland Security Presidential Directive 5, the NRF
Incident Communications Emergency Policy and Procedures (ICEPP)
provides detailed guidance to Federal incident communicators on
activities to be initiated in conjunction with incidents requiring a
coordinated Federal response. It is applicable to all Federal
departments and agencies responding under the NRF. It establishes
mechanisms to prepare and deliver coordinated and sustained messages
regarding incidents requiring a coordinated Federal response, and
provides for prompt Federal acknowledgement of an incident and
communication of emergency information to the public during incident
management operations.
The ICEPP is comprised of two annexes contained in the NRF:
--Public Affairs Support Annex.--Describes the interagency policies
and procedures for incident communications with the public.
--ESF #15--External Affairs Annex.--Outlines the functions,
resources, and capabilities for external affairs.
--As part of the response under ESF #15, DHS sets up conference lines
to initiate and coordinate messages across levels of
government.
--The National Incident Communication Conference Line is a channel
for coordination across Federal agencies and may include
affected States, as appropriate.
--The State Incident Communication Conference Line is a channel for
the Federal agencies to coordinate directly with the State and
local communicators.
--The Private Sector Incident Communications Conference Line is a
channel for Federal agencies to coordinate with the private
sector.
Assembled by the Federal Emergency Management Agency's Chemical,
Biological, Radiological, Nuclear and Explosives Branch, the EPA co-
leads the Nuclear/Radiological Communications Working Group. This group
(made up of members from 10 Federal agencies and multiple State and
local radiation and communications specialists) is a forum for
interested parties at the Federal, State, and local level to exchange
ideas and discuss nuclear/radiation related communications projects.
Most recently, this group has been working on pre and postincident
messages for nuclear detonations.
During any domestic nuclear incident, the EPA would work with other
departments and agencies to provide fully coordinated information to
the public. Also, based on recent events, we know that the EPA will
play a significant role in providing monitoring information to the
public, primarily through the EPA Web site. For example, while the
nuclear incident in Japan is not considered a U.S. response effort, the
EPA has used its Web site to keep the public informed about the data
that is continuously collected from the RadNet monitors.
rural water technical assistance
Question. Maine has 382 community water systems. Owners and
operators of these systems have an enormous and very important
responsibility to provide safe drinking water. For years, Maine's small
water systems have relied on support and technical assistance made
possible through national funding provided by both the USDA and the EPA
to help water system operators to understand and achieve compliance
with increasingly complex Federal rules and regulations. In previous
years, the Congress has set aside funding for rural water technical
assistance within the Environmental Programs Management account of the
EPA's budget. I was disappointed to see that the President did not
specifically include this funding within his fiscal year 2012 request.
With regard to both the current year and fiscal year 2012, it is
unclear as to whether we will have the opportunity to set aside money
within the EPM account for rural water technical assistance. My
question is without clear direction from the Congress to direct funding
to rural water technical assistance, will the EPA continue to make that
investment?
Answer. Recent Congressional appropriations have typically included
specific funding and direction for approximately $16 million annually
in small system technical assistance. Absent this directed funding, the
EPA has two other avenues where systems may receive resources to
support technical assistance needs. Since 1976, the EPA has annually
received a Congressional appropriation under section 1443(a) of the
Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) to assist States, territories, and
tribes in carrying out their Public Water System Supervision programs.
The 2012 budget includes a request to again fund the Public Water
System Supervision (PWSS) programs. These grants help eligible States,
territories, and tribes develop and implement a PWSS program adequate
to enforce the requirements of the SDWA and ensure that water systems
comply with the National Primary Drinking Water Regulations. The EPA
will continue to be an active partner in the PWSS State Program to
assist all communities, including rural ones, in providing safe
drinking water.
In addition, the Drinking Water State Revolving Loan Fund (DWSRF)
provides States with the flexibility to take a variety of ``set-
asides'' from their Federal capitalization grant to fund technical
assistance, State programs, and special assistance to water systems.
These optional ``set-asides'' total up to 31 percent of a State's
capitalization grant:
--4 percent for administration of the DWSRF Program;
--2 percent for technical assistance to systems serving 10,000 or
fewer persons (project planning, circuit riders, and special
small system training);
--10 percent for development and implementation of State programs
(PWSS, source water protection, capacity development, and
operator certification); and
--15 percent for local assistance (part of a capacity development
strategy; establishment and implementation of a wellhead
protection program; and loans for source water protection).
States use set-aside funds to provide technical assistance and
training to help small systems build the capacity they need to comply
with current and future drinking water rules. The EPA continues to
encourage States to carefully consider how to balance utilization of
the available ``set-asides'' as they administer their State program and
small system technical assistance needs.
Question. Will the EPA provide on-site technical assistance to help
Maine's community water systems to understand and comply with the EPA's
complex requirements?
Answer. The EPA will continue to encourage States to take full
advantage of flexibility afforded them by the State PWSS Grant Program
and the ``set-asides'' available from the SRFs to provide technical
assistance to small communities. Specifically regarding Maine, EPA
Region 1 New England is providing the following services to Maine water
systems: Effective Utility Management training, system specific
implementation plans, and on-site technical assistance to improve long-
term management and operations for six systems; funding two mutual aid
Water/Wastewater Agency Response Network (WARN) workshops to help
recruit more members for Maine WARN, and to facilitate a tabletop
exercise with the objective of practicing the Maine WARN operational
plan; revising an existing pocket guide to help small suppliers improve
sampling techniques; developing a Maine specific document to assist
business owners that are also public water suppliers; and initiating
outreach efforts to educate Maine restaurants with their own pubic
water supplies.
Question. Do you believe you have the authority to provide this
technical assistance?
Answer. Provisions of the Safe Drinking Water Act section 1452
provide authority for a national technical assistance ``set-aside'', as
well as several ``set-asides'' available to States of their Federal
capitalization grant to provide technical assistance or to fund
technical assistance initiatives to community water systems serving
10,000 or fewer persons.
regulatory review
Question. Earlier this year the administration announced a
government-wide search for outdated and inefficient regulations that
make our country less competitive. I am interested in understanding
what this will mean in practice as during the past 2 years, the
administration's track record has been one of imposing costly new
burdens and red tape on employers. We saw an example of this last
spring when the EPA did not provide enough time and training
opportunities to allow small businesses to comply with lead paint
abatement rules in order to avoid steep fines. Maine's forest products
industry is facing steep costs associated with the EPA's Boiler MACT
rules. Can you give me an update on how the EPA is undertaking its
regulatory review? Will you immediately take action to alter or
eliminate outdated and inefficient regulations as they are identified?
What does this review mean for regulations that are currently in the
pipeline?
Answer. On January 18, 2011, President Obama issued Executive Order
13563 outlining his regulatory strategy to support continued economic
growth and job creation, while protecting the safety, health, and
rights of all Americans. This Executive order presents the EPA with an
opportunity to look at our regulatory program to ensure that it
accomplishes the Agency's mission to protect human health and to
safeguard the natural environment while being mindful of the impact on
continued economic growth and job creation.
The Executive order requires that all agencies develop and submit
to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), by May 18, 2011, a
preliminary plan to periodically review existing significant
regulations to determine whether any should be modified, streamlined,
expanded, or repealed. The EPA takes this directive from the President
very seriously and we engaged in several outreach efforts throughout
the country to solicit public feedback on how we can improve our
regulatory programs and process. One of the characteristics we seek to
emphasize in our retrospective review is transparency of the review
process itself. The EPA is committed to ensuring that its rulemaking
procedures, including retrospective reviews, are open and accessible to
the public so that interested citizens and stakeholders can be informed
about and participate in the Agency's decisionmaking processes.
In response to the release of the Executive order, the EPA
immediately began working to implement the provisions of the Executive
order. On February 18, 2011, the EPA launched its Improving Regulations
Web site (www.epa.gov/improvingregulations). On February 22, 2011, the
EPA opened 15 public dockets to receive comments, and on February 23,
2011, the Agency published a Federal Register notice soliciting public
comments over the next 30 days. The EPA advertised and hosted a
national meeting on March 14, 2011 in Arlington, Virginia, to solicit
public comment on how we should design our plan for retrospective
review and how we should conduct our periodic reviews. Moreover, each
EPA regional office held one or more listening sessions for the public
and key stakeholders. A schedule of the listening sessions was posted
in advance on our Improving Regulations Web site. When we heard from
the public that they needed more time to comment on the plan, we
immediately responded to the concern by extending the public comment
period from March 20 to April 4, 2011, and published another Federal
Register Notice to announce the extension.
To date, we have received more than 200 written comments submitted
to our public dockets, in addition to the input received at 19 separate
public meetings and listening sessions the EPA convened in responses to
the Executive order. The EPA is now working hard to read and digest all
the public input, which ranged from targeted suggestions on regulatory
text in particular rules to broad suggestions on how the Agency should
design its plans for periodic retrospective reviews. In that latter
category, we heard some specific ideas for improving our regulatory
process that we are taking to heart and will work to make more routine
in our rule-writing procedures:
--provide more opportunities for public dialogue on the EPA
rulemakings;
--increase coordination across Federal agencies and within the EPA on
rulemaking activities; and
--ensure consistency when enforcing regulations.
The EPA is working hard to meet the deadline in the Executive order
of delivering a preliminary plan for retrospective review to OMB by May
18, 2011. The plan will include both a list of rules for review in the
near term and a roadmap on how the EPA will carry out the periodic
reviews going forward which are called for by the Executive order. As
the EPA moves forward to review the rules identified in the plan, we
will do so in a way in keeping with the transparent and participatory
process we have used thus far. With regard to rules currently in the
pipeline, as will be noted in our plan, many of these are pursuant to
ongoing reviews and we will continue to develop our rules in a manner
that is consistent with our statutory obligations, the criteria laid
out by the President, and our commitment to protect America's health
and revitalize the economy.
inspector general reform act
Question. In October 2008, the Inspector General Reform Act, which
I co-authored with Senators McCaskill and Lieberman, was enacted. The
law enhances Inspector General (IG) independence to help empower and
facilitate the important work of Inspectors General. The law requires
that the President's budget request include comments from the agency's
IG when the IG believes that the budget request for its office will
``substantially inhibit'' the IG's ability to carry out its oversight
responsibilities. This year the EPA IG was the only IG who submitted
comments under this authority. Specifically, the EPA IG stated that,
despite an increase of $1.24 million from the fiscal year 2010 enacted
budget, the amount in the President's fiscal year 2012 budget request
is approximately $5 million below the amount he believes is necessary
to carry out the work of his office. The EPA IG argues that these
additional funds are critical, in particular, to carry out work related
to cyber security investigations and homeland security oversight that
the EPA has taken on. In recent years, the EPA IG office has funded
these activities through a reallocation of existing resources, but
``cannot continue to do so without creating accountability and risk
vulnerability gaps in its oversight of other Agency programs and
operations.''
Why did you not take these concerns into account when developing
your budget request?
Answer. The EPA took the IG's concern on cyber security into
account in developing the fiscal year 2012 budget request while also
considering other Agency priorities. In response to this identified
need, an increase is provided in the IG's budget although overall
funding for the EPA is down 13 percent below fiscal year 2010 enacted
levels.
Question. Do you think that the IG has made errors in calculating
the amounts needed to continue these additional new oversight
responsibilities in the IG office? Do you think that these additional
oversight responsibilities do not warrant sufficient funding?
Answer. In developing the fiscal year 2012 budget, the EPA had to
make hard choices for all programs at the reduced budget level yet
recognized the need for funding to support the IG's oversight of cyber
security activities. As a result, a level of increase was provided
that, combined with the available resources the OIG has in their
budget, would allow OIG to continue carrying out this work that the IG
has initiated within available resources.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Lisa Murkowski
bristol bay watershed assessment
Question. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was petitioned
to pre-emptively veto development in the Bristol Bay area of Alaska,
and responded by undertaking a so-called ``watershed assessment'' of
the area. Such an assessment appears to be unprecedented--as I had
observed in a letter to you, dated February 16 of this year--though I
am open to reviewing all of the information your agency is gathering as
part of that process. On February 10, members of my staff also
participated in a meeting with EPA officials, at which your staff
committed to provide examples of precedents for watershed assessments,
or at least examples of similar activities by the agency. To date, I
have not received that information.
Can you provide a description of prior assessments here today, or
materials--for the record--that speak to the statutory authorities
under which this watershed assessment is being conducted and copies of
some examples of their past use?
Answer. The EPA's Bristol Bay assessment, focusing primarily on the
Kvichak and Nushagak watersheds, will characterize the risks of large-
scale development on the Bay's water quality and salmon fishery, and
evaluate options to protect the watersheds and ensure the
sustainability of the fishery. The EPA is conducting this assessment
under our Clean Water Act (CWA) section 104 authorities described
below.
The objective of the CWA is to restore and maintain the chemical,
physical, and biological integrity of the Nation's waters. In
furtherance of that objective, CWA section 104(a) directs the EPA to
establish national programs for the prevention, reduction, and
elimination of pollution and as part of such programs directs the EPA
to:
``(1) in cooperation with other Federal, State, and local agencies,
conduct and promote the coordination and acceleration of, research,
investigations, experiments, training, demonstrations, surveys, and
studies relating to the causes, effects, extent, prevention, reduction,
and elimination of pollution;
``(2) encourage, cooperate with, and render technical services to
pollution control agencies and other appropriate public or private
agencies, institutions, and organizations, and individuals, including
the general public, in the conduct of activities referred to in
paragraph (1) of this subsection;
``(3) conduct, in cooperation with State water pollution agencies
and other interested agencies, organizations and persons, public
investigations concerning the pollution of any navigable waters, and
report on the results of such investigations . . .''
Section 104(b) further states that in carrying out these
provisions, the EPA's Administrator is authorized to:
``(1) collect and make available, through publications and other
appropriate means, the results of and other information, including
appropriate recommendations by [her] him in connection therewith,
pertaining to such research and other activities referred to in
paragraph (1) of subsection (a);
``(2) cooperate with other Federal departments and agencies, State
water pollution control agencies, interstate agencies, other public and
private agencies, institutions, organizations, industries involved, and
individuals, in the preparation and conduct of such research and other
activities referred to in paragraph (1) of subsection (a) . . .''
The mission of the EPA is to protect human health and the
environment. As such, evaluating the environmental impacts of different
actions is a central role and function of the agency. The EPA has
conducted environmental assessments that evaluate the impacts of past
actions or estimate the potential impacts of future actions. Below is a
list of several recent examples of such assessments. This information
can also be found in our March 21, 2011, response to your February 16,
2011, letter. (Please note that some of these assessments are currently
in draft form and under review.)
--U.S. EPA. Predicting Future Introductions of Non-indigenous Species
to the Great Lakes (Final Report). U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, DC, EPA/600/R-08/066F, 2008.
(http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay. cfm?deid=190305)
--U.S. EPA. The Effects of Mountaintop Mines and Valley Fills on
Aquatic Ecosystems of the Central Appalachian Coalfields (Final
Report). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC,
EPA/600/R-09/138F, 2011. (http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/
recordisplay.cfm?deid=225743).
--U.S. EPA. Clinch and Powell Valley Watershed Ecological Risk
Assessment. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Research and Development, National Center for Environmental
Assessment, Washington Office, Washington, DC, EPA/600/R-01/
050, 2002.(http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/
recordisplay.cfm?deid=15219).
--U.S. EPA. Ecological Risk Assessment for the Middle Snake River,
Idaho. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research
and Development, National Center for Environmental Assessment,
Washington Office, Washington, DC, EPA/600/R-01/017, 2002.
(http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay.cfm?
deid=29097&partner=ORD-NCEA).
--U.S. EPA. Waquoit Bay Watershed Ecological Risk Assessment: the
Effect of Land-Derived Nitrogen Loads on Estuarine
Eutrophication. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Research and Development, National Center for Environmental
Assessment, Washington Office, Washington, DC, 600/R-02/079,
2002. (http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/
recordisplay.cfm?deid=15221).
Question. Can you describe in more detail the process that you will
use for this assessment? For example, will you follow the
Administrative Procedures Act (APA), provide for peer review of the
science and economic analysis, and solicit input from all stakeholders?
Will the conclusions reached by the ``watershed assessment'', or
actions taken pursuant to it, be subject to judicial or administrative
review?
Answer. The EPA's February 7, 2011, ``Outline of the Development of
EPA's Bristol Bay Watershed Assessment'' briefly describes the process
the EPA intends to use to better understand the aquatic resources at
issue and to evaluate potential impacts to those resources from large-
scale development activities, such as mineral mining. As we emphasized
in our March 21, 2011, letter to you, we plan to work with our Federal,
State, and tribal partners, and the public, to assess the resources in
Bristol Bay and identify options for improving protections for
fisheries in the Bay that depend so significantly on clean water and a
healthy watershed. We look forward to working with Federal agencies,
corresponding State agencies, tribes, and others to take advantage of
their experience and information to support the Bristol Bay assessment.
As part of the assessment process, the EPA will collaborate with an
extensive list of Federal, State, tribal, and local government agencies
and organizations; the public; private interests such as mining project
proponents; and others with an interest in Bristol Bay. The EPA's
effort to conduct a watershed assessment is not an action that triggers
APA requirements. Nevertheless, as described above, the EPA intends to
conduct the assessment process in an open and transparent manner that
is consistent with the openness and transparency envisioned by the APA.
The EPA has also published guidelines for Ecological Risk
Assessment which will help to inform our approach to the Bristol Bay
assessment. These guidelines can be found at: http://www.epa.gov/raf/
publications/guidelines-ecological-risk-assessment.htm.
The peer-review process will be a critical element of the watershed
assessment and we appreciate the importance of this issue as reflected
in your question. The details of EPA's Bristol Bay watershed
assessment, including the details of the peer-review process that will
be used for this assessment, are still being developed. However, the
EPA has established standards and procedures regarding peer review
which can be found in the EPA's Peer Review Handbook (see: http://
www.epa.gov/peerreview/). We look forward to providing additional
details regarding the peer-review process as the assessment moves
forward.
Question. As I am sure you know, the Congress in 1971 in passing
the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act gave Alaska Native Corporations
control more than 44 million acres of lands in Alaska, not Alaska
Native tribes. Under a host of Federal statues, more than 120 of them,
Native corporations in Alaska have similar authorities to tribes. Will
the EPA provide the same level of consultation and access to providing
input to the watershed assessment in the Bristol Bay region to Native
regional and village corporations as to tribes in the area? Clearly
since most of the lands surrounding the Pebble mine site are owned by
Native corporations, they have a great deal at stake from any potential
rules or EPA actions that are an outgrowth of your watershed
assessment.
Answer. The EPA looks forward to working closely with Alaska tribes
and Native Corporations as part of our assessment in Bristol Bay. The
EPA recognizes the strong interest and authorities of Alaska Native
Corporations organized pursuant to the Alaska Native Claims Settlement
Act regarding the land and resources in the Bristol Bay watershed. The
EPA consults with Alaska Native Corporations as required by Public Law
108-199, 118 Stat. 452, as amended by Public Law 108-447, 118 Stat.
3267, and also interacts with both Alaska Native Corporations and
federally recognized tribes pursuant to a number of other statutes and
legal doctrines. The EPA intends to meet with Alaska Native
Corporations to share information and solicit their views and input
regarding the pending Bristol Bay watershed assessment subject to the
same general considerations of practicability, expense, and scheduling
that apply to our interactions with federally recognized tribal
government and other critical stakeholders.
______
Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of Water,
Washington, DC, March 21, 2011.
Hon. Lisa A. Murkowski,
United States Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Murkowski: Thank you for your letter of February 16,
2011, to Administrator Lisa P. Jackson concerning the Environmental
Protection Agency's (EPA) recent announcement to initiate a watershed
assessment of the Bristol Bay, Alaska. As the senior policy manager of
the EPA's national water program, I appreciate the opportunity to
respond to your letter.
Your letter focuses on the EPA's proposed Bristol Bay assessment,
provides a number of recommendations for the assessment, and raises a
set of specific questions. In response, we are providing background
information regarding the assessment and an answer to each of the
questions in your letter. I want to emphasize the EPA's commitment to
work with our Federal, State, and tribal partners to proceed with an
unbiased and transparent public process supported by the best-
available scientific information. We look forward to keeping you
personally informed as this assessment moves ahead.
During the last year, a number of tribes, tribal entities, and
other groups in southwest Alaska requested that the EPA initiate review
of metallic sulfide mining in the Bristol Bay watershed utilizing our
authorities pursuant to section 404(c) of the Clean Water Act (CWA).
Other Alaska tribes, tribal entities, and groups have requested that we
not take action under section 404(c) and instead use the standard CWA
permitting process to evaluate proposed mining operations in the
Bristol Bay watershed. I believe the conclusion common to both sets of
requests is the strong belief that effective protection of Bristol Bay
is vitally important to the health and sustainability of the area's
valuable commercial and subsistence salmon fisheries. We believe that
an effective and timely Bristol Bay assessment involving a broad range
of stakeholders and the public is responsive to these requests and will
provide needed information and data to inform future decisions.
In response to these requests, the EPA announced on February 7,
2011, its decision to initiate a Bristol Bay watershed assessment. This
assessment will characterize the potential risks of large-scale
development on the Bay's water quality and salmon fishery, and evaluate
measures to protect the watershed to ensure the sustainability of the
fishery. While the Bristol Bay watershed is comprised of seven
drainages, the Kvichak and Nushagak watersheds are the principal
drainages with lands open to large-scale development. The EPA's
analysis, therefore, will focus primarily on those two watersheds. We
will conduct the assessment in an open, public format and in close
coordination with Federal, State, and tribal organizations. This
assessment will identify options available to provide appropriate
protection for waters in Bristol Bay and the salmon fishery which
depends on clean water and a healthy watershed.
We appreciate and will give full consideration to your specific
recommendations regarding the:
--Need for extensive coordination of the assessment with State,
tribal, and local governments, Alaskan universities, Alaska
Native Tribal Corporations, interested nongovernmental
organizations, representatives of the Alaska fishing industry,
the Pebble Partnership and others;
--Need for thorough peer review of the assessment, consistent with
the policies established in the EPA's Peer Review Handbook; and
--Scope of the assessment's economic evaluation.
I hope my letter and enclosed detailed responses effectively
address the questions in your letter. In light of the concerns that
have been raised to the EPA, I want to reassure you that we will
conduct an open and scientifically based assessment built upon
participation by other Federal and State agencies, local tribal
governments, and the public. I look forward to informing you of
progress on this assessment as we move ahead.
Again, thank you for your letter.
Sincerely,
Nancy K. Stoner,
Acting Assistant Administrator.
______
Question. If the EPA has conducted a ``watershed assessment''
before, would you provide copies of the assessments and the statutory
authorities under which they were conducted? If not, please provide a
description of the statutory authorities for this assessment.
Answer. The mission of the EPA is to protect human health and the
environment. As such, evaluating the environmental impacts of different
actions is a central role and function of the agency. The EPA has
conducted environmental assessments that evaluate the impacts of past
actions or estimate the potential impacts of future actions. Below is a
list of several recent examples of such assessments. This information
can also be found in our March 21, 2011, response to your February 16,
2011, letter. (Please note that some of these assessments are currently
in draft form and under review.)
--U.S. EPA. Predicting Future Introductions of Non-indigenous Species
to the Great Lakes (Final Report). U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, DC, EPA/600/R-08/066F, 2008.
(http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid=190305)
--U.S. EPA. The Effects of Mountaintop Mines and Valley Fills on
Aquatic Ecosystems of the Central Appalachian Coalfields (Final
Report). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC,
EPA/600/R-09/138F, 2011. (http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/
recordisplay.cfm?deid=225743).
--U.S. EPA. Clinch and Powell Valley Watershed Ecological Risk
Assessment. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Research and Development, National Center for Environmental
Assessment, Washington Office, Washington, DC, EPA/600/R-01/
050, 2002.(http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/
recordisplay.cfm?deid=15219).
--U.S. EPA. Ecological Risk Assessment for the Middle Snake River,
Idaho. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research
and Development, National Center for Environmental Assessment,
Washington Office, Washington, DC, EPA/600/R-01/017, 2002.
(http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay.cfm?
deid=29097&partner=ORD-NCEA).
--U.S. EPA. Waquoit Bay Watershed Ecological Risk Assessment: the
Effect of Land-Derived Nitrogen Loads on Estuarine
Eutrophication. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Research and Development, National Center for Environmental
Assessment, Washington Office, Washington, DC, 600/R-02/079,
2002. (http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/
recordisplay.cfm?deid=15221).
The EPA's Bristol Bay assessment, focusing primarily on the Kvichak
and Nushagak watersheds, will characterize the risks of large-scale
development on the Bay's water quality and salmon fishery, and evaluate
measures to protect the watersheds and ensure the sustainability of the
fishery. EPA is conducting this assessment under our Clean Water Act
section 104 authorities described below. The objective of the Clean
Water Act is to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and
biological integrity of the nation's waters. Toward achievement of that
objective, section 104(a) directs the EPA to establish national
programs for the prevention, reduction, and elimination of pollution
and as part of such programs directs the EPA to:
``(1) in cooperation with other federal, state, and local agencies,
conduct and promote the coordination and acceleration of, research,
investigations, experiments, training, demonstrations, surveys, and
studies relating to the causes, effects, extent, prevention, reduction,
and elimination of pollution;
``(2) encourage, cooperate with, and render technical services to
pollution control agencies and other appropriate public or private
agencies, institutions, and organizations, and individuals, including
the general public, in the conduct of activities referred to in
paragraph (1) of this subsection;
``(3) conduct, in cooperation with State water pollution agencies
and other interested agencies, organizations and persons, public
investigations concerning the pollution of any navigable waters, and
report on the results of such investigations . . .''
Section 104(b) further states that in carrying out these
provisions, EPA's Administrator is authorized to:
``(1) collect and make available, through publications and other
appropriate means, the results of and other information, including
appropriate recommendations by [her] him in connection therewith,
pertaining to such research and other activities referred to in
paragraph (1) of subsection (a);
``(2) cooperate with other Federal departments and agencies, State
water pollution control agencies, interstate agencies, other public and
private agencies, institutions, organizations, industries involved, and
individuals, in the preparation and conduct of such research and other
activities referred to in paragraph (1) of subsection (a) . . .''
Question. Will the conclusions reached by the ``watershed
assessment', or actions taken pursuant to it, be subject to judicial or
administrative review?
Answer. The EPA's ``Outline of the Development of EPA's Bristol Bay
Watershed Assessment'' briefly describes the process EPA intends to use
to better understand the aquatic resources at issue, and to evaluate
potential impacts to those resources from large-scale development
activities, such as mineral mining. We hope to work with our Federal,
State, and tribal partners, and the public, to use this information to
identify options for improving protection for Bristol Bay fisheries and
the waters on which these fisheries rely. The watershed assessment or
publication of such an assessment is, itself, not a final agency action
and therefore not subject to judicial or administrative review. Should
the EPA proceed as a result of the recommendations identified in the
assessment to take some final agency action, such action may be subject
to review. Our goal, however, is to work with interested federal,
state, and tribal groups, and the public, to prepare recommendations
that would be broadly supported.
Question. Should a veto be exercised pre-emptively within the
Bristol Bay watershed--not in relation to an application to undertake
specific development in the area--could that decision be interpreted by
courts or future administrations to extend more broadly to all future
development proposals (e.g., an airstrip, fish-processing plant,
refinery, hospital, school, museum) that may require a dredge or fill
disposal site?
Answer. The EPA's assessment is not a regulatory action. This
assessment will help inform consideration of options for improving
protection of the Bristol Bay watershed. The EPA has made no decision
at this time to proceed with a CWA section 404(c) review in Bristol
Bay. As a result, we are not prepared to speculate regarding the scope
of any action taken under this authority.
Question. It seems that a pre-emptive veto could set a number of
highly problematic precedents. For example, the Bureau of Land
Management, the U.S. Forest Service, and other Federal agencies have
historically been tasked with land planning decisions on Federal
acreage. Similarly, State lands are managed by analogous entities.
Should the EPA issue a pre-emptive veto of an entire area which, in
this case, consists largely of State lands, those aforementioned
agencies would no longer be able to plan for multiple-use activities,
but instead be subjected to pre-emptive yes-or-no decisions from the
EPA under whatever speculative assumptions regarding development the
EPA may choose to adopt.
Has the EPA considered the precedents that would be set by a pre-
emptive veto? Has the EPA consulted relevant Federal and State agencies
regarding such a course of action? Could third-party litigants cite the
veto as precedent in opposing other projects within the watershed?
Answer. The EPA has not made any decision regarding whether or not
to initiate an advance 404(c) action at this time. As we have
emphasized, we have instead chosen to work with our Federal, State, and
tribal partners, and the public, to assess the resources in Bristol Bay
and identify options for improving protections for fisheries in the Bay
that depend so significantly on clean water and a healthy watershed. We
look forward to working with Federal agencies, corresponding state
agencies, tribes, and others to take advantage of their experience and
information to support the Bristol Bay assessment. As part of the
assessment process, the EPA will collaborate with an extensive list of
Federal, State, tribal, and local government agencies and
organizations; the public; private interests such as mining project
proponents; and others with an interest in Bristol Bay. The EPA's
assessment process is being conducted in an open and transparent manner
to allow the issues you have raised to be effectively raised and
discussed. This information and public discussion will help inform
decisions following completion of the study.
Question. In response to the petition received by the EPA to
preemptively veto development in the Bristol Bay area under section
404(c) of the CWA, were responses other than the conduct of a watershed
assessment considered by the EPA? Specifically, did the agency consider
simply informing the petitioners of the need to wait until an actual
permit application had been received for consideration under the CWA,
the National Environmental Policy Act, and other relevant statutes?
Conversely, did the EPA consider issuing a preemptive veto in response
to the petition?
Answer. As previously noted, in 2010, a number of tribes, tribal
entities and other groups in southwest Alaska requested that the EPA
initiate review of metallic sulfide mining in the Bristol Bay watershed
utilizing our authorities pursuant to section 404(c) of the Clean Water
Act. Other Alaska tribes, tribal entities and groups requested that we
let the typical permitting process for mines run its course. The EPA
considered a number of options, including the two you note above, and
relevant information before determining that the best option at this
point, given the available information, is the assessment that we have
chosen to conduct.
Question. Because primary authority over fill decisions rests with
the Army Corps of Engineers, and because the EPA has rarely exercised
veto authority over Corps approvals, what deficiency does the EPA
forecast with what would presumably be the Corps' work on any proposed
fill application, to such extent that the EPA feels compelled to
conduct this analysis in advance of any such work?
Answer. The EPA works very closely with the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers in implementing our joint responsibilities under section 404
of the Clean Water Act. The EPA has a great deal of respect for the
work that the Corps does in administering the section 404 permitting
program. The fact that EPA has rarely exercised its authority under
section 404(c) to question the Corps' permit decisions speaks to the
effective level of coordination and cooperation between the two
agencies. The assessment that the EPA is undertaking is to develop
information to respond to requests from tribes and other groups in the
State.
great lakes restoration initative
Question. In fiscal year 2010, a new program was started within the
EPA's budget for restoration of the Great Lakes. In the first year,
$475 million was appropriated. It is my understanding that you have
only spent $81 million of this as of January 31 of this year. In a time
of tight budgets, that raises the question of whether you can spend all
that you have asked for in this year's request--$350 million.
What level of carryover do you have from previous years for this
program?
Answer. Through January of 2011, $455.6 million of Great Lakes
Restoration Initiative funds had been obligated and $81 million had
been expended. By May 5, 2011 almost the full $475 million has been
obligated, less than $500,000 in carryover remains, and more than $115
million has been expended. Much of the fiscal year 2010 funding was put
toward restoration projects that will begin during this spring's
construction season. Consequently, we expect to see accelerated
expenditures and results this year from the fiscal year 2010 funding as
construction begins. Now moving into its second year, we expect to also
provide fiscal year 2011 funding during this construction season and to
continue accelerated expenditures.
Question. Can you spend the full amount that you have requested for
fiscal year 2012?
Answer. The EPA--working with its Federal partners, as well as the
States, tribes, local governmental organizations, universities, and
nongovernmental organizations--can spend the full amount requested for
fiscal year 2012. Many excellent grant proposals did not get funded in
fiscal year 2010 (requests totaling almost $1 billion were almost six
times the amount available). Many excellent grant proposals will again
not be funded in fiscal year 2011 (requests were more than triple the
amount available under the EPA's fiscal year 2011 Great Lakes
Restoration Initiative Request for Applications). As a result, we
expect that requests for funding in fiscal year 2012 will once again
outstrip available funding. A significant level of work still needs to
be done to achieve restoration of the Great Lakes. There are many
projects that have not yet been started.
superfund tax reauthorization
Question. The budget request for fiscal year 2012 indicates that
the administration supports reinstating the Superfund tax. This tax
expired in 1995.
As you know, industry vigorously opposes reinstatement. In their
view, they have paid not only for sites that they were responsible for,
but ``orphaned'' sites as well where there were no responsible parties.
And reinstatement of the tax on companies with no responsibility for
contamination would be unfair. How would you respond to these
criticisms?
Answer. The administration strongly supports the ``Polluter Pays''
principle. Parties should be liable for the cost of cleanups at sites
for which they have responsibility, either as an owner, operator,
generator, or transporter. Given that many Superfund sites involve
historic activity where the environmental contamination became evident
years after operations ceased, the EPA is sometimes unable to
sufficiently identify and prove all of the parties that bear
responsibility for the site or the parties are no longer financially
viable or have a limited ability to pay.
Since appropriated resources for Superfund are primarily supported
by general revenues from taxes paid by the general public, the
reinstated taxes would apply to a more narrowly defined taxable group,
consistent with other trust funds. Therefore, general taxpayers would
no longer shoulder a disproportionate share of funding hazardous waste
site cleanup. The reinstated taxes would restore the historic nexus
that the parties who most directly benefit from the manufacture or sale
of substances that commonly contaminate hazardous waste sites should
bear the cost of cleanup when viable potentially responsible parties
cannot be identified.
Question. What economic impacts would reinstating the tax have on
industry and jobs in the current economic climate?
Answer. The administration is proposing to reinstate the taxes as
they were last in effect on crude oil, imported petroleum products,
hazardous chemicals, and imported substances that use hazardous
chemicals as a feedstock, and on corporate modified alternative minimum
taxable income (AMTI). A 1994 study sponsored by the EPA investigated
the economic impact of the Superfund taxes by calculating the maximum
potential effect of each tax on prices or profits.\1\ These maximum
impacts were all found to be relatively small, indicating that the
taxes have only minor economic effects. Using the same methods with
current economic data, the conclusions of the 1994 study are supported.
Furthermore, the administration chose not to adjust the tax rates for
inflation, effectively resulting in a lower tax than was last imposed.
The administration believes this proposal is the most viable given the
relative familiarity with the previous tax structure and current
economic climate. Since the petroleum and chemical taxes have not been
updated to reflect real dollars, their economic impact may actually
decrease.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ ``Economic Impacts of Superfund Taxes'', Prepared by Industrial
Economics, Inc., for the Office of Policy Analysis, EPA (1994).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Relative to consumer demand for other products, the demand for oil
has been fairly unresponsive to price changes. Regarding the petroleum
tax, even if the entire tax is passed on to consumers, the estimated
impact would be less than a half penny per gallon increase in gas
prices. Such an increase in gas prices would represent only a 0.17
percent increase to the 2010 average retail price of gasoline of $2.84
per gallon.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ This calculation is based on the 2010 annual average U.S.
conventional retail price from the Energy Information Administration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current data suggest that the taxes on chemicals should have only
minor economic impacts. These taxes were originally calculated as the
lower of two figures:
--2 percent of the estimated wholesale price; or
--$4.87 per ton for organic chemicals and $4.45 per ton for inorganic
chemicals.
Current data indicate that the majority of the chemical prices have
increased considerably since the tax was last in operation, with some
more than doubling.\3\ On the other hand, the Superfund taxes will not
be corrected for inflation. This should significantly reduce, below 2
percent, the potential economic impact of the taxes on chemicals.
Regarding the international marketplace, the proposed taxes will apply
equally to imported chemicals as well as domestic. Thus, it is unlikely
that these taxes would cause any change in a manufacturer's or an
industry's mix of domestic and imported chemical substances.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Recent annual chemical prices obtained from www.icis.com.
\4\ ``Economic Impacts of Superfund Taxes,'' Prepared by Industrial
Economics, Inc, for the Office of Policy Analysis, EPA (1994).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, the Corporate Environmental Tax of 0.12 percent is imposed
on firms with AMTI exceeding $2 million. When it last expired, 89
percent of the tax was paid by firms with assets greater than $250
million. The 1994 study found that the maximum estimated impact on the
prices charged by affected firms did not exceed 1 percent in any of the
major industrial categories, and was 0.09 percent across all
industries.\5\ Since the tax only targets AMTI over a threshold, many
small businesses will not have to pay. Large businesses that are taxed
will only pay a miniscule fraction of AMTI. Thus, the corporate tax
should have only minor economic impacts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. When do you plan to send a specific legislative proposal
to the Congress?
Answer. On June 21, 2010, EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson on behalf
of the administration transmitted draft legislation to the Congress to
reinstate Superfund taxes. We support reauthorization of the taxes as
represented in this transmission.
Question. Will your new legislative proposal contain any changes to
the way the existing Superfund program is run?
Answer. On June 21, 2010, EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson on behalf
of the administration transmitted draft legislation to the Congress to
reinstate Superfund taxes. The proposal did not contain any changes to
the way the existing Superfund program is run. Rather, it focuses on
generating revenues that will be placed in the Superfund Trust Fund to
provide a stable, dedicated source of funds to operate the program.
The proposal reinstates the taxes as they were last in effect on
crude oil, imported petroleum products, hazardous chemicals, and
imported substances that use hazardous chemicals as a feedstock, and on
corporate modified AMTI. The Superfund taxes were applied to crude oil
and imported petroleum products (9.7 cents per barrel), chemicals used
in the production of hazardous substances listed in title 26 section
4661 (22 cents to $4.87 per ton), imported substances that use
hazardous chemicals as a feedstock (in an amount equivalent to the tax
that would have been imposed on domestic production), and corporate
modified AMTI \6\ in excess of $2 million a year (0.12 percent). The
excise taxes would be applied beginning in January 2012 and expire on
December 31, 2021, and the income tax would be applied in taxable years
beginning after 2011 and would expire for taxable years beginning after
December 31, 2021.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Modified AMTI is AMTI determined without regard to the
alternative minimum tax net operating loss deduction and the deduction
for the Superfund environmental income tax.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
long-term 2 (ltr2) enhanced surface water treatment rule
Question. The purpose of the LT2 rule is to reduce illness linked
with the contaminant Cryptosporidium and other disease-causing
microorganisms in drinking water. These are primarily associated with
uncovered finished water reservoirs.
In the past, the EPA has stated that they will not enforce the LT2
rule in Alaska's native villages because of the cost of compliance. Is
this EPA's official position?
Answer. The EPA's position is that all public water systems,
including Alaska Native Village systems, that use surface water or
groundwater that is under the direct influence of surface water, are
required to comply with the LT2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule.
The EPA has been working hard to ensure that the rule is enforced
fairly and consistently throughout the country. The LT2 rule builds
upon the requirements established by the Surface Water Treatment Rule
(SWTR); Interim Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule (IESWTR); and the
Long Term 1 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule by requiring water
systems to determine if their source water is vulnerable to
Cryptosporidium, and where applicable, incorporating additional
treatment. In addition, the LT2 rule requires that all finished water
reservoirs either be covered or the discharge treated.
On January 28, 2011, Alaska formally adopted the LT2 rule. As a
result, Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC) is now
the primary enforcement agency for the rule. As the primary enforcement
agency, ADEC is responsible for ensuring that all public water systems
in Alaska, including systems serving Alaska Native Villages that are
subject to the rule are in compliance.
Most Alaska Native Village systems have less than 10,000 users, and
may utilize less-costly monitoring requirements than systems servicing
larger communities. In contrast to systems servicing 10,000 people or
more, which are required to monitor for Cryptosporidium, smaller
systems are allowed to first monitor for E. coli--a bacterium that is
less expensive to analyze than Cryptosporidium--and are only required
to monitor for Cryptosporidium if their E. coli results exceed
specified concentration levels.
Question. The purpose of the LT2 rule is to reduce illness linked
with the contaminant Cryptosporidium and other disease-causing
microorganisms in drinking water. These are primarily associated with
uncovered finished water reservoirs.
We do have some communities that are slightly larger, but still
very small by anyone's standards. Some of them are having a very
difficult time coming up with the funding to add treatment and come
into compliance with the LT2 rule. Is the EPA prepared to assist these
small communities either with financial help or compliance assistance
to help alleviate the severe financial burden that the rule imposes?
Answer. The EPA has historically provided about 25 percent of the
total Tribal Set Aside from the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund
capitalization grant funding to support drinking water infrastructure
construction in the Alaska Native Villages. These funds, along with
funds from the EPA's Alaska Native Village program and other Federal
agencies (the Indian Health Service, Department of Agriculture and the
Department of Housing and Urban Development) can be utilized to fund
infrastructure projects that address compliance challenges associated
with LT2 for the Alaska Native Villages. In addition, Alaska Native
Village water systems may apply for infrastructure financing through
Alaska's Drinking Water State Revolving Fund.
forest roads
Question. For close to 35 years, the EPA has defined in its
regulations (40 CFR 122.27) that forestry operations are nonpoint
sources and therefore not subject to Federal CWA permits. Forestry has
a documented record of compliance. A recent decision by the Ninth
Circuit Court of Appeals threatens to overturn 35 years of precedent
and treat forest roads on Federal, State, and private land as point
sources requiring Federal permits. The EPA is not a party in the case.
The 9th Circuit is presently deciding whether to reconsider the case en
banc. In advance of this decision, the EPA has been preparing to
implement the potential court order nationwide. If the court upholds
the earlier decision and the EPA aggressively implements the final
ruling, it would constitute an unprecedented expansion of EPA
regulation under the CWA. I understand that the 9th Circuit Court of
Appeals has questioned the EPA's 35-year treatment of forest roads as
nonpoint sources under existing regulations. Most of these roads are
indistinguishable from county roads and other roads used for
transportation, recreation access, and a variety of other critical uses
throughout my State. Requiring new permits for these roads would impose
potentially enormous new costs and legal exposure on the people of
Alaska who use these roads every day.
Does the EPA plan to stand behind its own long-standing regulation
and seek to avoid imposing this enormous regulatory and legal burden on
forest workers, counties, Federal land managers, and other users in
Alaska and throughout the country?
Answer. On August 17, 2010, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth
Circuit issued a decision holding that stormwater runoff from forest
roads that is collected by and discharged from a stream of ditches,
culverts, and channels is a point-source discharge for which a National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit is required. That
court is now reviewing requests for rehearing. In the meantime, the EPA
recognizes these sources of stormwater discharges, which were
previously exempt from the requirements to obtain and comply with an
NPDES permit, are now vulnerable to citizen suits for discharging
without a permit. Because of this, the agency is exploring various
options for providing permit coverage to these discharges.
lead paint rule
Question. The Lead Renovation Repair and Painting (LRRP) Program
rule represents an added cost that contractors, who pay to become
trained and certified under the rule, then pass on to consumers. In
many cases the LRRP requirements can add a significant percentage to
the cost of upgrades and remodels. In States where there is a lack of
enforcement, ``good actor'' contractors are pricing themselves out of
the market due to the fact that many contractors are not in compliance
for the rule and are not being subjected to enforcement, and therefore
are able to offer lower costs to consumers.
Do you have any data on the actual additional costs being incurred
by homeowners, building owners, and contractors that comply with the
lead safety rule, the level of compliance, and the status of the
enforcement of the EPA's Lead Paint Rule throughout the States?
Answer. In order to comply with the RRP rule, contractors will
incur the following fees and estimated costs:
Certification Costs.--Firm certification is valid for 5 years.
The fee for most firms is $300, which is equivalent to a cost
of $60 per year.
Training Costs.--To become a certified renovator, an individual
must take a training course from a private training provider
accredited by the EPA. The trained renovators can then provide
on-the-job training to other workers. The EPA estimates that
this costs $560 per person trained, including a tuition cost of
$186 (set by the training provider); the value of time for the
8 hours the renovator is in class ($253); the value of time for
2 hours traveling to and from class ($63); mileage costs to
drive to and from the training ($49); and lunch while at the
training ($9). The renovator's certification lasts for 5 years.
Labor, Equipment, and Supply Costs.--As part of the rulemaking
process, the EPA conducted an extensive economic analysis that
estimated the labor, equipment, and supply costs for these work
practices. The EPA first estimated an absolute cost of
complying with the lead-safe work practices required by a rule
if a contractor did not use any containment, or perform any
cleaning, or cleaning verification prior to the rule. However,
the EPA heard from the industry that contractors had already
been taking steps to control dust from renovations prior to the
promulgation of the rule. Based on this input, the EPA
estimated an average incremental cost of each lead-safe work
practice by subtracting the cost already being incurred by
renovators for containment and cleaning from the estimate of
the absolute cost of the rule's requirements.
For typical jobs in single family homes, the EPA estimated that the
average absolute costs to comply with the rule ranged from $35 to $376,
depending on the size and nature of the job. The average incremental
costs of complying with the rule ranged from $8 to $124. For example:
--For a large window replacement job in a single family home (12
windows), the average cost ranges between $124 for contractors
who already used some of the required work practices, to $376
for contractors who did not use any of the required work
practices.
--For a medium-sized job removing portions of a wall in a single-
family home (such as might be done to repair water pipes or
electrical wiring), the average cost ranges between $41 for
contractors who already used some of the required work
practices, to $121 for contractors who did not use any of the
required work practices.
--For an exterior painting job involving four exterior walls, the
average cost ranges between $90 for contractors who already
used some of the required work practices, to $245 for
contractors who did not use any of the required work practices.
With the exception of the renovation firm certification fee, these
costs are discussed in greater detail in chapter 4 of the EPA's
``Economic Analysis for the TSCA Lead Renovation, Repair, and Painting
Program Final Rule for Target Housing and Child-Occupied Facilities''
(March 2008) http://www.regulations.gov/#!document Detail;D=EPA-HQ-
OPPT-2005-0049-0916 The renovation firm certification fee of $300 was
established in a subsequent rulemaking.
The above data reflect the EPA's estimates of the cost incurred by
contractors, not the price paid by homeowners and other property
owners. The EPA assumes that contractors will generally pass along
their costs to their customers, and anticipates they may also add a
mark-up.
Question. Can you give us an analysis of economic cost vs. health
protection for the rule overall and for homes in which no children or
young adults live?
Answer. The following discussion of the benefits of the 2008 final
RRP rule is taken from the Executive Summary of the ``Economic Analysis
for the TSCA Lead Renovation, Repair, and Painting Program Final Rule
for Target Housing and Child-Occupied Facilities'' (March 2008).
Additional details can be found in the full report at http://
www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EPA-HQ-OPPT-2005-0049-0916.
The benefits of the rule result from the prevention of adverse
health effects attributable to lead exposure. Neurotoxic effects in
children and cardiovascular effects in adults are among those best
substantiated as occurring at blood-lead concentrations as low as 5 to
10 mg/dL (or possibly lower); and these categories of effects are
currently clearly of greatest public health concern. Other newly
demonstrated immune and renal system effects among general population
groups are also emerging as low-level lead-exposure effects of
potential public health concern. Both epidemiologic and toxicologic
studies have shown that environmentally relevant levels of lead affect
many different organ systems depending on level of exposure.
Epidemiologic studies have consistently demonstrated associations
between lead exposure and enhanced risk of deleterious cardiovascular
outcomes, including increased blood pressure and incidence of
hypertension. A meta-analysis of numerous studies estimates that a
doubling of blood-lead level (e.g., from 5 to 10 mg/dL) is associated
with a 1 mm Hg increase in systolic blood pressure and a 0.6 mm Hg
increase in diastolic pressure. Studies have also found that cumulative
past lead exposure (e.g., bone lead) may be as important, if not more,
than present lead exposure in assessing cardiovascular effects. The
evidence for an association of lead with cardiovascular morbidity and
mortality is limited but supportive. Experimental toxicology studies
have confirmed lead effects on cardiovascular functions. However, there
is sufficient uncertainty about the level of exposure and likelihood of
effects that adults will experience that this analysis did not attempt
to estimate the number of cases that would be avoided due to the
regulation.
A further discussion of the benefits of removing the opt-out
provision can be found in the Executive Summary of the ``Economic
Analysis for the TSCA Lead Renovation, Repair, and Painting Program
Opt-out and Recordkeeping Final Rule for Target Housing and Child-
Occupied Facilities'' (April 2010). The 50-year annualized costs of the
2008 final rule were estimated to range from $404 million to $441
million per year, as detailed in chapter 4 of the EPA's ``Economic
Analysis for the TSCA Lead Renovation, Repair, and Painting Program
Final Rule for Target Housing and Child-Occupied Facilities'' (March
2008). The additional costs of the removal of the opt-out provision
were estimated to range from $295 million to $320 million per year, as
detailed in the ``Economic Analysis for the TSCA Lead Renovation,
Repair, and Painting Program Opt-out and Recordkeeping Final Rule for
Target Housing and Child-Occupied Facilities'' (April 2010). Thus, the
total costs of the Renovation, Repair, and Painting Program have been
estimated at $699 million to $761 million per year.
healy clean coal plant
Question. In 1992, the Federal Government provided $119 million of
the $325 million cost of a clean coal power plant that was built in
Healy, Alaska, and is now being operated by the Golden Valley Electric
Coop. The EPA then issued an air permit for the plant. The EPA is
apparently considering substantially altering the permit now as the
plant is finally planning to move into continuous operations given the
growing need for the electricity in Alaska's northern railbelt.
Since the plant has been kept in warm status for more than a
decade, between testing cycles, why is it not appropriate to permit the
plant to run under its original permit since it is based on technology
approved by the Department of Energy and your agency?
Answer. The New Source Review (NSR) Program requires a company to
get a pre-construction permit whenever it wants to construct a new
facility or make major modifications at an existing one. Questions have
been raised about whether the restart and associated restart activities
at Healy would trigger the need for the NSR. Therefore, the EPA
recognizes that a permit issued to Healy could be challenged by at
least one nongovernmental stakeholder. Recognizing the unique situation
at Healy, and the need for its generation, the EPA is currently
facilitating discussions between the owners and operators of the source
and other stakeholders with the goal of allowing the Alaska
environmental agency to issue an operating permit to Healy that will
provide certainty to the source, protect the environment, and satisfy
the requirements of the NSR program.
fairbanks air quality
Question. Last summer you visited Fairbanks, Alaska, and learned
that the town, given its extreme cold temperatures in winter, will
likely have considerable trouble meeting the proposed tightened
standards for PM2.5 (fine particulate matter) under the
Clean Air Act (CAA).
Will the EPA give serious consideration to granting a waiver to the
Fairbanks area from the tightening PM2.5 standards given the
extreme difficulty that the town may have in meeting the standard at
temperatures of 20 degrees below zero?
Answer. The CAA does not provide the EPA with the authority to
waive National Ambient Air Quality Standard requirements, but it does
allow some flexibility in implementing the standards. The EPA is bound
by section 172(a)(2) of the CAA which states that an area's attainment
date ``shall be the date by which attainment can be achieved as
expeditiously as practicable, but no later than 5 years from the date
such area was designated nonattainment, except that the Administrator
may extend the attainment date to the extent the Administrator
determines appropriate, for a period no greater than 10 years from the
date of designation as nonattainment considering the severity of
nonattainment and the availability and feasibility of pollution control
measures.'' Our regulations implementing this portion of the CAA give
the States flexibility in proposing an appropriate attainment date as
part of the overall plan to address fine particulate matter (40 CFR
51.1004). Ultimate approval of the attainment date will depend on the
technical merits of the final state submission; however our EPA Region
10 Office is committed to making this process as efficient,
collaborative, and common sense as possible.
implementation of north american emission control area (eca) in alaskan
waters
Question. Last year, the EPA imposed new rules requiring low-sulfur
diesel fuel to be used by freight carriers and cruise ships in southern
and central Alaska waters, even though all vessels serving Great Lake
ports were exempted from the new standards and the new ECAs being
created by the Agency and going into effect next year.
Would the EPA, given the lack of such fuel in Alaska and at West
Coast ports, consider delaying the implementation date of the Alaska/
Inside Passage air regulations given the extreme cost to shippers and
thus consumers of meeting the new standards, at least until the Agency
conducts actual Alaska specific air-quality tests to confirm the need
for the rules in Alaska's maritime climate?
Answer. Your question addresses two issues that the EPA takes very
seriously--the availability of lower-sulfur fuels and the balance
between achieving important health benefits and addressing the economic
and technical concerns of industry.
The EPA has taken actions to address these concerns, not only
domestically but also as part of the administration's team at the
International Maritime Organization (IMO).
Before outlining those actions, we'd like to clarify that the fuel
standard due to take effect next summer is the first phase 10,000 parts
per million (ppm) sulfur standard, while the industry has until January
2015 before the more stringent 1,000 ppm fuel-sulfur standard takes
effect.
In addition, we'd like to clarify that on all coasts, ships must
comply with the emissions standards anytime they operate on the
landward side of the North American ECA boundary even as they enter our
internal waters. This includes operation within the Great Lakes. The
narrow exclusion we adopted for a small subset of ships on the Great
Lakes is discussed further below.
On the issue of fuel availability, although we believe that
compliant fuel will be broadly available for the first phase standard
in 2012, we recognize that mariners need a mechanism to address an
unexpected nonavailability of fuel that is beyond their control. The
IMO treaty allows the United States to provide flexibility in the
unlikely event a vessel cannot reasonably obtain compliant fuel.
The EPA has taken actions to address concerns raised by industry
regarding operating steamships (vessels with boilers rather than diesel
engines for propulsion) on distillate fuel. First, in our final
category 3 marine rule, the EPA excluded existing Great Lakes
steamships from ECA fuel requirements, thus they may continue to use
residual fuel oil. In addition, mirroring that action on the U.S.
internal waters of the Great Lakes, we proposed to the IMO an exemption
for steamships operating within the ECA. This would apply to the
steamships that operate between Washington State and Alaska. By the
narrowest of margins, our proposal was included among those that will
proceed for circulation among IMO member states. We are striving to see
that it is formally adopted by the IMO at its next committee meeting in
July 2011.
Throughout development of the ECA and our category 3 marine rule,
we sought to maintain the important health benefits of the ECA
emissions standards while addressing the serious economic and technical
issues raised by the industry. We continue to believe the balance we
achieved is the right path to protect citizens in Alaska and the rest
of the Western United States from damaging particulate matter and
sulfur oxides pollution. Overall, the monetized health benefits of the
EPA's coordinated strategy for ships are projected to range from $110
billion to $270 billion, assuming a 3 percent discount rate, or between
$99 billion and $240 billion, assuming a 7 percent discount rate. These
estimated benefits exceed the projected costs by a ratio of more than
30:1.
The EPA continues to be committed to working with the government of
Alaska and regional/local businesses to assist with implementation in
any way possible.
SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS
Senator Reed. The hearing is now recessed.
[Whereupon, at 3:46 p.m., Wednesday, March 16, 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 2012
----------
THURSDAY, MAY 19, 2011
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 2:36 p.m., in room SD-124, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. Jack Reed (chairman) presiding.
Present: Senators Reed, Feinstein, Leahy, Mikulski, Kohl,
Tim Johnson, Nelson, Tester, Landrieu, Murkowski, Alexander,
Cochran, Collins, Ron Johnson, Blunt, and Hoeven.
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Forest Service
STATEMENT OF TOM TIDWELL, CHIEF
ACCOMPANIED BY KATHLEEN ATKINSON, BUDGET DIRECTOR
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR JACK REED
Senator Reed. Good afternoon. I'd like to call the hearing
to order. And, welcome, everyone.
This afternoon the Interior, Environment, and Related
Agencies Subcommittee continues its budget oversight hearings
as we examine the fiscal year 2012 budget request for the U.S.
Forest Service (USFS).
And joining us to present the administration's funding
request is Tom Tidwell, the Chief of the USFS.
Thank you very much for being here, Chief, and we look
forward to hearing your testimony and having a productive
question-and-answer period after the opening statements.
Also joining us this afternoon is Kathleen Atkinson. She is
the USFS Budget Director. Ms. Atkinson has the unenviable task
of making sure no one tries to fudge any of the budget numbers
as we make up our various points.
We appreciate you being here with us very much.
Chief, as you and I have discussed, the USFS does not play
as prominent a role in my home State of Rhode Island as it does
in the States of some of my colleagues. But your agency is
important to every State in the United States, and particularly
Rhode Island. We take opportunities through the research
program. We also have access to, and benefit from, the State
and Private Forestry program. The usefulness of the Forest
Legacy Program (FLP) and Stewardship Programs in conservation
and management of forests is also an integral part of Rhode
Island and our region's efforts to maintain our forested lands.
The funds that go through these accounts are also extremely
critical in being able to leverage the Federal dollars with
State, local, and private funds to preserve those lands.
I'm also aware that our State has benefited from the
programs funded through the research appropriation where we
have received support in dealing with the Asian longhorned
beetle, which is infesting our forests.
So I look forward to your presentation this afternoon.
And, just briefly, for fiscal year 2012, the administration
is seeking a total of $4.9 billion for the USFS. That's an
increase of $248 million, or 5 percent more than the equivalent
2011 enacted level. However, the overall request includes $328
million for payments under the Secure Rural Schools program,
which has not been previously included as part of the USFS'
discretionary budget. Without this funding, then the budget the
administration has proposed is essentially flat.
I'm particularly concerned with the large reductions in the
research budget, the wildlands fire budget, and the maintenance
budget. Together these three appropriations are proposed to be
nearly $600 million below the current enacted levels. That's a
20 percent cut. Even in these fiscally constrained times, I'm
not sure cuts at that level are tenable, and so I think we need
to be concerned with where we might find additional money to
make up some of these shortfalls.
Having said all this, I look forward to a more in-depth
discussion. And first I'd like to recognize, before that
discussion, our ranking member.
Senator Murkowski.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR LISA MURKOWSKI
Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chief, Ms. Atkinson, welcome to the subcommittee. I do
appreciate you being here.
Chief, we had an opportunity not too many weeks ago in the
Energy Committee to discuss your budget request. I look forward
to continuing that discussion today.
As Chairman Reed has stated, the fiscal year 2012 budget
request for the USFS is $5.1 billion--essentially flat,
compared to fiscal year 2011. But within the fiscal year 2012
request you do have the $328 million for the Secure Rural
Schools program. It's been funded in previous years on the
mandatory side of the budget.
I certainly understand the importance of Secure Rural
Schools program and support it, but I'm also concerned that,
with this restructuring, it's essentially going to compete
against other important programs--whether it's timber
harvesting, grazing, maintenance, and all this at a time when
the fiscal environment is pretty tough.
While a mandatory source of funding would avoid the Secure
Rural School program from competing with your annual operating
budget, as we struggle to deal with our deficits, it's unclear
to me where we're going to find this offset. How to fund this
program is a dilemma that we should resolve in the context, I
think, of our larger budget discussions.
Another key aspect of the budget is the proposal to
establish a new integrated resource restoration (IRR), the IRR
line item. This is essentially a big bucket of $854 million
created by consolidating several current budget lines for long-
standing programs--whether it be timber, forest planning, even
portions of the hazardous fuel reduction program. This big
bucket approach appears to reflect an attitude from the agency
that, essentially we've got to trust you on this with a very
large pot of new money, with apparently few strings that are
attached.
And I do have to tell you, Chief, that the trust for the
USFS is, perhaps, in short supply with some of the colleagues--
certainly some of my constituents, the general public there. My
staff has met with folks from all over the ideological
spectrum--whether it's the environmental community, the timber
industry--and they've talked about this IRR proposal. There are
concerns. And I think we've had an opportunity to raise them.
But, for instance, the timber program--extraordinarily
important for the economy of southeast Alaska. And the funding
for it would be buried within the IRR line item, and the agency
could then see fit to put as little or as much toward timber
funding--or timber sales as--as they wanted.
It's important for me, and I think, the public, to know
that you're spending each year on the timber program--we need
to know what that amount is. And any other programs that are
then consolidated within the IRR line item. I think that's a
decision that, quite honestly, we here in the Congress should
be making--not something that is just left to the agency's
discretion, with a mix of other choices.
And then, finally, since we last discussed before the
Energy Committee, there's been some news--most notably, the
Roadless Rule and its application within the Tongass. I'm very
concerned about this recent ruling and the proposed settlement
that the USFS has entered into regarding the litigation.
The settlement language provides some protection for a few
very specific hydroelectric projects, but it does nothing for
dozens of other hydro projects that are currently under
consideration at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
(FERC), or hundreds of potential hydro sites in the region that
could be developed in the future. It also doesn't provide for
the roads that are necessary to build the transmission lines to
connect these power sources to the local communities.
And what this court decision means for the timber industry
is really very, very troubling for us. You know that the timber
industry in our State is hanging by a thread. In 1990, there
were 3,500 direct sawmill and logging jobs in southeast Alaska.
In 2009, we're down to 214 sawmill and logging jobs remaining.
It's pretty incredible to think that the Nation's largest
national forest--an area the size of the State of West
Virginia, 17 million acres--we only have one large sawmill
operating. And that's our situation in the Tongass. And I'm
very concerned that if the Roadless Rule is now made applicable
to the forest, there's simply not enough economically viable
second growth timber in roaded areas for the industry to
survive.
Moreover, the forest plan that took more than 10 years and
millions of dollars to complete may have to now be rewritten,
creating even more uncertainty into the future.
I do hope to hear from you today some concrete actions that
USFS plans to take in response to the litigation, in order to
protect the remaining industry left in southeast Alaska, as
well as the broader economy of the region.
Again, I thank you for your service, Chief, and I look
forward to the opportunity for some questions and answers.
Senator Reed. Thank you, Senator Murkowski.
Do any of my other colleagues wish to make some opening
remarks?
Senator Tester. Mr. Chairman.
Senator Reed. Let me recognize Senator Cochran, then
Senator Tester.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR THAD COCHRAN
Senator Cochran. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to join you and
the other members of this subcommittee in welcoming our
witnesses from the USFS.
I do have a prepared statement which I will ask be made a
part of the record.
Senator Reed. Without objection.
Senator Cochran. I appreciate the good work done by the
USFS, not only in managing the Federal forest lands in our
State, but the national impact that the work you do makes on
our economy, and our recreational resources. And we know that
that doesn't just happen by letting nature run everything.
PREPARED STATEMENT
There are some active programs that you have, that have
been tried and proven to be very valuable to enhance the
recreational opportunities and economic activities, at the same
time that we can enjoy the beautiful scenery and the streams
and rivers that make up our forest inventory. So, we're looking
for ways to be sure that we allocate funds for those purposes
that are consistent with good judgment, and our need to show a
little sense of economy, as well, in these tight budget times.
So, thanks for being here and sharing your thoughts on
those subjects with us.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Senator Thad Cochran
Mr. Chairman, thank you for convening this hearing to review the
budget request for the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) for fiscal year 2012.
I am pleased to join you and the other members of our subcommittee in
welcoming you and working with you to identify your priorities and
suggestions for funding within the limitations of our allocations.
We appreciate the efforts of the USFS for your efforts in ensuring
that our Federal forest lands are well-managed. The six national
forests in Mississippi provide a great deal of outdoor recreation and
economic activity in my State, which would not be possible without your
valued service and commitment.
The many beneficial functions of the USFS go well beyond providing
quality recreational opportunities. In 1996, the USFS research units in
Mississippi, including the Southern Hardwoods Lab in Stoneville, the
Forest Hydrology Lab in Oxford, and the Seed Biology Lab in Starkville,
merged to function as a research center with a common mission focus.
This collaborative effort is now called the Center for Bottomland
Hardwoods Research and is headquartered in Stoneville, Mississippi.
The research that these units conduct is vitally important to both
my State and the Nation. In addition, the dedicated work that these
researchers have provided has positively impacted national and State
forests, as well as privately owned forest land, with environmental and
economic benefits. In 2010, the forestry industry produced more than $1
billion in revenue in Mississippi alone.
As we move forward with the fiscal year 2012 appropriations
process, I hope that the USFS will continue to focus its resources on
the important work that the Center for Bottomland Hardwoods Research is
doing.
I look forward to your testimony and to working with you during the
coming year.
Senator Reed. Thank you.
Senator Tester.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR JON TESTER
Senator Tester. Yes. Thank you, Chairman Reed, Ranking
Member Murkowski, for holding this hearing.
Chief Tidwell, always good to have you here.
And Kathleen, thanks for being here also.
I don't need to tell you. You're intimately familiar with
the forests in Montana--some 20 million, almost 20 million
acres worth, the impacts by beetles. You have a tough job
because, as we talk about deficit and debt, and you come
forward with a budget with some cuts, we all feel passionate
about certain line items that we don't want cut. And we can't
have it both ways.
That being said, in your statement, at some point in time--
and we can bore down on this during my questions--there are
some funds that are being reduced. And I can accept that if I
know what the short-term versus the long-term impacts are.
Let me give you an example. Forest and rangeland research--
you, there's a reduction in that. Is that going to cause us to
spend more money long-term if we save this money short-term?
And, Kathleen, you can answer these questions too if you
feel important.
And the same thing with wildland fire management. Are we
cutting a fund when, in fact, it could save us money if we
utilize that money before we get to a crisis situation?
And that's all.
You've got--I admire the work you do. You know, I've got a
bunch of issues, and you've been very helpful on them. And I
look forward to working with you in the future.
Mr. Tidwell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Reed. All of the statements will be made part of
the record, including yours, Chief. So, if you would like to
summarize, that would be perfectly fine.
And let me recognize you for your opening statement. Thank
you, Chief.
SUMMARY STATEMENT OF TOM TIDWELL
Mr. Tidwell. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, and members of the subcommittee, once again,
it's a privilege to be here today to discuss the President's
2012 budget request for the USFS. I appreciate the support the
subcommittee has shown the USFS in the past, and I look forward
to working with you to provide more of the things that the
American public need and want from our Nation's forests and
grasslands.
I also want to thank you for your support with the 2011
budget. I know how difficult that was, and we do really
appreciate the support that you showed us.
For 2012, the President's budget is designed to support the
administration's priorities for maintaining and restoring the
resiliency of America's forests. Additionally, this budget
request reflects our commitment to fiscal restraint with
significant reductions to ensure that we're spending
efficiently and focusing on the priorities of the American
public.
The budget supports these priorities through four key
objectives. The first is to restore and sustain our forest and
grasslands by increasing the collaborative efforts to build
support for restoration activities that create jobs.
The budget requests full funding for the Collaborative
Forest Landscape Restoration Fund (CFLR). It increases the
emphasis on protecting and enhancing watershed health with a
request for a new Priority Watershed and Job Stabilization
initiative to fund large-scale projects.
It proposes a revised IRR budget line item to align the
budget structure with the work we're doing on the ground. This
will help facilitate a more integrated approach to developing
project proposals that will result in more work being done and
more jobs being created.
We will continue to track the traditional targets, such as
board feet and the miles of stream improved, but we will also
track the overall outcomes of restoration and watershed
improvement so that we can show you that we are making a
difference at a landscape scale. We will continue to
incorporate strategies developed by USFS Research and
Development to determine how our management needs to address
the effects of climate changes, to be able to increase the
ecosystems' resistance to the increasing frequency of
disturbances like fire, insect and disease outbreaks,
invasives, flood, and drought.
The second objective is to provide funding for wildland
fire suppression that includes a level of preparedness to
continue our success to suppress 98 percent of the wildland
fires during initial attack. It also proposes a realignment of
preparedness and suppression funds that more accurately display
the costs. It provides for the FLAME Fund to increase
accountability and transparency of the costs of large fires,
and to further reduce the threat of wildfire to homes and
communities by doing more hazardous fuels work in the wildland-
urban interface (WUI).
The third objective is that we will increase support for
our community-based conservation with the America's Great
Outdoors (AGO) initiative, by helping Americans reconnect with
the outdoors by increasing conservation, education, and
volunteer opportunities through our youth programs. We want to
build on the success of our 28 Job Corps Centers by supporting
the creation of a 21st Century Conservation Service Corps
program to build skills and work together with the States to
provide work experiences for more of our youth. We want to
continue to work with the States using our State and Private
Forestry programs to promote conservation and help keep private
forests forested.
We are requesting an increase in the Land and Water
Conservation Fund (LWCF) and our FLP to use conservation
easements and land acquisitions to protect critical forests and
acquire public access, while we reduce our overall
administrative costs.
The fourth objective is to further support economic
opportunities in rural communities by supporting the
recreational opportunities that not only add to the quality of
our lives, but support these communities through more than $13
billion in annual spending by recreation visitors.
We want to encourage biomass utilization and other
renewable energy opportunities, and explore ways to process oil
and gas permit applications and energy transmission proposals
more efficiently.
We're also proposing a framework for a 5-year
reauthorization of the Secure Rural Schools Act, with $328
million in our budget request to fund the first year. We want
to work with the Congress and this subcommittee to consider
options for mandatory funding and to develop the legislative
proposal.
PREPARED STATEMENT
Our goal is to increase collaborative efforts, to encourage
greater public involvement and management of our national
forests and grasslands. We want to maintain and restore healthy
landscapes. To do this, we need to take care of the ecosystem,
but we also need to support healthy, thriving communities and
provide jobs in rural areas.
Again, I want to thank you for the opportunity to address
the subcommittee, and I look forward to answering your
questions.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of the Tom Tidwell
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, it is a privilege to
be here today to discuss the President's budget request for the Forest
Service (USFS) in fiscal year 2012. I appreciate the support this
subcommittee has shown the USFS in the past, and I look forward to
working together in the future to ensure that stewardship of our
Nation's forests and grasslands continues to meet the desires and
expectations of the American people. I am confident that this budget
will allow the USFS to support this goal, while also reflecting our
commitment to fiscal restraint and ensuring we are spending
efficiently.
As the Secretary testified on March 10, 2011 in front of the
Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and
Related Agencies Subcommittee, we need to take some serious steps to
reduce the deficit and reform Government so that it's leaner and
smarter for the 21st century. The fiscal year 2012 budget the
Department of Agriculture (USDA) is proposing reflects the difficult
choices we need to make to reduce the deficit while supporting targeted
investments that are critical to long-term economic growth and job
creation. To afford the strategic investments we need to grow the
economy in the long term while also tackling the deficit, this budget
makes difficult cuts to programs the administration cares about. It
also reflects savings from a number of efficiency improvements and
other actions to streamline and reduce our administrative costs. It
looks to properly manage deficit reduction while preserving the values
that matter to Americans.
A healthy and prosperous America relies on healthy forests and
grasslands and the benefits they provide:
--clean air and water;
--carbon storage;
--renewable energy;
--food and fiber;
--fertile soils;
--wildlife habitat; and
--recreation opportunities.
The USFS delivers incredible value to the public by protecting and
enhancing these benefits through forest health restoration, research,
and financial and technical assistance to partners. Our national
forests and grasslands help to sustain 224,000 jobs in rural areas and
contribute an estimated $14 billion to the gross domestic product each
year through visitor spending alone.\1\ In addition to managing 193
million acres on 155 national forests and 20 grasslands in 44 States
and Puerto Rico, the USFS helps improve stewardship of lands outside
the National Forest System (NFS). The agency partners with and provides
technical assistance to other Federal agencies as well as tribal,
State, and local governments; private landowners; and nonprofit
organizations for the betterment of the Nation's forests and
grasslands. Furthermore, the agency is a leader in cutting-edge
research on climate change, bioenergy, wildfire management, forest
pests and diseases, ecological restoration, and other conservation
issues. The agency works to efficiently maximize limited resources and
create a high return on investment for the American taxpayer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ USDA Forest Service. National Visitor Use Monitoring Results.
http://www.fs.fed.us/recreation/programs/nvum/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The fiscal year 2012 President's budget request for the USFS totals
$5.1 billion in discretionary appropriations, a $178 million decrease
from the annualized fiscal year 2011 continuing resolution as shown in
the published fiscal year 2012 budget justification. This decrease is
achieved through several program re-combinations that streamline
operations and increase efficiency and through major reductions in
programs, including roads, facilities, and national fire plan programs
and associated State and Private Forestry programs. In addition, the
fiscal year 2012 budget includes $44 million in targeted cost-saving
measures for the USFS through reduced travel and improved acquisition
management procedures. These actions will allow us to focus limited
resources on programs where we can achieve the greatest impact and that
are of highest priority to the American people. Our budget priorities
respond to the public's desire to make smart Federal investments that
will allow us to pass on to future generations the beauty, wildlife,
water, and natural resources that we have today.
The fiscal year 2012 budget for the USFS supports President Obama's
America's Great Outdoors (AGO) initiative, the goals of the USDA's
strategic plan, and Secretary Vilsack's ``all-lands vision''. It aims
to maintain and enhance the resilience and productivity of America's
forests through four funding priorities:
--enhancing water resources;
--responding to climate change;
--community-based stewardship; and
--jobs in rural communities.
Climate change, severe wildfires, disease, and pests have all
contributed to declining forest health. With the current forest health
crisis threatening the future of our forests, ecological restoration
\2\ is a key component to our fiscal year 2012 strategy. We need to
ensure that our forests are resilient in the face of future
uncertainties. To most effectively address this forest health issue, we
must work across landscapes and ecosystems, as well as across ownership
boundaries. The USFS is plotting a course to build a forest restoration
economy that would create jobs in rural areas, more actively involve
local communities in caring for their land, and improve access to
natural areas. Ensuring the sustainability of rural communities and
increasing community collaboration in natural resources management are
critical to the success of restoration efforts and the continued
provision of goods and services from forest ecosystems. Finally, using
forest biomass byproducts from ecological restoration activities as a
source of renewable energy can help enhance U.S. energy security,
economic opportunity, environmental quality, and global
competitiveness. In fiscal year 2012 we aim to strengthen biomass
utilization efforts through our work with other agencies and our
programs that encourage market development for woody biomass.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ By restoration, we mean the process of assisting the recovery
of resilience and the capacity of a system to adapt to change if the
environment where the system exists has been degraded, damaged, or
destroyed. Ecological restoration focuses on re-establishing ecosystem
functions by modifying or managing the composition, structural
arrangement, and processes necessary to make a terrestrial and aquatic
ecosystem sustainable and resilient under current and future
conditions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Our four key funding priorities highlight how we as an agency are
continually working to ensure that we are responding to the needs of
the American public.
enhancing water resources
One of the most important services that the American people receive
from forested landscapes is the provision of clean and abundant
drinking water. An adequate supply of clean water is integral to the
health and prosperity of the United States. More than one-half of the
Nation's freshwater supply originates on public and private forest
lands, and is the source of drinking water for more than 200 million
people. The NFS alone provides fresh water to approximately 66 million
people, or 1 in 5 Americans. In addition, healthy rivers, lakes, and
streams are crucial to sustaining aquatic life, supporting terrestrial
ecosystems, and providing high-quality recreation opportunities.
Maintaining an adequate supply of clean water will be one of the
biggest challenges of the 21st century as our forests and communities
continue to deal with climate change, severe wildfires, invasive pests,
severe storm events, and development pressures.
In order to maximize USDA's investments, USFS in collaboration with
the Natural Resources Conservation Service and Farm Services Agency has
been working to identify and implement high-impact targeted practices
that are expected to have the greatest impact on protecting water
resources. The agencies expect to treat more than 6 million acres in
priority landscapes by the end of fiscal year 2011. These priority
areas include targeted acreage on national forests and private working
lands in the Chesapeake Bay Basin, Great Lakes, Mississippi River
Basin/Gulf of Mexico, and California Bay Delta/Sierras. The agencies
are working toward developing more meaningful performance measures as
part of this effort.
The Integrated Resource Restoration (IRR) budget line item, first
proposed in the fiscal year 2011 budget request, will allow us to
effectively integrate interdisciplinary restoration treatments that
will protect and improve our water resources. The fiscal year 2011
budget request proposed to combine the forest products, vegetation and
watershed management, and wildlife and fisheries management budget line
items and the CFLR program from previous years. In addition to these
programs, legacy roads and trails, road decommissioning, and postfire
rehabilitation and restoration have also been added to the IRR for the
fiscal year 2012 request. Moreover, the portion of hazardous fuels
management funding work outside the wildland-urban interface (WUI) has
also been added to IRR for the fiscal year 2012 request as the agency
works toward restoring historic fire regimes on the non-WUI portion of
the NFS lands. Restoration projects require the integration of various
stewardship activities. Thus, combining these programs will allow us to
use resources more efficiently and will also create the vehicle that
will allow the USFS to move toward restoring watersheds as a top
priority. A new watershed condition framework will be used to evaluate
improvements in watershed health using a national standard and provide
clear accountability for the IRR program area. Specifically, we are
proposing an $80 million Priority Watershed and Job Stabilization
initiative that will use the watershed condition framework, state
forest assessments, project costs, and input from local communities to
prioritize projects to fund to make progress toward improving watershed
condition class. Proposed projects will be developed by USFS and will
come from the action plans created for the priority watersheds
identified as part of the watershed condition framework. We will also
continue to use some of our established targeted measures, as well as
continue to track outcomes related to past measures. fiscal year 2012
restoration projects will maintain and improve water quality and
watershed function, improve fish and wildlife habitat, and integrate
forest products production into stewardship and watershed restoration
activities.
responding to climate change
Climate change is occurring at an increasing rate and jeopardizes
the benefits that the public receives from America's forests and
grasslands, including clean air and water, forest products, and
recreational opportunities. Many of the management challenges that we
have faced over the past decades have been exacerbated by climate
change, including catastrophic wildfires, changing water regimes,
insect infestations, and disease. In fiscal year 2012, USFS will
continue to focus on incorporating climate change adaptation into
multiple program areas, which includes making ecosystems more resistant
to climate-related stressors, increasing ecosystem resilience to
disturbance driven by climate change, and facilitating landscape-scale
ecological transitions in response to changing environmental
conditions. This priority is again tightly tied to restoration and our
IRR budget line item. Restoring key functions and processes
characteristic of healthy, resilient ecosystems allows them to
withstand future stressors and uncertainties. Examples of IRR projects
include decommissioning roads to reduce the risk of erosion from severe
storms, reducing fuels outside the WUI to reduce the risk that severe
wildfire will damage resources near important watersheds or critical
habitat, and reforestation to stabilize critical watersheds and soils
impacted by natural events and to increase long-term carbon
sequestration capacity.
USFS has developed a roadmap for responding to climate change in
order to guide the agency in achieving its climate change goals. The
Roadmap focuses on three kinds of activities:
--assessing current risks, vulnerabilities, policies, and gaps in
knowledge;
--engaging internal and external partners in seeking solutions; and
--managing for resilience, in ecosystems as well as in human
communities.
The agency has implemented a scorecard to measure progress made by
each national forest and grassland. The scorecard assesses agency
capacity, partnerships and education, adaptation, mitigation, and
sustainable consumption.
Our commitment to responding to climate change is underscored in
the proposed planning rule, published for comment in the Federal
Register on February 14, 2011. USFS will begin to operate under the
proposed planning rule in fiscal year 2012 after it is finalized,
emphasizing citizen collaboration and an all-lands approach to
management planning, ecosystem restoration, and climate change
mitigation. A new budget line item, land management planning,
assessment and monitoring, has been proposed for fiscal year 2012.
Combining the previous line items land management planning and
inventory and monitoring highlights the clear tie between gathering
information through monitoring and making management planning
decisions. This combination better aligns program funding with the
objectives of the proposed planning rule, ensuring that planning,
monitoring, and conducting assessments are coordinated more efficiently
across the landscape.
Our climate change research program will continue to help clarify
how climate change is expected to affect our ecosystems and the
services they provide and to inform decisionmakers as they evaluate
policy options. With two decades of climate change research, the USFS
is the authority on how forest and range management can be modified to
address the challenges of global change.
community-based stewardship
Working with local communities is critical to the success of
restoration efforts and increasing ecosystem resilience across the
landscape. Increasing collaboration with stakeholders can move
conservation efforts from a scale of thousands of acres to hundreds of
thousands of acres. Most importantly, working together with
stakeholders from project planning to implementation helps build
citizen support for ecosystem restoration projects. The importance of
getting citizens and communities more connected and involved with the
outdoors has been emphasized in AGO. AGO seeks to empower citizens,
community groups, and local, State and tribal governments to share in
the stewardship responsibility for protecting, improving, and accessing
natural areas and their resources, with the end result of a healthy,
vibrant outdoor legacy for generations to come. The agency is committed
to achieving greater community-based stewardship in pursuit of
resilient forests as outlined in the AGO report. The fiscal year 2012
budget strategically allocates resources to support exemplary local
stewardship models and to catalyze new partnerships and innovations.
USFS will work toward the goals of AGO through multiple program areas.
Building on the sentiments of the American people, the AGO
initiative seeks to maximize use of the Land and Water Conservation
Fund (LWCF), which directs a portion of revenue from offshore oil and
gas leases to conservation projects. LWCF funds USFS's forest legacy
and land acquisition programs and provides local communities the
opportunity to cost-share the conservation of priority forest land. The
fiscal year 2012 budget request funds LWCF at the fully authorized
amount, which constitutes an increase of $59 million for the Forest
Legacy Program (FLP) and an increase of $26 million for the Land
Acquisition Program from the fiscal year 2011 annualized continuing
resolution. The FLP works with States, private landowners, and other
conservation partners to protect environmentally critical forests
threatened by land conversion through conservation easements. Project
funding is based on a nationally competitive process. To date, the FLP
has leveraged more than $630 million in non-Federal matching funds to
conserve more than 2 million acres of non-Federal forest land. In
fiscal year 2012, 48 projects have been proposed for funding in 38
States. FLP projects keep working forests working, which keeps jobs in
rural areas. FLP projects also provide public access to recreation in
many areas. Land acquisition supports a similar function. Its primary
focus is on land acquisitions and donations on land adjacent to
national forests, which typically help fill in holes and consolidate
land ownership, making management easier and more cost-effective. In
fiscal year 2012, 38 nationally prioritized lands have been proposed
for funding. Recreation on national forest lands results in a boost to
local economies and the creation of jobs. This budget request includes
an increase of $5.4 million for recreation in support of AGO.
Protecting land that borders NFS lands and acquiring inholdings
abates the impacts of development. For more than a century, the
American people have invested in protecting forests and grasslands
across the United States to maintain and improve water quality, reduce
wildfire risk, create recreational opportunities and enhance fish and
wildlife habitat. By fully funding the LWCF, our budget will continue
our historic investments, limiting forest fragmentation, which can be
detrimental to these benefits that we have worked so hard to maintain
and enhance. In addition to the LWCF, we also have other tools to
increase our management efficiency and become better neighbors with our
adjacent landowners and will use these as well. I would like to also
draw the subcommittee's attention to the pilot land exchange program
proposed in the landownership management budget line item, which will
accentuate the benefits of consolidated land tenure on one of our
national grasslands.
In fiscal year 2012, USFS will commence implementation of the 2008
farm bill's Community Forest and Open Space Conservation program. This
program provides eligible tribal governments, local governments, and
qualified nonprofit organizations cost-share grants for creating
community forests through fee-simple acquisition. This budget request
includes an increase of $4.5 million for the Community Forest and Open
Space program. These forests will be able to provide public access and
recreational opportunities, as well as protection of vital water
supplies and wildlife habitat, demonstration sites for private forest
landowners, and financial and community benefits from sustainable
management.
USFS will continue to expand community engagement in restoration
efforts on NFS land through the CFLR. Under the IRR budget line item,
the CFLR will provide for the continued implementation of the 10 long-
term projects selected in fiscal year 2010 and will provide for the
selection of additional long-term projects. The CFLR projects are
proposed through multi-stakeholder collaborative planning at a local
level, and priorities are suggested by a Federal Advisory Committee. In
2010, the CFLR funded 10 community restoration projects in Idaho,
California, Colorado, Arizona, New Mexico, Montana, Washington, Oregon,
and Florida.
Conservation education and volunteer opportunities will be a
priority for the USFS as we implement AGO recommendations. We already
have a variety of programs that have successfully connected youth to
the outdoors, and we will continue to find opportunities for engaging
youth in conservation efforts in fiscal year 2012. The Lake Tahoe
Generation Green program works with local community groups to engage
at-risk high-school students in outdoor leadership and forest
management activities. The Kids in the Woods program at the Apache-
Sitgreaves National Forest is another example of a successful locally
based outdoor education program that has taught more than 5,000
participants about a wide range of topics, including invasive species,
water conservation, and responsible off-road vehicle use. The Chugach
Children's Forest in Alaska connects village, rural and inner-city
youth with a nearby national forest, while motivating local district
rangers to work alongside community officials and school
superintendents, integrating community youth challenges with outdoor
solutions. Volunteer opportunities will also expand across the USFS,
including wilderness stewardship, trail clearing, restoration of
historic structures, and campground host duties.
Finally, the proposed planning rule establishes a framework that
emphasizes a collaborative approach to land management planning,
assessment, and monitoring. The USFS will work with the public, tribes
and other partners to develop, revise, and amend land management plans,
conduct assessments and develop and implement monitoring programs.
Collaborative approaches build citizen support in identifying needs,
establishing desired conditions, crafting alternatives for future
management, and identifying information and monitoring needs.
These are but a few examples of initiatives in the budget that
exemplify the importance of community-based stewardship.
jobs in rural communities
In August 2009, in Seattle, Washington, Secretary Vilsack spoke of
the need for a ``shared vision'' that not only focuses on forest
conservation, but also on supporting a forest economy that creates jobs
and vibrant rural communities. The USFS is not only committed to
providing benefits to the American people in the form of clean air and
water, fish and wildlife habitat, timber, and recreation opportunities,
but also in the form of jobs and sustainable rural communities.
Forests and grasslands are an important source of employment and
rural development. More than 2.5 million Americans have forest-related
jobs in fields ranging from ecological restoration to outdoor
recreation services to the forest products industry.\3\ The USFS
provides service contracts for many types of activities including tree
planting, timber harvesting, noxious weed control, culvert replacement,
and road reconstruction. Recreation on national forest lands also
bolsters local economies and creates jobs. We need to build a forest
restoration economy, an economy built on the Secretary's forest
restoration vision that inspires and brings together support for people
playing, recreating and working in the woods.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ USDA, Forest Service. 2010. Draft National Report on
Sustainable Forests. http://www.fs.fed.us/research/sustain/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Over the past year the USFS has worked to create and retain jobs in
rural communities through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of
2009 (ARRA). USFS received funding for two programs. Capital
improvement and maintenance received funds to restore infrastructure
that supports public, administrative and recreation uses, while
minimizing impacts to ecosystem stability and conditions. In addition,
wildland fire management received funds to protect communities from
large fires and to contribute to the restoration of fire-adapted
landscapes. Final completion of all ARRA projects is expected to occur
in the next 2 fiscal years. However, the agency will continue to have a
jobs focus. Job creation and rural development will be a priority in
fiscal year 2012.
One of the highlights of the IRR budget line item is creating job
opportunities in rural areas. Creating job opportunities through
landscape-scale restoration projects is a key component of the Priority
Watersheds and Job Stabilization initiative under the IRR. Stewardship
contracts and agreements will be a significant method for carrying out
restoration efforts, and attention will be given to new and emerging
markets for the wood removed during restoration activities, as well as
the traditional uses for these products. Building a forest restoration
economy will create new jobs in rural communities and help diversify
the forest products industry to support the sustainability of local
communities and the forest contractor infrastructure needed to perform
restoration work. Also, we are working to further build a forest
restoration economy around wood utilization by targeting grants to
assist small businesses. Since 2005, the Woody Biomass Utilization
Grant program has awarded a total of $30.6 million to 123 grant
recipients in 21 States, including small businesses, nonprofit
organizations, tribes, and State agencies, to further innovations in
the wood products sector that lend to job creation.
USFS has also invested in job creation for youth through Job Corps,
a partnership with the Department of Labor. This program helps people
ages 16 through 24 improve the quality of their lives through technical
and academic career training. With Department of Labor funding, we
operate 28 Job Corps Civilian Conservation Centers across the country
that provide approximately 6,200 students per year with the skills they
need to become employable and independent so that they can find
meaningful jobs or further education. In March 2010, Secretary Vilsack
unveiled a green Job Corps curriculum that will help train underserved
youth for jobs in the emerging green economy using national forests and
grasslands as training sites for solar, wind, and biomass energy
demonstrations.
AGO hopes to build on the success of programs like Job Corps by
creating a 21st Century Conservation Service Corps program that will
remove barriers to employment and improve career pathways to jobs in
natural resource conservation. This includes use of the Public Lands
Corps Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2005, which expanded youth
service opportunities while addressing important conservation and
societal objectives. USFS has a long-standing commitment to recruiting
employees that contribute to workforce diversity; providing
opportunities for disadvantaged youth to pursue natural resource
careers; and creating the next generation of land conservationists.
USFS will expand on AGO Goal A (to develop conservation jobs and
service opportunities that protect and restore America's natural
resources) through the Youth Conservation Corps. This summer employment
program aims to accomplish needed conservation work on public lands,
provides gainful employment for 15- through 18-year olds from diverse
backgrounds, and develops in them an understanding and appreciation of
the Nation's natural environment and heritage.
To continue supporting the communities that we work in, the fiscal
year 2012 President's budget proposes a 5-year reauthorization of the
Secure Rural Schools Act, named Payments to Communities, and includes
$328 million of discretionary funding for fiscal year 2012. This act
provides annual payments to counties for schools and roads, forest
restoration/protection, and fire assistance. The proposal modifies the
existing framework to emphasize enhancing forest ecosystems, improving
land health and water quality, and increasing economic development
activities. The administration is open to working with the Congress to
fund either through discretionary or mandatory appropriations.
wildland fire management
The fiscal year 2012 budget request continues to reflect the
President's commitment to responsibly budget for wildfires, ensuring
fire management resources are used in a cost-effective manner in high-
priority areas. The 10-year average of suppression costs is fully
funded, and the allocations between preparedness and suppression funds
have been adjusted to ensure that readiness needs are fully funded for
this fiscal year. The budget request includes a two-tier system for
fire suppression. The suppression account will be the primary source of
funding for responding to wildfires, covering the costs of initial and
smaller extended attack operations. The Federal Land Assistance,
Management and Enhancement Act reserve account will provide better
accounting of funds to cover fires escaping initial attack that are
large and complex, as it did last year. This system ensures that funds
are available to fight fires without diverting funds from other
critical USFS programs and activities.
conclusion
This President's budget request for fiscal year 2012 takes a
comprehensive, all-lands approach to conservation that addresses the
challenges that our forests and grassland currently face, while also
taking into consideration the need to reduce spending and to find the
most efficient way to do our work.
The future of our country's forests and the valuable ecosystem
services they provide depend on our ability to manage for an uncertain
climate and uncertain economic market. This means landscape-level
restoration, working across ownership boundaries, relying upon a
foundation of strong science to guide decisions, and collaborating with
tribal, State, local, private, and other Federal stakeholders to
achieve common goals. A comprehensive approach to restoring unhealthy
ecosystems will help make our forests more resilient to stressors and
disturbances related to climate change and protect our vital water
resources. At the same time, we can significantly contribute to
economic recovery and job support by building a forest restoration
economy. Greater involvement of citizens and communities is key to
successfully implementing restoration efforts at large geographic
scales. Our vision in creating healthy landscapes not only includes
creating healthy ecosystems, but also creating healthy, thriving
communities around our Nation's forests and grasslands and providing
jobs in rural areas. The fiscal year 2012 budget request highlights
these priorities.
I look forward to sharing more with you about our fiscal year 2012
priorities and working with you in shaping the proposals laid out in
this budget. Thank you for your time and attention, and I look forward
to answering any questions you may have.
WILDLAND FIRE MANAGEMENT
Senator Reed. Thank you very much, Chief.
I presume that Ms. Atkinson does not have a statement.
Thank you, Kathleen.
Chief, let me begin with the fire budget. In the
President's budget, there is an error. I understand it is a
clerical error that makes your wildlife fire management request
$192 million less than it should be.
As you know, the subcommittee's allocation will be based on
the President's budget, and it puts us at a disadvantage to
have an inaccurate request. Can you tell us when we can expect
to receive a budget amendment or errata sheet to correct this
error?
Mr. Tidwell. We've shared the subcommittee's concerns with
the Office of Management and Budget, and I will also visit with
them again so we can get that errata sheet up to you very
shortly.
10-YEAR AVERAGE
Senator Reed. Thank you very much, Chief. Let me continue
in terms of fire suppression costs. Could you give us the 10-
year average that you're working with?
Mr. Tidwell. For 2012, we're looking at a 10-year average
of $1.17 billion. When we apply the rebaselining that you've
been requesting us to do for a couple years, and make that
shift between suppression to preparedness, the 10-year average
will then drop to $855 million. But the difference is just the
shift of some preparedness costs that we've been showing in our
suppression costs for the last few years. At the request of
this subcommittee, we feel it's actually more transparent to
show those costs under preparedness.
These are primarily our large aviation contracts that we
have to pay up front at the start of the year no matter how
much we use those aviation contracts throughout the year. We
just believe that they actually should be shown under
preparedness.
Senator Reed. You're confident that the funds you've
allocated to suppression will be adequate for the current fire
season? The current budget season?
Mr. Tidwell. Yes. Based on what we see and where we are
today, and where we expect to be with 2012, we're confident
that the funds that we're requesting will be adequate to handle
a moderate-to-active fire season in 2012.
IRR--COMBINING LINE ITEMS
Senator Reed. Okay. Let me turn now to the IRR program,
which I'm sure will be the topic of several questions from my
colleagues. For many years the USFS did perform integrated
activities under very specific budget lines. I think you'd be
the first to point back several years ago, how you were doing
integrative things using funds from different accounts to
achieve a comprehensive approach.
So the question is why do we have to go to this integrated
one fund? What is the roadblock that hampers a forest
supervisor or regional forester from taking an integrated
approach, even though they would have to, technically, spend
from different accounts?
Mr. Tidwell. Mr. Chairman, you're correct that we've been
taking an integrated approach to our project design and
planning for years. What we're finding as we do more and more
of this--our current budget structure sometimes is a barrier to
promote that integration. Based on the feedback we received
from you last year, we've made some changes to the revised
proposal, so that we will continue to track the traditional
targets of board feet, miles of stream, et cetera. By having
one fund, it will help facilitate not only a more integrated
approach, but it will allow us to look at the landscape and
determine what work needs to be done.
Based on our experiences in the past when we had more
flexibility with our budget, we found that we were able to get
more work done. It makes it easier for not only our employees
to design the work, but also for the public to be part of that
process. It builds more support for the overall work, because
we have a much wider range of objectives that we can accomplish
with every project.
The other key part of it is, there are times when you have
an integrated project you want to go forward with, but one of
the program areas--one of the fund codes--is lacking money on
that unit that year. Sometimes in the past we've actually
deferred very good projects from being able to go forward
because we didn't have the right mix of money to be able to do
that. That's just one of the key benefits.
In these difficult economic times, I look for ways that we
can improve our efficiency. I believe, by having this IRR line
item, that we can be more efficient, and we will actually get
more work done on the ground.
IRR--CHANGES TO PROPOSAL
Senator Reed. Let me just follow up before I turn it over
to Senator Murkowski.
One of the improvements you've made, or, one of the more
specific measures you've included is some commitment to the
timber program in terms of the amount of board feet.
Can you point to other specific changes that are in
response to the criticism of my colleagues last year?
Mr. Tidwell. There were a couple things based on the
comments last year. First of all, we wanted to add some
additional budget line items. We felt that it was important to
put some hazardous fuels funding into this mix. We also feel
that the Legacy Roads program is a very good fit, because so
much of that work is done to improve the overall watershed
health condition.
In addition to those funds, the other thing that we've done
is to ensure that we can track the outputs along with the
overall outcomes. Not only will we track board feet, miles of
stream improved, acres of invasives that have addressed overall
watershed health and acres of wildlife habitat that have been
improved, but also, the overall watershed condition class.
We'll be able to track that through a new condition class
assessment that we are now putting in place for the first time.
We feel that the combination of both of these will allow us
to demonstrate that we are carrying out the direction of the
Congress, and at the same time--especially over several years--
it's my expectation that we'll be able to increase the number
of outputs that we currently are doing with the same amount of
money.
Senator Reed. Thank you very much. Senator Murkowski----
and I will anticipate a second round, because we want to
make sure that everybody has a chance to ask all their
questions.
Senator Murkowski.
TONGASS ROADLESS SETTLEMENT--HYDROPOWER
Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chief, before I begin my questions, I was visited by the
mayor and some of the community leaders of the community of
Wrangell in southeastern Alaska. And when they heard that I was
going to be in hearing with you today, they asked for some
assistance as a community in sitting down with their regional
forester there, talking about, just, a vision for that
community.
I think they've got some good news. And we always want to
work to encourage the good news in some of our southeastern
Alaska communities that have been struggling for some time. So,
I would----
Mr. Tidwell. Thank you.
Senator Murkowski [continuing]. Put that on your ``to-do''
list, if I may. Thank you.
I want to talk about, or ask you a couple of questions,
about the Tongass roadless settlement and the proposal with
respect to the USFS--what you have advanced with that
directive. And this is as it specifically relates to
hydropower, to mining, and to timber in the area.
The agency's proposed judgment provides protection, as I
mentioned in my opening, for a few hydroelectric sites. But
there's about 27 other hydroelectric projects that are filed
currently with FERC, that have not been included, and there are
also about 150 other potential hydropower sites in roadless
areas that, again, are not included.
Can you give me some kind of understanding as to why you
selected the ones that you did for the carve-out, and then left
hanging 150, and then 27 that are actually filed with FERC?
What's the rationale behind that?
Mr. Tidwell. The ones that we included were the ones that
we felt had the most potential to move forward in the near
term. At the same time, in our proposed judgment, there isn't
anything that would preclude those projects from being
considered in the future.
Senator Murkowski. Well, the one thing that would preclude
them is if it's not possible to gain access to them. If, in
fact, you've got to build a hydroelectric site, or allow for
the transmission lines to be built, but only by using a
helicopter, that does make the project prohibitive.
Mr. Tidwell. One of the things with the 2001 Roadless Rule,
because it's been in a state of flux for the last 10 years, is
that we have never actually been able to move forward and to
use the exemptions that are in the 2001 rule. You're correct
that when it comes to building roads and timber harvesting,
there are definitely restrictions on that.
But there also are exemptions that allow us to put in
transmission corridors to be able to construct these
hydroelectric plants. Each one of them would have to be looked
at. It's on its own merits. We would require probably more
helicopter access, especially with the transmission corridors,
et cetera.
The projects that we put forward--we felt these were the
ones that had the best potential. With this proposed judgment
we wanted to be able to get things going forward so that we can
start to provide more reasonable energy there in southeastern
Alaska. I was in the process of negotiating with the plaintiffs
on this. We felt by going with this list, this gave us the best
chance to be able to reach an agreement so that these projects
can move forward right away.
Senator Murkowski. Well, and those that are looking to
build those projects are glad that they're not caught in this
real incredible trap. Because to suggest that you can build a
hydro project, to suggest that you can build a mine, or develop
other mineral deposits, but you can't build a road to get
there--you will have to helicopter in everything that you're
going to need for this--it just defies logic.
The agreement mentions the potential exploration and
expansion of Greens Creek Mine, the exploration of Bokan
Mountain and of Niblack Mine; but, again, there are some other,
about 14 other mineral deposits that are not included.
Excuse me.
And so, I, I'm just at a loss as, to try to understand how
you have determined that this small subsection shall move
forward, when we have equal opportunities in some other areas
that now have, for all intents and purposes, been put off
limits.
TONGASS ROADLESS SETTLEMENT--TIMBER SALES
The other question that I would have would be with regards
to the timber sales that have already--the USFS has already
spent the money to perform the National Environmental Policy
Act (NEPA) analysis for these, and this was done prior to the
court's ruling. Shouldn't these have also been included in the
forest settlement's proposal?
Mr. Tidwell. Well, Senator, as far as the timber sales,
with this latest court ruling, there is an impact on several
timber sales that we had completed the NEPA work.
However, with the work that the region and the USFS has
been doing over the last 2 years, we have moved out of these
roadless areas so that, even with this court ruling, we can go
forward with our planned program of work in the future. Even
with this, because of the work that our folks were doing over
the last 2 years, we're well-positioned to be able to move
forward with a continued increase in the amount of timber
harvest--not only this year, but also what we plan for 2012.
Senator Murkowski. But, in fact, with the proposals and
what has been advanced by the USFS and the others, if somebody
decides to sue on this, there is nothing that provides
protection from further suits. So, we may be no further ahead
than we are right now. Is that correct?
Mr. Tidwell. That's always the possibility. However, I feel
that with the work that's been going on for the last couple of
years to build more and more agreement about the need for our
timber sales and for the restoration work that we need to do to
help sustain these communities, we're seeing that we're able to
implement more projects than we have been in the past. I think
it's one of the things that we can continue to work on to build
additional trust and understanding about the importance of
forest management, the integrated wood products industry, and
to help sustain these communities.
When it comes to what was negotiated in this proposed
judgment--it was a negotiation of being able to put together a
list of projects that we felt were the most important to be
able to go forward with right now, and at the same time, not
preclude other projects from being considered that would have
to meet the requirements of the 2001 Roadless Rule.
As you know, everybody was in agreement, and so we
submitted our proposal. The other proposals will be coming into
the court. We're anxious to see just where we'll end up with
this.
Senator Murkowski. Well, I'll ask more in the next round,
Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
Senator Reed. Thank you, Senator Murkowski.
We'll proceed by recognizing Senators as they arrive, going
back and forth from side to side.
Senator Johnson.
FLP--BLOOD RUN PROJECT
Senator Tim Johnson. Chief Tidwell, welcome and it's good
to see you again.
And welcome, Ms. Atkinson.
The USFS budget emphasizes conservation and outdoor
recreation through robust funding for the LWCF. As you pointed
out, this funding comes from offshore rail and gas lease
revenue, not taxpayer dollars.
As we develop our publicly owned natural resources, it
makes sense to reinvest in public assets like our national
forests.
I want to highlight a particular FLP project--the Blood Run
site in southeastern South Dakota. The State of South Dakota
and local partners have made this acquisition along the Big
Sioux River a top priority, and I'm pleased that the
administration has included the project in its priority list
for fiscal years 2011 and 2012. Converting the site into a
State park will protect the area from encroaching development,
and provide public access to this unique and historic outdoor
area.
This project involves significant coordination and
financial commitment from a number of partners, and the State
faces a limited time frame to purchase the property.
Can you comment on the administration's commitment to
completing this project?
Mr. Tidwell. Senator, as you've mentioned, this project is
on our priority list for all the reasons that you've stated.
As far as being able to move forward with the current level
of funding that we have in 2011--I'm not sure if it's on the
list of projects that's funded in fiscal year 2011. So it'll
depend on the amount of funding we receive in fiscal year 2012
if we can move forward with this project in this coming year.
Senator Tim Johnson. Sooner or later, can you make a
commitment as to the completion of this project?
Mr. Tidwell. Probably when we receive our budget for 2012,
we'll be able to get back to you and be able to tell you if
this project can go forward. It will depend on the amount of
funding that we receive.
LAND ACQUISITION--LADY C RANCH
Senator Tim Johnson. Similarly, I also want to ask about
the project that was not included in the fiscal year 2012
priority list, because it was assumed that it would be
completed with 2011 funding. The Lady C Ranch is an important
inholding in the southern part of the Black Hills National
Forest. We have been working on this 2,400 acre acquisition
project for years, bit by bit, with willing and very patient
sellers. We are now in the very last phase with just $765,000
remaining to complete the project.
Can you provide an update on the status of fiscal year 2011
land acquisition funding? If a project like the Lady C Ranch
doesn't receive funding in fiscal year 2011, will it receive
consideration in 2012?
Mr. Tidwell. Senator, we did not receive enough funding in
fiscal year 2011 for this very beneficial project. Depending on
the funding that we receive in fiscal year 2012, that will
determine how far we can go down on the priority list.
A project like you've just mentioned, if we're not able to
finish it in 2012, I would hope we can then have it very high
on the priority list for fiscal year 2013.
You've done a very good job to express the amount of
support that's always behind our LWCF projects--that these are
not only willing sellers. There's always strong support from
the communities----
Senator Tim Johnson. Yes.
Mr. Tidwell. A lot of folks use these lands.
We go through great lengths to set the priority list that
we send up here for your consideration each year. I can tell
you that it's always difficult to decide which project actually
is a higher priority than the others, because they're all
excellent projects, and ideally we'd be able to accomplish all
of them over time.
Senator Tim Johnson. What criteria do you use in your,
enumerating your priority of the projects?
LAND ACQUISITION--PRIORITIZATION
Mr. Tidwell. The criteria that we've been using looks at
the overall benefits. For instance, if it continues to maintain
or increase public access, if wildlife habitats are going to be
enhanced, if there are other recreational opportunities
enhanced, and if there is a reduction in administrative costs.
Almost always with our acquisitions, we reduce our
administrative costs by not only eliminating the boundary,
lines that have to be maintained, but also when it comes to our
restoration work. When you don't have to worry about a section
of private land that's surrounded by national forest, it's a
lot more efficient to design your restoration work and your
forest health work. Those are some of the criteria that we use.
The other key part of it is if the project is ready, and by
ready, I mean strong support is in place. The other thing we
also look at is if these projects can be phased in over a
period of years. We often like to at least get started on
projects. If the owner is willing to work with us over several
years, that often helps us be able to get started on the
project.
Senator Tim Johnson. Very good, Chief.
Senator Reed. Thank you very much, Senator Johnson.
Senator Cochran.
FLOOD DAMAGE--HOMOCHITO NATIONAL FOREST
Senator Cochran. Mr. Chairman, thank you.
Let me bring to your attention something you already know a
little bit about. If you've been watching television, we've had
huge damage done to forests, businesses, and homes in our State
of Mississippi because of the flooding of rivers and streams--
not just the Mississippi River, because it's really still
within its banks, due to the fantastic work that has been done
over time to protect landowners and homeowners along the
Mississippi River.
But in the Delta National Forest, which comes to mind,
there are small businesses and farms in and around the Delta
National Forest. And I wonder if you've had an opportunity to
assess the extent of damage, and whether you are involved
actively with other Federal agencies in trying to assess the
situation and prevent further damage, and try to somehow help
us recover from this terrible natural disaster.
Mr. Tidwell. You know, Senator, we haven't done any
assessments of the overall damage. We have been focused on
public safety and ensuring that places where people camp or go
hiking either are going to be above the floods or that folks
are no longer out there, especially as the waters continue to
increase.
As soon as the water starts to recede, we'll be in there to
assess the damage to see what we need to do to maybe shift some
of our planned program of work for this year to deal with the
aftermath. It's our experience that there'll be a lot of downed
trees that we'll need to deal with to get roads opened up, et
cetera. Also, we need to take advantage of the timber that's
down, and move quickly to remove it so that we don't create
another insect and disease infestation that often occurs
following a situation like this. So, we are poised and working
with the other agencies in the Department of Agriculture, and
specifically the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS),
so that we'll be working together and not only helping to
address the issues on the national forests, but also on the
adjoining private land if there are things that we can do,
especially with the NRCS programs, to assist those folks.
Senator Cochran. Well, we thank you for your leadership,
and for being prepared to move quickly when the time is right,
to try to provide that kind of assistance. We appreciate that
very much.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Reed. Thank you, Senator Cochran.
Senator Tester.
Senator Tester. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And once again, Chief, good to have you here.
Ticker's doing good?
Mr. Tidwell. Yes, I'm still here----
Senator Tester. That's good.
Mr. Tidwell [continuing]. It's doing well.
Senator Tester. Because it's good to have you here.
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
I want to bore down a little bit into the budget. And like
I said in my opening comments, I think we all have a tough job.
There's, we know that the deficit and debt issues are
critically important to get under control. On the other hand of
the equation, we need to do it right so we don't create more
problems than we're solving.
Forest and rangeland research, a $16 million cut. Research
and development is something that's pretty important in our
overall economy. Can you give me a little insight, and be as
concise as you can, as to what the substantiation for that cut
is?
Mr. Tidwell. Well, Senator, I share your concerns. As we
put together our budget proposal, we had to make some very
difficult decisions about where we could propose some
reductions.
And what we did with our research work is that we looked at
our ongoing research and identified which of those projects we
could go ahead and defer some activity, but at the same time,
not lose the overall investment that we've made. We actually
went through research project-by-research project to determine
where we could either slow down the amount of research or delay
it for a few years, and not lose that overall investment.
Senator Tester. Can you tell me what kind of research
you're taking about mainly? Are there main categories they fall
into?
Mr. Tidwell. We went through just about everything that we
do. One of the areas where we've tried to maintain the
essential funding is the research that we're doing dealing with
invasives, especially with some of the insects that we're
dealing with. As it was mentioned earlier, the Asian longhorned
beetle is one; the emerald ash borer is another one.
Senator Tester. Yes.
Mr. Tidwell. But at the same time, with gypsy moths, where
the research is in place, we felt that we could probably go
ahead and defer or delay any additional research at this time.
Senator Tester. Okay.
Mr. Tidwell. The other key part of the reduction is with
our forest inventory and analysis work that provides the long-
term database of the condition of our forests in this country--
not just on national forests, but also on private land. This is
an essential database that almost everybody uses today.
And we had to make some tough decisions. There were a
couple of States that we felt we didn't need, that we could
postpone putting out additional plots. Those are the types of
decisions we had to make.
WILDLAND FIRE MANAGEMENT
Senator Tester. Okay. Wildland fire management, $400
million, almost $400 million. Fires are a fact of life. But we
all know we need to handle them in a way--because there's a lot
of people that live out there, there's a lot of forest
communities.
Can you tell me how that budget's going to impact
firefighting, and in particular, if it's going to have any
impact on protecting our forest communities?
Mr. Tidwell. Our proposed budget will provide the same
level of preparedness that we've had for the last few years--
the same number of firefighters, the same number of aviation
resources.
Senator Tester. Okay. So, where'd the $400 million come
from?
Mr. Tidwell. Well, part of it, close to $100 million of
those funds are part of the IRR budget line item.
Senator Tester. Which does what?
Mr. Tidwell. Some of the hazardous fuels funding was moved
into IRR.
Senator Tester. Okay. So let's just stop there for a
second. It was moved into other accounts, so it's still going
to be funded? Or it's not going to be done?
Mr. Tidwell. The majority of it was moved. There was a $9
million reduction in hazardous fuels work that we do outside of
the WUI.
Senator Tester. Right. Because if there's more hazardous
fuels, it sounds to me--and correct me if I'm wrong--there's
more potential for fire. And you might have the same number of
firemen, but you may have more fires.
Mr. Tidwell. That's where it's a combination of addressing
the hazardous fuels, but at the same time providing that level
of preparedness. We felt it was essential to maintain almost
the same level of fuels work.
WORKFORCE MANAGEMENT
Senator Tester. Okay. About 1,819 employees will be
terminated, or not replaced if they retire, however you're
going to do it. And I'm all about making folks lean and mean,
and all that. Can you give me an indication on where those
people are going to come from?
Mr. Tidwell. We do project it'll be, with this budget
proposal, a loss of about 1,800 permanent, full-time positions.
That's about what our attrition rate is each year. So, we
believe that for this budget proposal, with what we normally
see with the number of people that retire or leave the agency,
we'll be able to handle this reduction without having to take
any actions with any of our employees.
The challenge will be to match up where we've lost funding
in the programs with our existing workforce. But we have done a
very good job managing our workforce. We have had a stable,
flat workforce since about 1995, and we've continued to do more
and more work through contracting, so we are, I believe, well-
positioned to handle this because of our conservative approach
to our workforce over the years.
Senator Tester. Just one last, if I may, Mr. Chairman.
You touched on something that drives me crazy in
Government, in that we reduce the workforce on one hand. And we
replace it with contract labor on the other hand. The cost is
more than the workforce that existed before. That's not going
to happen here?
Mr. Tidwell. No, I believe we'll probably be doing less
contract work in 2012 to be able to maintain our existing
workforce.
Senator Tester. Okay. Thank you very much.
And thank you.
Senator Reed. Thank you.
Senator Blunt.
BUDGET TRENDS
Senator Blunt. Well, thank you, Chief, for being here, and
Director.
And maybe just to follow up on that a little bit--the
budget you're requesting increases overall budget numbers, is
that right?
Mr. Tidwell. There's a slight increase to provide funding
for the Secure Rural Schools program that hasn't been part of
our budget in previous years. So that's the increase that you
see.
Senator Blunt. And how much is that program?
Mr. Tidwell. $328 million.
Senator Blunt. All right. So there is actually in the
traditional budget, you're looking at a decrease?
Mr. Tidwell. Well, it's basically a flat budget.
PESTICIDE REGULATIONS--CLEAN WATER ACT
Senator Blunt. Let me mention one thing in that statement,
though. Just looking at the Mark Twain National Forest, which
is 1.5 million acres in Missouri, the estimate is that we're
adding about 210 million board feet worth of growth every year,
and we're harvesting 17.2 million. Adding 210 million,
harvesting 17.2 million. That 17.2 million is worth about $2.1
million. The 210 million would be worth about $21 or $22
million.
Just on the record, you know, I really think one of the
ways to manage the forest is to go in there and be sure that
we're doing the management job we should do and capitalizing on
these resources at the same time.
Another resource that I think could be huge for the country
and for our State would be the whole idea of woody biomass, and
what we can do with that, and the resource that provides for
the USFS.
I've got a couple of questions, though, to ask specifically
on. I want to be sure and get in the time the chairman's given
me here.
And one is that the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA)
attempting to classify pesticide application to crops and to
forests as point source, which subjects them to the Clean Water
Act. There's already a lot of Federal laws in place to control
pesticide applications.
I think this is going to have a real impact on forest
managers. And I'm wondering--has the USFS reached out to the
EPA on behalf of the managers to challenge this addition of
forest into the point-source category?
Mr. Tidwell. Well, Senator, we work with the EPA on all of
their regulations. One of the things that I always want to
stress with them is the need for us to be able to do the forest
health work, the restoration work, and the timber harvest work
to maintain and restore these forests. We work very closely
with the EPA, so that the regulations that they move forward do
not necessarily restrict those activities that are so
important, but actually allow those activities to go forward.
We continue to have discussions on all of their
regulations, so that we can move forward in a way and still do
the work that has to be done on the landscape.
Senator Blunt. On this one, are you in agreement with the
forest being a point-source designee?
Mr. Tidwell. Are you referring to this under-the-roads
portion?
Senator Blunt. I think that's right.
Mr. Tidwell. Oh.
Senator Blunt. Under the--no, this is, this would be
pesticides.
Director, do you want to clarify what I'm--
Mr. Tidwell. You know, Senator, I'll have to get back to
you on this one.
[The information follows:]
In January 2009, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals determined that
residues of chemical pesticides and biological materials are point-
source pollutants. Because of that court finding, the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) is obligated under the Clean Water Act to
develop a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
permitting system for pesticide applications on/over/near waters of the
U.S. Most States have ``primacy'' under the NPDES program, and will
develop permits at least as stringent as those requirements that the
EPA establishes. The United States Forest Service (USFS) will need to
establish internal procedures to meet State-level requirements of NPDES
permits. Our forest health protection program is the USFS lead for
pesticide management and has been engaged over the last couple of years
in talks with the EPA on development of their proposed NPDES Pesticide
General Permit (PGP). Because State requirements are still yet-to-be
determined, pending the release of the EPA PGP, the impacts on our
agency are still largely unknown. We will continue to maintain
communications and work with the EPA to ensure that we stay current on
the PGP timeline and subsequent State requirements.
Senator Blunt. All right. That would be great. That would
be great. I'd like to hear more about this. Because I think
it's a new--it treats them in a different way than they've been
treated in the past. And I think it creates a management
challenge. So, well, let's, let's keep talking about that.
Mr. Tidwell. Okay.
THOUSAND CANKERS DISEASE
Senator Blunt. That was actually going to be my next thing
to say on that. Well, let's continue to talk about it and see
if there's not a better way to do this, than to create another
management nightmare for forest managers that you represent,
including the forest management that the Government itself
does.
I also wanted to be sure and call attention to a disease
that threatens black walnut trees. It's called the thousand
cankers disease. And I know you're familiar with it already.
It's domestic. I think Animal and Plant Health Inspection
Service only gives priority to exotic, invasive species. I'm
not sure what the treatment will be with thousands cankers, but
I do know that it has the potential--at least I'm told it has
the potential to wipe out millions of, and billions of black
walnut trees in Missouri and in other places. And just a little
comment on where we're headed there would be helpful, Chief.
Mr. Tidwell. Thousand cankers disease has been out West for
years, and it really hasn't been a major concern. But now, as
it's moved eastward, and especially to black walnut, we're very
concerned. Our research scientists are now focusing on that to
try to discover the insect vector with this pathogen, so that
we can develop some type of either biological control or
insecticide, et cetera, to be able to stop this before it
really gets established more than where it is right now.
Senator Blunt. And the reason it was less of a problem in
the West than it will be as it moves into the eastern tree
species is what?
Mr. Tidwell. Well, for instance, the black walnut is a
highly valuable tree. Some of the species that it's infested in
the West, those species have evolved with it, so it doesn't
take out all of them, it just reduces some of those stands.
They're usually the less profitable trees where we've had this
disease. So actually out West, it doesn't really cause a big
problem.
The other thing we want to also look into is, what's
created this change now allowing thousand cankers disease to
start moving East, so that we can also understand if there are
some things that we can change so it can't go even further
East, or head North, or wherever. So that's the other thing
that we want to look into--not only the specific control, but
to understand, what's changed and if it's some type of change
in our climate that's allowed this pathogen to expand, or what.
That's the other thing that we're looking into.
And there's some urgency to get ahead of this before it
becomes a major problem.
Senator Blunt. Well, if you'll put me on your list to
update on this----
Mr. Tidwell. Yes.
Senator Blunt [continuing]. As you look at it, I'd be very
pleased to be both involved and supportive in your efforts
there.
And thank you for the time, Chairman.
Mr. Tidwell. Thank you.
Senator Reed. Thank you.
Senator Hoeven.
AGRICULTURAL MEDIATION SERVICE
Senator Hoeven. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chief, good to see you again. Thanks for being here today.
And, Ms. Atkinson, thank you as well.
Also, Chief, I want to thank you for coming out to North
Dakota and spending some time with our ranchers in the
grasslands. We appreciate it very much. And you were very
responsive after your testimony in front of the Energy and
Natural Resources Committee. So thank you very much. And, I
think that your visit out there was well received.
I guess I want to follow up on a couple of the issues that
we discussed, and that I know you had opportunity to discuss
with the grazing associations and our ranchers in the
grasslands, and make sure that your planning--both in terms of
your management plan, but also in terms of your budget--to
follow up on some of the things that are of particular
importance to our ranchers and grazers.
The first relates to use of the Ag Mediation Service. And
I'd like your comment both in terms of using the Ag Mediation
Service up front when those contracts are signed with a
grazer--well, I actually should take a step back--in
negotiations with the grazing associations, but then also
contracts with the grazers, and then ongoing dispute
resolution. So, if you would comment on all three of those?
Mr. Tidwell. Senator, what we had discussed when I was out
in North Dakota is to be able to use certified mediators to
help in two steps of the process.
The first one is, before we even start any of the proposed
projects or a proposed NEPA, to address the grazing agreements
and to use those certified mediators to help bring people
together so we have a better understanding of the issues,
whether it's issues the USFS has or issues the grazers have, so
that as we move forward there is a better understanding of just
what we need to address.
Then, the second part is during our pre-decisional process,
before a decision is made, to actually use the certified
mediators to really bring the parties together and talk through
that prior to when that decision's made.
We felt those were the two areas that we could probably
have the most benefit, to use the additional skills available
to really head off some of these issues before a decision's
actually made.
Senator Hoeven. Delineate in your mind where you have
agreement with the grazers, the grazing associations, and where
you don't.
Mr. Tidwell. It's different, probably, with each of the
associations where we have agreement. There is definitely some
disagreement over which parts of the grasslands have the
biological potential for the high structure, to produce grass
high enough to address the wildlife habitat concerns. We have
come to agreement with the university to go forward with the
study to be able to help determine that. I think once
completed, that'll go a long way to resolve what I believe is
probably the number one issue that we have with the grazing
associations.
I think bringing people together and having them sit down
with a certified mediator can resolve a lot of the other issues
that have continued at times. We need to focus on not only
maintaining the grasslands, but continuing to do it in a way
that not only sustains grazing but also can increase wildlife
habitat opportunities.
GRAZING MANAGEMENT--WILDLIFE HABITAT
Senator Hoeven. Are you willing to wait to get the study--
and I appreciate you using the range scientists at North Dakota
State University. I think that's helpful, both because they're
very good, but also, because the grazers in our part of the
world have confidence in them and tend to know them. And so
they have a higher comfort level with them.
But both as to the structure, the grass structure and so
forth, as it relates to wildlife like the sage grouse, and as
it relates to current management practices and any change you
would make in your management practices, are you willing to
look at those studies first, get some agreement with the
ranchers, hopefully, a meeting of the minds, use some of those
mediators if you need to, to get that meeting of the minds,
before you go forward with the new management plan?
Mr. Tidwell. Well, Senator, without having the specific
knowledge of the status of each one of those agreements, and
also which allotments we've completed, to determine whether we
have the biological capability or not, I would suggest that we
look at each situation on its own merits and make that
determination of where we have adequate data to be able to move
forward. Where we don't, then we need to wait and collect
additional information.
Most, if not all the ranchers are good managers. We share
the same results. They want to be able to sustain that forage
so they can go out year after year. We all know that no two
years are the same, as you well know in your State. That's the
other thing we have to factor into it--every year we have a
different amount of precipitation, and a different amount of
growth that occurs. We need to collect information over a
period of time, and then we can make adjustments.
The other thing is that these adjustments don't have to be
permanent. They can be very flexible depending on each year
because no 2 years are going to be the same. I think the other
key part of is to be able to reach an agreement about--this is
what we want the grasslands to look like when we're done each
year and then to work together to have the right stocking level
out there. That's where the ranchers are in the best position
to make that determination.
Senator Hoeven. Mr. Chairman, with your indulgence, if I
could----
Senator Reed. Go right ahead.
Senator Hoeven [continuing]. Continue for just a minute.
Well, two things. First off, you're absolutely right. For
example, this year there's going to be a lot of high structure,
because it's been, well, you know, even when you were out
there, and there's been a lot of rain since then. So you're
absolutely right about no two years are the same.
But both in terms of, with some of the individual grazers
who are anxious to get their contract or their leases signed,
using those mediators could really be helpful. And I'd strongly
urge you to do that wherever you can.
Second, in a lot of other cases, both with individual
grazers and the associations, really working on, together with
them on the studies to get the results----
Mr. Tidwell. Yes.
GRAZING ASSOCIATIONS--FREEDOM OF INFORMATION REQUESTS
Mr. Hoeven. Get a competence level, and then go forward
with your agreements. I'd strongly urge you to do that. And I
think that you've shown a willingness to work with them that I
greatly appreciate.
And the only other thing that I'd throw out, because my
time is up, is, at least one of the grazing associations, if
not more, has a Freedom of Information Act request into--and
it's been pending for quite some time. And I'd really encourage
you to respond to them on it. And if there's some issue or
impediment, maybe you can let my office know, and we can try to
follow up and help you with it.
LWCF--PRIORITY LIST
Mr. Tidwell. Okay. Thank you, I'll do that. We'll, look
into that tomorrow.
Senator Hoeven. Okay. Thank you.
And thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Reed. Thank you, Senator.
Let me begin a second round, and, by following up on
Senator Johnson's question with respect to the LWCF.
Now that you have an idea of the funding--in fact, a good
idea of the funding for fiscal year 2011--and which projects
you can complete, do you expect to send us an amended list for
fiscal year 2012 that will take into account the projects in
fiscal year 2011 priority list that were not funded?
Mr. Tidwell. At this time, we're not planning to send up a
changed list. The projects that were not funded in fiscal year
2011 are the ones that we'd like to consider for our fiscal
year 2013 proposals.
SECURE RURAL SCHOOLS PROGRAM
Senator Reed. Okay.
Let me turn to the issue of the Secure Rural Schools
program. And both Senator Murkowski and I have indicated the
challenge this poses to our budget. Discretionary funding of
$328 million, as you said, Chief, if you take it out, you have
a flat budget, basically. So, you've had to make some hard
calls within your budget to do everything before you even got
to Secure Rural Schools program.
Previously, this was a mandatory funding program, so it
didn't impact your budget. You also recognize that we had to
cut 8 percent from the fiscal year 2011 continuing resolution.
We don't have the Senate allocation yet. We have to fix the
errata, which we mentioned before. And the House is working
with a 10 percent reduction below their fiscal year 2011
funding. So, there's huge pressure on the budget, and yet now
we have this new program, more or less.
And one other point I'd add, too, is, the shift from a
mandatory program to a discretionary program, even for those
schools that are benefiting, given the difficulty of funding
discretionary programs, this is not something I think they can
bet on for a long time, or feel secure about. So that's another
aspect.
But, essentially--and I'd be very eager for my colleagues
to discuss it, and I'm sure we'll talk about this--are you
working with the authorizers to continue this as a mandatory
program, so that we have flexibility in the budget to do more
traditional USFS activities?
Mr. Tidwell. We've made it clear that we're very interested
in finding a way to make this mandatory. I think everyone
agrees. We agree that ideally that would be probably the best
approach. As we were putting together our budget proposal, as
you folks well understand, it was difficult for us to find the
funding for a mandatory program.
At the same time, it's such an important program,
especially to these counties, and it provides the funding for
their schools and their roads. This is also not the time for
this program to be discontinued in our view. We have put it in
the budget and understand the consequences. At the same time,
we want to work with the authorizing committees. We'll work
with this subcommittee. We'll work with anyone that has some
ideas about how to pursue the mandatory program.
Senator Reed. Well, obviously, we look forward to working
with you. Just looking at the terrain at the moment, if we get
something close to the House allocation, a 10 percent
reduction, then, you know, no program, I think, is sacred. So,
we're going to have to do something about this program.
And again, I can see the premise behind the program. There
was a loss of jobs, abrupt loss of jobs because of changing
rules about timber cutting; communities who were at risk. And,
frankly, my colleagues want, as I would, to protect their
constituents. But it seemed to be a 5-year program that would
have a finite point. And that point now is being extended.
And also, there are some communities that are still
suffering grievously--unemployment rates about 10 or 11
percent. But, looking quickly at some of the other recipients,
I've seen unemployment rates down to 2.7, 3.1, and 4 percent,
which are, trust me, relative to Rhode Island, in fact,
relative to Alaska, they're doing pretty well. So, there are a
lot of issues we have to deal with in the context of this
program. And, obviously, we're going to be working with you.
And I'm working with the ranking member to see what we can do.
PRIORITY WATERSHEDS AND JOB STABILIZATION PROGRAM
Let me turn to another topic. That's the Priority Watershed
and Job Stabilization program. What's the current status of the
Watershed Condition Framework classifications? How far are you
along?
Mr. Tidwell. We have completed our assessment, and now have
all 15,000 of our watersheds done. Basically, we've classified
their current conditions, if they're healthy and stable, if
they're at risk, or if they're actually an impaired watershed.
We used a set of 10 to 12 criteria to make that determination.
We have completed that, so we now have our baseline. As we move
forward with our work over the years, we're going to be able to
track the improvement by watershed.
Senator Reed. Now, you've essentially prioritized these
watersheds as you've described. Is there a geographic trend?
Or, are you going to try to devote resources across the country
based upon these critical or deficient watersheds? Is there any
geographic principle?
Mr. Tidwell. We have watershed concerns in every region of
this country. The way I envision this will work is that, within
our regions, they'll make some determinations about what is the
best investment and where is the best place to do the work.
I don't see any shifts in resources between regions. But I
do see there will probably be a shift within national forests
and also a shift in where we need to make the investment. For
some of our watersheds--it's really a forest health issue. If
we have a concern about potential catastrophic fire in there
and the impacts, that might be the highest-priority work. In
another watershed, it may just be improving the drainage on a
few roads. I mean, that's the sort of thing that would really
help us to identify, where's the best investment to make?
You will see shifts in some areas as to what type of work
we need to focus on first. But I don't believe you'll see any
shifts between the regions on this, and it will probably be
more shifts within the forest activities.
Senator Reed. Can I ask a final question before I recognize
the ranking member, and that is, it's called the Priority
Watershed and Job Stabilization program. Can you kind of give
me the concrete link between the watershed condition and job
stabilization? I mean, how does this focus on jobs, or
differentiate from other parts of the IRR, and any other
elaboration about the job effect?
Mr. Tidwell. Well, the connection with jobs is that, with
this priority watershed focus, we want to look at larger
landscapes. It's one of the places I feel we can gain some
efficiencies. In the past, most of our planning and project
design has been focused on relatively small acreages--500,
maybe 1,000 acres. We want to look, encourage our forests and
grasslands to look, at much larger project areas, like up to
10,000 acres, so that we can gain some efficiencies. Also, we
want to use stewardship contracting to be able to provide some
certainty about the amount of work that's going to be done over
the next few years. That is one of the places where we can, I
think, increase jobs.
By looking at larger areas this time, we'll just be able to
get more work done, and thus be able to put more people to
work.
Senator Reed. Thank you.
Senator Murkowski.
SECURE RURAL SCHOOLS PROGRAM
Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Just to follow up with the Chairman's questions about the
Secure Rural Schools program. I think you've heard from the
subcommittee here, as well as the Energy Committee--a great
deal of concern about where we are with the Secure Rural
Schools program right now and how it continues to meet the
needs. I think the Chairman's noted that it is appropriate to
be looking at it, but recognizing that in, for instance, in
many of the communities in the Tongass that receive Secure
Rural Schools program funding, there is no other economy there
to grow to. And we've had this discussion before.
A question for you with regard to, if we were to determine
that within this fiscal year 2012 budget, that the funds that
have been requested are appropriated, how will the funds be
allocated? Do you, will you be sticking to the current formula,
working with authorizers to revise that formula? What are you
thinking at this time?
Mr. Tidwell. We want to work with the authorizing committee
to develop the legislative proposal. We made some, in my view,
significant improvements when we re-authorized this 5 years ago
from the initial authorization. I think there's an opportunity
to continue that. We want to be able to work with the
authorizing committee about how this would actually work over
the next 5 years.
TONGASS ROADLESS SETTLEMENT--TIMBER SALES
Senator Murkowski. Okay. I want to take you back to the
Tongass and the impact of the Roadless decision on the long-
term.
As we, as you know, historically, the allowable board feet
that have been put forth historically have been enough to
sustain the area. The allowable sale quantity for the Tongass
is 267 million board feet. But according to your own figures,
the average offer level over the last 5 years--even with the
Roadless exemption--has only been about 36 million board feet.
So, if we are now to assume that the Roadless Rule applies
in the Tongass, how do we deal with these, just, abysmally low
numbers?
Mr. Tidwell. Well, Senator, as I've expressed, we've not
been happy with the amount of work we've been able to get
accomplished on the Tongass over the last few years. I am
optimistic with the focus on our transition plan--the focus to
work, bring people to the table and provide more of a
collaborative environment up there--that we are seeing some
changes, and we saw that in 2010.
Senator Murkowski. But, unfortunately, we're seeing--many
of those who have been willing to collaborate and sit around
the table at the Tongass Futures Roundtable, they're peeling
off of that. And that's disappointing, I know, for you,
certainly for me, and for those that have invested so much
time.
But do you really still feel that level of optimism?
Mr. Tidwell. Well, I do. It's based on what we were able to
accomplish in 2010, what the forest is planning to do in 2011,
and what they're planning to do in 2012--even with the latest
court ruling.
I think, one of the things we need to do is to be able to
move forward, to build some trust and credibility with the
folks that have been on the roundtable, so that they can see
that their hard work and the time that they spent working
together is starting to pay off. They need to be able to
actually get some work accomplished so that we can maintain the
existing wood products infrastructure still there.
TONGASS ROADLESS SETTLEMENT--TONGASS LAND MANAGEMENT PLAN (TLMP)
Senator Murkowski. Well, I am usually a person that says
the glass is half full. But I have been less optimistic, less
encouraged--and certainly now, since this decision on the
Roadless has come out, I feel pretty discouraged. That's why I
started off my comments today asking if your folks would be
willing to sit down with the people in Wrangell to talk about a
local plan there. Maybe it's bit by bit that we're able to
offer some degree of hope. But, I feel very, very discouraged
and very frustrated right now.
Do you think that the court's ruling is going to require
that we rewrite the TLMP? And if so, if we've got to do the
rewrite, how long is that going to take? What's it going to
cost?
Mr. Tidwell. Well, the reinstatement of the 2001 Roadless
Rule by itself would not require us to revise that plan. I
think we need to look at the Tongass plan, like all of our
plans that we have to look at from time to time, and assess the
current conditions to see if there's a need to do a revision or
an amendment. That's one of the things that we're hoping to
change with our proposed planning rule to be able to have a
process that makes it easier to amend forest plans so that we
don't spend the years, or in the case of the Tongass, a decade,
to actually complete a plan, or complete a revision.
The 2001 Roadless Rule in itself would not require us to do
a revision.
Senator Murkowski. But would you agree that if, in fact, it
was rewritten, if you did have to rewrite it, wouldn't the
allowable sale quantity be drastically reduced from what we
currently have?
Mr. Tidwell. You know, it would be my expectation that it
would probably be reduced.
AIR TANKERS
Senator Murkowski. So the glass is getting emptier.
One last question for you.
And then I'll quit here, Mr. Chairman.
And this is regarding fire aviation and our tanker
replacements. I got a letter from the Governor of the State,
who is concerned about the USFS not including any water-
scooping amphibious aircraft--either the Bombardier or the CL-
415s--as you're looking to the replacement of the aging
firefighting aircraft. The State of Alaska and the Bureau of
Land Management both seem to really like the water-scooping
aircraft. They seem to be working well within the State.
What is the strategy for replacement of the aging air
tanker fleet? And, kind of, where do you see that going?
Mr. Tidwell. Well, I was hoping to have that completed by
now. But, the RAND Corporation that's doing the study for us
has not completed their work. We're hoping to get that here in
the next month or so. Once we receive that, that'll probably be
the last piece of information we need to move forward with our
strategy.
We want to look at all the various aviation resources that
are available, and then look at which resources should the USFS
provide? Which ones should the Department of the Interior
provide? Which ones should our States, our cooperators provide?
So that we have the right mix of resources.
The Department of the Interior, I know, has a couple of
scoopers under contract. The State of California often will
bring planes down from Canada during their fire season. We'd
use those in the Great Lakes sometimes. So, I think it's one of
the tools that just needs to be included in the overall mix of
aviation resources.
Senator Murkowski. Do you see a situation where private
industry could purchase some of these aircraft, and then work
out some kind of a leasing arrangement? Is that something that
is considered in part of the strategy here?
Mr. Tidwell. Yes, the RAND Corporation will provide their
views, their findings on what is the right mix of how many
large air tankers, how many small air tankers, the type of air
tankers, whether they're water scoopers--they will provide us
some insight into that.
The other part of it is that we'll have to really look at
is what is the right way to acquire or maintain these
resources? I believe that we're going to have to look at every
option that we have. Our contractors that are currently
providing our large air tankers have done an outstanding job to
be able to keep these planes flying with these aging aircrafts.
As we move forward, we're going to have to find some
replacement solutions for our large air tankers. We know that.
But there are various options, and part of that is definitely
to continue to work with our contractors or with others that
want to get into this business.
Everything's going to be on the table as we determine what
is the most economical way to go forward. I believe it'll
probably take a mix of about every option that we have for us
to be able to do this.
Senator Murkowski. Well, I'm glad to think that you're
thinking pretty holistically about how you're going to have to
approach it. I think we recognize that when we're dealing with
these tough budgets, some of these line items are going to
raise some eyebrows. We know that it's going to be expensive to
replace them, but we also know that we have to have them, that
this is an asset that's going to be necessary as we deal with
the fires, whether they're up in my State or out in Senator
Tester's part of the country.
And we recognize the risk that the men and women who are
fighting these fires place themselves in. We want to make sure
that the aircraft that are working, as well, are also safe so,
that we don't have accidents there. So, big balance.
Mr. Chairman, I thank you for the indulgence and extra 5
minutes.
And thank you, Chief. Appreciate it.
Senator Reed. Thank you, Senator Murkowski, for your
questions, and for your participation. So, thank you.
Chief and Kathleen, thank you very much for your testimony
today.
ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS
If there are any questions for the record, I would ask my
colleagues to submit them by next Friday, May 27.
And obviously, Chief, we would ask you to respond as
quickly as you could to written questions.
[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 Jack Reed
redesign process
Question. The State and private forestry programs are critical for
Rhode Island and the region. In particular, the cooperative programs of
forest stewardship, forest legacy, the urban and community forestry,
and forest health are the foundation for program delivery at the local
level. The United States Forest Service (USFS) has begun a redesign
process of State and private forestry programs with an increased
emphasis on a competitive process for funding, pooling funds from
multiple programs and taking 15 percent of those funds and designated
them to the new competitive program. This program could provide
opportunities for all States to benefit from new, innovative ideas.
However, it is important to have a balance and ensure that States have
the funding they need to continue to meet their fundamental
programmatic goals.
What has been the impact on funding for the cooperative programs in
Rhode Island and the Northeast region under the redesign process?
Specifically, what has Rhode Island and the region received in formula
and competitive grants for the 2 years prior and each year since the
redesign program, and how much would those States have received if
there were no redesign in the funding process? In addition, what are
the projected funding levels for Rhode Island in fiscal year 2012 in
the President's budget and current operating plan of the redesign
process, and what would the projected levels be if there were no
redesign process?
Answer. In the Northeast region, most States fare better under the
redesign process than they would without it. If the redesign process
was not in effect it would not necessarily mean that all of those funds
currently allocated competitively via the redesign would be allocated
to States via formula.
Redesign was implemented starting in fiscal year 2008. The
following table shows the amounts that Rhode Island received from 2006
to 2011 in cooperative programs with redesign and estimated amounts
without redesign based on historical cooperative program allocation
methodologies.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Without
Fiscal year With redesign redesign
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2006 \1\................................ $595,095 ( \2\ )
2007.................................... $620,386 ( \2\ )
2008.................................... 611,342 $542,010
2009.................................... 576,100 583,760
2010.................................... 800,561 805,361
2011.................................... \3\ 636,806 583,173
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Does not include forest legacy project funding or the American
Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 funding.
\2\ Not applicable.
\3\ Estimated.
We expect Rhode Island will receive about 3 percent less core
funding in fiscal year 2012 than in fiscal year 2011, accounting for
the reductions in applicable State and private forestry programs
proposed in the fiscal year 2012 budget justification. Rhode Island
also received $48,000 in redesign competitive funds in fiscal year
2011. However, it is unknown at this time whether Rhode Island would
receive more or less funding of this type in fiscal year 2012 as the
competitive process is currently underway.
The following table displays the funding that all other States in
the Northeastern area have received prior to and following
implementation of redesign which occurred in 2008. The table also
indicates estimated funding that would have occurred without redesign.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year Fiscal year Fiscal year Fiscal year Fiscal year Fiscal year Fiscal year Fiscal year
State 2006 2007 2008 2008 without 2009 2009 without 2010 2010 without
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Connecticut..................................................... $566,353 $643,744 $1,014,341 $729,445 $692,097 $652,908 $839,621 $888,955
Delaware........................................................ 585,786 585,780 776,167 558,541 568,538 553,912 528,556 534,156
Iowa............................................................ 985,768 968,193 1,461,507 936,966 1,367,481 896,940 2,108,336 1,005,872
Illinois........................................................ 1,369,140 937,685 1,794,860 1,508,988 1,358,578 1,593,550 1,151,052 1,210,712
Indiana......................................................... 1,009,156 1,054,086 1,130,821 1,023,165 1,265,951 1,125,704 1,601,179 1,281,890
Massachusetts................................................... 788,592 899,929 1,066,312 967,016 1,030,931 966,898 1,392,240 1,064,047
Maryland........................................................ 991,941 969,754 1,048,238 977,457 1,110,810 1,005,594 1,198,651 1,088,973
Maine........................................................... 1,364,764 1,432,366 1,352,719 1,502,817 1,664,914 1,593,874 2,077,137 1,722,238
Michigan........................................................ 1,835,151 2,226,190 2,278,720 2,300,419 2,541,342 2,336,626 2,071,368 2,333,767
Minnesota....................................................... 1,655,628 1,673,780 1,605,033 1,639,593 2,016,194 1,743,575 1,917,506 2,076,423
Missouri........................................................ 1,557,001 1,612,844 1,555,989 1,628,229 1,920,246 1,740,058 1,641,328 1,783,323
New Hampshire................................................... 814,340 852,879 757,408 817,230 858,627 831,749 1,321,680 845,906
New Jersey...................................................... 853,793 841,537 859,791 1,022,763 1,223,340 1,219,874 1,075,975 1,276,634
New York........................................................ 1,941,144 2,370,898 2,192,554 2,719,401 2,960,915 2,819,203 2,482,017 3,041,044
Ohio............................................................ 1,462,756 1,532,074 1,965,988 1,667,520 1,456,865 1,534,025 1,500,904 1,762,108
Pennsylvania.................................................... 1,399,397 2,067,392 1,552,856 1,863,030 2,085,362 2,221,370 2,741,349 2,619,048
Vermont......................................................... 694,818 726,295 800,241 736,503 1,413,321 792,743 1,126,306 786,216
Wisconsin....................................................... 2,092,958 1,959,994 2,284,811 2,014,168 2,315,816 2,187,470 2,449,154 1,977,104
West Virginia................................................... 1,136,784 1,322,140 1,161,956 1,230,334 1,446,253 1,362,901 1,365,297 1,399,616
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total..................................................... 23,641,365 25,232,946 26,660,312 25,843,585 29,297,581 27,178,974 30,589,656 28,698,032
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. Going forward, what is the outlook for the redesign
process? For future years, what will be the minimum level or percentage
that goes out in competitive bids, and who makes that decision?
Answer. USFS anticipates that the percentage of funding that goes
into redesign will remain the same. Of the net available for State and
private forestry funds, traditionally 15 percent has been awarded to
State forestry agencies via the competitive process (not including
forest legacy; volunteer fire assistance; and forest health
management--Federal lands). This level is after congressional requests
and national commitments are removed. The Deputy Chief of State and
private forestry work in conjunction with the State foresters to make
that decision.
Question. In addition, how can we give a commitment to smaller
State programs which may have limited capacity to compete for funding
in order to ensure their continued capacity to meet the programmatic
goals of the cooperative programs?
Answer. All States, regardless of size, receive and will continue
to receive core State and private forestry funding that supports their
capacity to meet State and private forestry program goals. In addition,
the Northeastern area has partnered with the Northeastern Area
Association of State Foresters (NAASF) to implement an approach that
focuses Federal investments on issues, challenges, and opportunities
across the landscape. The purpose of the competitive allocation of
funds is to shape, influence, and enhance forest land management on a
scale and in a way that optimizes public benefits from trees and
forests for both current and future generations. This model has been
designed to address on-the-ground priorities, integrated across program
areas, with the goal of delivering Federal funds to non-Federal
partners.
USFS views the annual competitive allocation as a partnership where
we have a regular dialogue with States and NAASF. We have joint goals
to ensure the fairness of the process and the ability of each State to
compete for the available noncore funding. The USFS works on many
fronts to provide training and support to help deliver grant
applications that will compete and rank fairly against other States. In
New England and the mid-Atlantic, the USFS serves States that are
smaller geographically than others, yet are extensively forested and
densely populated.
USFS has a network of field offices with responsibility to meet the
needs of these States. Field representatives work directly with each
State forester to deliver Federal programs. Additionally, our field
offices have technical staffs who work cooperatively with technical
staff at the State level to accomplish results. Our field
representatives and technical staff advise States on the development of
strong grant proposals, through training, technical visits, and
coordination and information sharing among States. The work is done in
a one-to-one manner, as well as in a networking fashion. States also
network amongst each other to address common issues. Many of the funded
2011 competitive allocation grant applications involve landscape
projects across multiple States.
In addition to our local leadership and technical work with States,
our regional grant administration staff provides frequent training to
States and works daily with State forestry agencies, from the
development of grant proposals through delivery on funding and
execution of work on-the-ground. Where States have been unsuccessful in
competitive allocation bids in the past, the field representative and
field staff makes a focused effort with that State the following year
to help them compete, individually or in partnership with other States
facing similar issues.
forest legacy program (flp)
Question. FLP has been a great success in Rhode Island. FLP funds
have been effectively leveraged with State, local, and private funds to
protect forested lands that will be managed according to conservation
values, while at the same time contributing to the local economy by
conserving working forest landscapes. There are two important phases of
the conservation process: the acquisition itself and the ongoing
oversight of the land. Land acquisition for forest protection can be a
complex undertaking involving multiple funding sources with different
administrative processes and reporting. In addition, each FLP
acquisition will demand oversight and compliance activities including
field review to assure commitment to baseline conditions and forest
stewardship goals.
As more lands are protected under FLP, is there a role for greater
partnerships between the Federal and State officials to ensure the
proper management and oversight of acquired lands? In addition, is
there a way to ensure that States have the necessary resources, such as
training and staff, to comply with all responsibilities to effectively
implement this program over time?
Answer. Yes, in acquiring lands and especially conservation
easements, States have taken on perpetual stewardship responsibilities.
Upon entering the FLP, States have committed to managing and monitoring
the lands and interests in lands acquired through FLP. This commitment
is also in the grant agreement that States enter with USFS. Under
current FLP implementation guidelines, no FLP funds can be used
directly for conservation easement monitoring.
USFS provides each State with annual administration grant funds.
These are separate from project grant funds. These can be used for due
diligence costs for FLP projects such as appraisals or surveys, staff
salary, training, and to purchase necessary software or equipment for
conservation easement stewardship. Administration grant funds and
project grant funds may be used for development of baseline
documentation reports and forest stewardship plans.
USFS has strong partnerships with the States that participate in
the FLP. USFS provides training to States on conservation easement
stewardship. This is done through national and regional FLP managers
meetings and through conservation easement monitoring training
sessions. One such training is planned by a field unit in July of this
year. As noted earlier, States may use FLP administration grant funds
to attend USFS-sponsored trainings or other trainings and may also use
their administration funds to visit other States to learn about their
conservation easement stewardship practices. There are examples of
States using their administrative funds to do both of these activities.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Dianne Feinstein
marijuana cultivation on public lands
Question. As you may know, my home State of California once again
led the Nation with more than 70 percent (7.1 million) of all the
marijuana seizures in the United States. It is our duty to protect
these lands for all Americans and allow for safe, uninhibited access to
our Nation's treasures. For the past 2 years, our national forests have
been the largest home to illegal marijuana cultivation grows in
California. In 2010, the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) Pacific Southwest
region eradicated more than 3 million marijuana plants with a street
value of more than $3 billion on 585 grow sites.
What funds have been allocated to combat this problem in the
Pacific Southwest region or more specifically California forests?
Answer. USFS did not receive any funds specifically for drug
enforcement. In fiscal year 2010, law enforcement and investigations
spent 10.4 percent, $15.2 million nationally, of our $144,252,000
general allocation on drug enforcement and investigation operations. Of
the $15.2 million, $6.6 million was spent in California for drug
trafficking operation activities on National Forest System (NFS) lands.
Question. Is money appropriated for marijuana eradication efforts
spread equally or based on the grow threat of each forest?
Answer. The other eight regions of the USFS spent about 7.3 percent
of their resources on drug enforcement. The law enforcement and
investigations resources are utilized for eradication operations as
needed on forests throughout the Pacific Southwest region.
In 2010, the Campaign Against Marijuana Planting (CAMP), a program
operated and run by the California Department of Justice and Bureau of
Narcotics Enforcement eradicated almost 50 percent of the marijuana
located on USFS lands during large-scale operations. CAMP has praised
your assistance on operations, the use of law enforcement, and the
allocation of $200,000 in 2010 which assisted them greatly with budget
cuts.
Question. How will budget cuts to the CAMP program affect
eradication efforts on USFS lands in California?
Answer. The budget decreases to the CAMP program will affect
eradication efforts on NFS lands in California. It is not known what
the State of California will provide to the CAMP program.
Question. Given the focus of CAMP program on USFS lands, do you
have plans to allocate funds to this program?
Answer. The fiscal year 2012 President's budget proposes funding
CAMP at the same level as provided in fiscal year 2011 at $200,000.
I want to commend you for making the reclamation of marijuana grow
sites a priority. I have been told that in 2010 the USFS Pacific
Southwest region spent 33,500 man hours to reclaim 335 grow sites and
remove more than 300,000 pounds of trash and debris.
Question. How much money was spent last year to reclaim these
sites?
Answer. The Pacific Southwest region spent $2,435,000 to clean up
the sites.
Per statistics reported to our office, California forests have a
remaining 490 grow sites that have yet to be reclaimed causing
environmental destruction and animal deaths.
Question. How much money has been allocated to reclaim the 490 grow
sites?
Answer. While not specifically targeted, the cleanup of these toxic
sites remains a priority for watershed restoration, balanced with other
restoration needs. In fiscal year 2010, $3.5 million of NFS funds were
allocated for site clean-up. In fiscal year 2011 clean-up remains a
priority but no specific allocation was made.
night-flying helicopters and airtankers strategy
Question. Chief Tidwell, on May 26, 2010 you testified in front of
this subcommittee that USFS would complete reviews of night operations
and the optimal combination of helicopters and airtankers by January
2011. This did not occur, and I understand that now you do not expect
to complete these reports until at least late summer. So I will once
again ask you Chief: When will this subcommittee receive the Helicopter
Night Operations Study; the RAND Corporation's Determination and Cost
Benefit Analysis of the Optimum Mix of Helicopters and Airtankers Study
(RAND Corporation Study); and the Forest Service Large Airtanker
Strategy (Strategy)?
Answer. USFS is working on the Helicopter Night Operations Study
and is coordinating with cooperator agencies in southern California to
provide helicopter night-flying coverage for USFS fires. Additionally,
USFS is analyzing the other alternatives in the draft study. We are
continuing to implement night-flying helicopter operations through the
use of State and local cooperators.
Similarly, USFS is also making progress on the Forest Service Large
Airtankers Strategy. The RAND Corporation has asked USFS to provide
additional tactical information to refine the models being used, which
has delayed the delivery of the RAND report. However, USFS expects the
RAND report to become available around the same time as the Forest
Service Large Airtanker Strategy is released. Due to the complexity of
the issues in the interagency environment; the high costs of multi-year
contracts in the current budget environment; and the agency's desire to
be effective, efficient, and safe, the reports have been delayed to
ensure we get it right. These reports will be provided to the Congress
prior to their release to the public.
new plane acquisition
Question. I recognize that in this time of shrinking budgets that
implementing a new night-time firefighting operation program or funding
the acquisition of new planes will be a significant challenge. But the
failure to address these problems is also becoming a burden to the
taxpayer.
Compared to fiscal year 2002 what are the per-plane operations and
maintenance costs of USFS' firefighting fleet? Absent an investment in
newer planes, how do you expect these costs to change in future fiscal
years?
Answer. The operations and maintenance costs per plane of USFS
firefighting fleet have more than doubled since fiscal year 2002. In
fact, in just 4 years, costs for daily airtanker availability have more
than doubled--from just more than $15 million in 2007 to $35 million in
2010. This trend is expected to continue. The increase in costs is
directly related to the expense of maintaining the airworthiness and
safety of these aircraft for the firefighting mission.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Question. Since the precipitous decline in the number of
firefighting aircraft began in 2002, annual expenditures on suppression
have skyrocketed and the 10-year average has continued to grow. To what
extent do these two trends correlate and why?
Answer. Annual expenditures on suppression activities are not only
a function of what suppression resources are used but also other
factors including weather conditions, location of the fire, fuel
loadings, and overall fire season intensity and complexity. In the past
several decades we have accumulated extreme fuels loads coupled with
drought conditions in much of the West. This is where most of the fire
activities occur and suppression expenses are accrued. The number and
type of aviation assets in use do correlate with overall suppression
costs, but the rapid increase in the cost to operate these aging planes
overshadowed the respective decrease in the quantity under contract,
and aviation assets are not the only factor in suppression costs.
Projections from both climate and fire experts indicate we will have
sustained, to above average fire conditions, in the near term. We
expect suppression costs to stay the same.
night flying
Question. As the Station Fire proved in 2009, night-time aerial
firefighting capabilities are critically important to containing fires
in the WUI. This is especially true in southern California where high-
value homes and property abut national forests and other public lands.
What modifications to USFS operating agreements have been made to
clarify that night-time aerial fire operations are permissible?
Answer. Guidance has been provided to the regional foresters where
cooperators are capable of performing night missions. The guidance is
to update their local agreements, annual operations plans, and run
cards to include these missions prior to commencing field operations.
Question. What changes have been made to your incident commander
training courses to reflect this change in policy?
Answer. Incident Commanders have been briefed on the availability
of this capability. A GO/NO GO checklist has been developed for
aviation and incident commanders to complete prior to commencing any
night operations on NFS lands.
angeles national forest, mount wilson
Question. Mount Wilson, which lies in the middle of the Angeles
National Forest, houses a number of communications towers and
structures. This highly valuable infrastructure was threatened during
the Station Fire. In an effort to protect this infrastructure from
future fires, LA County Supervisor Mike Antonovich and LA County Fire
Chief Mike Freeman asked that you increase the brush clearance
requirements at this location to 200 feet. This request was made on
November 23, 2009.
What steps have you taken to protect the valuable equipment on top
of Mount Wilson?
Answer. In 2005, 160 acres of fuels reduction work was completed in
the Mount Wilson observatory and recreation site areas. The treatments
included thinning, pruning, pile burning, and chipping.
In 2008, the Los Angeles River District Ranger held a Mount Wilson
stakeholders meeting to inform the stakeholders of the need for
additional fuels work, and to attempt to raise the interest of the
stakeholders to form a fire safe council in the Mount Wilson area. A
Mount Wilson Fire Safe Council was formed in June 2008. Since that
time, the forest has worked with that council to upgrade their water
capacity and water systems. This includes repairing a large 530,000
gallon water cistern so that it can store water to be used for fire-
suppression purposes. In fiscal year 2010, a $200,000 Fire Safe Council
grant was divided among four other fire safe councils in the local
area. The Observatory and the Mount Wilson television stations
generally keep a large supply of stored water specifically intended for
fire suppression, with a total combined capacity of more than 2 million
gallons. Additionally, USFS has worked with local stakeholders to
provide information on how and why to fireproof their structures and
remove excess debris from their areas.
The Station Fire of 2009 threatened the Mount Wilson area, During
the fire a ``burn out'' was conducted north of the Mount Wilson area to
help reduce the fuel build-up and create a ``black line'' around the
area. The back fire stayed in the ground fuels and backed down the hill
to the north, protecting the facilities. This was successful because
the back fire stayed on the ground as a direct result of fuel reduction
projects that had been completed in 2005.
In May 2010, an environmental analysis was completed to implement
an additional 736 acres of fuels reduction in the Mount Wilson area.
This ongoing work will take approximately 3 to 5 years for completion
and is being completed by Los Angeles County and USFS crews and
includes fuels treatments such as thinning, pruning, and chipping.
Question. Why have you failed to enforce the county standard 200-
foot brush clearance requirements at this location?
Answer. USFS regional direction issued December 17, 2009 allows for
100-foot defensible space around structures. However, permittees could
only implement this new standard where applicable because many
communication sites do not have 100 feet of brush to clear due to the
presence of asphalt and concrete. All structures located at the Mount
Wilson Observatory have at least a 100-foot of minimum defensible space
and this standard has been implemented. We have achieved the 100-foot
minimum defensible space clearance standard around the perimeter of all
the communication site structures located at the Mount Wilson
Observatory. We continue to have the goal of a 300-foot clearance. The
forest has worked closely with Los Angeles County Fire to accomplish
this effort.
Question. Will you implement the 200-foot clearance requirement
before the beginning of the 2011 fire season?
Answer. Currently, the clearance is 200 feet on the south side of
the communication sites, with a goal of 300 feet around everything. The
forest supervisor of the Angeles National Forest has analyzed the
situation, values at risk, and possible fire behavior and has made the
decision to increase the defensible space clearance around the
perimeter of the Mount Wilson Observatory and communication site
structures to 300 feet. Also, the Mount Wilson Observatory received a
National Science Foundation grant of $12,000 to complete hazardous fuel
reduction work in their permit area. Additional appropriated funds just
distributed to the Angeles National Forest allow for additional
defensible space accomplishments to be achieved.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Patrick J. Leahy
forest legacy program (flp)
Question. In fiscal year 2011, the Forest Service (USFS) received
only $53 million for FLP, just a little more than one-half of the
budget request. This allocation was too little to finance the full list
of 38 projects across the country. For fiscal year 2012 you are
requesting funding for 46 projects, about 18 of which were on last
year's list.
Are you setting unrealistic expectations by identifying so many new
projects for fiscal year 2012 when many fiscal year 2011 projects went
unfunded? What do you think subcommittee should do with respect to the
fiscal year 2011 projects the agency was not able to fund last year?
Are they expected to get back in line, apply again, and wait another
year or 2 or 3? Or should preference be given to those projects that
were not fully funded last year and have second phase on your request
list for fiscal year 2012?
Answer. Consistent with the recommendations of the USFS Response to
America's Great Outdoors report (March 21, 2011), the administration
has expressed its desire to fully fund the Land and Water Conservation
Fund, in response to the overwhelming public support for this program.
The funding levels requested in fiscal year 2012 are consistent with
the administration's goal. When the prioritized project list was
developed for fiscal year 2012, we were still unaware of what the
fiscal year 2011 appropriation would be. Certainly, this presented the
States with a degree of uncertainty in how they should handle the
fiscal year 2012 request for projects.
Since 2002 through a nationally competitive process, we have
developed a prioritized project list. Projects are funded in accordance
with congressional appropriations. Some projects submitted in any given
year may go unfunded. States with projects that fall below the
available funding needed to be resubmitted in the following year. Based
on this history, States anticipated that if a project did not receive
funding in fiscal year 2011 it would need to be submitted again in
fiscal year 2012.
Selecting fiscal year 2011 lower-priority projects that were not
funded by the Congress ahead of the high-priority projects on the
fiscal year 2012 list will change the process that has been developed
in consultation with the subcommittee and has been in place for nearly
a decade. The process is designed to be open and transparent and
facilitate dialogue with State partners and others. The fiscal year
2012 list in the President's budget justification is the order of
priorities developed at the time of publication (February 2011).
Question. Do you think any Community Forest and Open Space projects
will be completed this year? This program is something I fought for in
the 2008 farm bill and I continue to hear from constituents as well as
forest groups across the country that are interested in accessing it
once the regulations are finalized.
Answer. The Community Forest and Open Space Program (CFP) was
appropriated $500,000 in fiscal year 2010 and $1 million in fiscal year
2011. The final rule for CFP is undergoing clearance and we hope to
publish the final rule in 2011. USFS plans to request applications
shortly after the rule is published. We would like to award the first
project later this year or in early 2012.
research and development
Question. The Forest Research and Development (R&D) funding request
from the administration has steadily decreased over the last few years.
The fiscal year 2012 request is $295.8 million, less than the fiscal
year 2011 and fiscal year 2010 requests which were $304.4 million and
$300.6 million, respectively. The Congress increased these numbers to
$312 million in fiscal year 2010 and $307 million in fiscal year 2011.
These funds support the Northern Research Station (NRS), which serves
the entire Northeastern region and the Midwest. NRS relies on these
funds to support research for white nose syndrome, which continues to
plague bats in Vermont and States across the country. R&D also seems
critical to supporting responses to climate change, which was
identified as a USFS priority for fiscal year 2012. Our maple syrup
industry in Vermont is struggling because of warmer winters and earlier
springs.
Our maple syrup producers are also concerned that they will suffer
even more though if something is not done to stop the spread of the
asian longhorned beetle, which has already decimated other parts of the
Northeast. NRS is also leading all research on this beetle for USFS.
This forest pest poses an enormous threat if it reaches Vermont where
it could devastate fall tourism, maple syrup, timber, greenhouses, and
the State's nurseries.
Question. These problems are not going away, so how can the agency
justify decreasing R&D funding, especially for NRS, which serves such a
large portion of the country?
Answer. The fiscal year 2012 President's budget provides for a base
level of funding to address priorities for research in climate change,
forest inventory and analysis, watershed management and restoration,
bioenergy and biobased products, urban natural resources stewardship,
nanotechnology, and localized needs. The Research and Development
Deputy Area, including NRS, has proposed the best-possible request to
match science capacity and demands for services. We fully understand
the critical needs in the 20 States of the Northeast and Midwest and in
particular, the contemporary conservation issues facing Vermont.
Clearly, the threat of major forest pests such as the asian
longhorned beetle, the emerald ash borer and other pests and pathogens
that affect vegetation and wildlife will test our ability to ensure
that environmental health and community stability remain in harmony and
that there will be available resources to conduct leading-edge science.
USFS will do all that it can to ensure the forests of New England
remain healthy and sustainable so the long-standing goal of ``keeping
forests in forestry'' in that region shall remain intact.
forest health program
Question. Other cuts to programs, such as Forest Health on Federal
Lands and Forest Health on Coop Lands, also affect insect and disease
work. How can we be assured that our forests will be guarded against
the spread of these growing problems with less funding for so many
programs that address them?
Answer. USFS recognizes the important work that is done through our
forest health programs. The President's fiscal year 2012 budget is
formulated to balance the activities of different program areas, with
some program reductions necessary to exercise appropriate fiscal
prudence in these difficult economic times. The agency will continue to
focus on the highest-priority prevention and suppression needs,
including those for emerald ash borer, asian longhorned beetle, sudden
oak death, western bark beetles, oak wilt, root diseases, hemlock
woolly adelgid, white pine blister rust, sudden oak death, Port Orford
cedar root disease and southern pine beetle; as well as slowing the
spread of gypsy moth.
Also, the agency is committed to the Secretary's ``all lands''
vision for forest conservation and recognizes the need for greater
collaboration across Federal, State, and private forestlands and the
importance of maintaining working forest landscapes for rural
economies. The agency will provide incentives for maximizing this ``all
lands'' approach by utilizing a mix of programs to conduct work to
address insect, disease, and wildfire risk on Federal lands and to
expand this work on all lands while also involving programs beyond
these budget line items.
rural development program
Question. I am concerned how some of the USFS budget cuts will
affect Vermont programs. The State and private forestry program, and in
particular your rural development program is one that has yielded great
benefits to Vermont at very low cost. USFS, through those programs has
helped us realize real and significant economic development outcomes by
supporting development and marketing of value added, locally harvested
forest products. One of the most successful programs in Vermont has
been support for the wood products collaborative funded through as a
rural development through forestry project, within the economic action
program. Many small but very effective forest based economic
development initiatives have succeeded as a result.
Will forest-related economic development programs be eligible to
compete for funds through these or other programs within the fiscal
year 2012 funding request? If not, how else is the USFS supporting
these efforts that are so vitally important to Vermont's private
forestland owners?
Answer. The fiscal year 2012 President's budget does not propose
funding for the economic action program, so Vermont would not be able
to compete for funds through this program in fiscal year 2012. However,
the USFS has other programs that support working forest landscapes for
rural economies. In fiscal year 2012, the agency is requesting funding
for the community wood to energy competitive grant program, which would
provide State, tribal, and local governments support in developing
community wood energy plans. In addition, the agency continues to
support a small biomass grant program for the 35-State eastern hardwood
region at the Wood Education Resource Center in West Virginia focused
on maintaining or expanding the economic competitiveness and
sustainability of wood products manufacturing businesses. The agency
also continues to fund the competitive Woody Biomass Utilization Grant
program which provides funding to help build capacity for biomass
utilization in support of fuels reduction and restoration.
The agency's other State and private forestry programs also support
forest landowners by providing funds for technical and financial
assistance to monitor, assess and mitigate forest health conditions on
non-Federal lands through the forest health cooperative program; by
providing funds for fire management; firefighter training, and fuels
treatment on non-Federal lands through State and volunteer fire
assistance; and providing private forest landowners with assistance to
develop comprehensive, multi-resource management plans so they can
manage their forests for a variety of products and services through the
Forest Stewardship program.
staffing levels
Question. I notice that the USFS full-time equivalent (FTE)
employment will be at an all-time low with this request. It appears you
will have 1,819 fewer employees than you did in fiscal year 2010. Many
of these loses are in important programs such as wildlife and fisheries
habitat management, forest products, vegetation and watershed
management, and wildland fire management.
How do you plan to carry out your critical missions with such low
staffing? Are your programs becoming more efficient or will you rely on
more seasonal employees to carry out these activities?
Answer. The President's proposed fiscal year 2012 budget indicates
a reduction of 1,819 FTE across the agency. However, not all programs
would be equally affected nor would this necessarily result in a
reduction in outputs. Some areas would increase. The President's
proposed fiscal year 2012 budget shows an estimated increase of 167 FTE
in National Forest System areas from 11,547 in fiscal year 2011 to
11,714 for fiscal year 2012.
Along with these changes the President's budget would include
integrating activities such as wildlife and fisheries management,
forest products, vegetation and watershed management, and portions of
wildland fire management and road decommissioning into a single program
of work referred to as Integrated Resource Restoration (IRR).
Integrating these activities under IRR is expected to lead to increased
efficiencies in performance and levels of outputs. The wildland fire
management program will have similar staffing levels as compared to
previous years.
Through the IRR process, there will be an emphasis on integrated
priorities. In some cases, there will be opportunities to hire more of
the seasonal workforce or local contractors to help implement the
priority work on the ground. A mix of full-time, seasonal staff, and
contractors will continue to be available to meet wildland fire
response requirements.
new headquarters green mountain national forest
Question. Will USFS take advantage of the cost savings in deferred
rent payments by completing construction of the new headquarters for
the Green Mountain National Forest this year?
Answer. The new headquarters for the Green Mountain National Forest
will not be completed this year. The headquarters office for the Green
Mountain National Forest is currently under lease, which runs through
August 2014. Cost saving derived from deferred rent payments, along
with project planning and design for a new headquarters office have not
been initiated.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Lisa Murkowski
10-year timber sales
Question. In 2008, the Forest Service (USFS) committed to preparing
and offering four 10-year timber sales with a volume of 150 to 200
million board feet each in the Tongass National Forest. The purpose of
these timber sales was to provide sufficient assured volume for a
single-shift at four medium-size manufacturing facilities. Without the
volume assurance, the industry cannot make the investments necessary to
upgrade their existing mills or to construct a facility that could
process the low-grade timber in the region. The Congress has repeatedly
made available pipeline funds to allow USFS to prepare these 10-year
sales and other timber sales. Now we are told that the agency plans to
convert two of the 10-year timber sales to Stewardship contracts and to
offer only one-half of the promised volume and to offer that reduced
volume in small parcels.
Can you explain what happened to the commitments for each of the
four 10-year sales?
Answer. In response to Under Secretary Mark Rey's direction in
September 2008 to develop a work plan and proposed budget to offer four
10-year timber sales, each averaging 15-20 million board feet per year,
the Tongass National Forest identified several areas to analyze for 10-
year sale programs.
Two of the four 10-year timber sales, for which pipeline funds have
been received, are currently in the planning stages, including National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) compliance, and will continue to move
forward in fiscal year 2012 and fiscal year 2013 as scheduled.
Opportunities to incorporate additional restoration activities within
the project areas are being explored. The volume of timber to be sold
with these two projects, including volume from stewardship contracting,
is currently being estimated as a part of the NEPA analysis that is
ongoing. These two projects are part of the overall transition
framework for southeast Alaska announced by the Department of
Agriculture in May 2010.
Question. Do you realize that when USFS walks away from the
commitments that it made, you risk the Congress walking away from
funding many of the priorities the agency hopes to pursue?
Answer. The agency will work to provide sufficient supply of timber
volume over the course of 5 years to ensure the industry remains
solvent. The agency shares the objective of keeping a viable forest
products industry in place in southeast Alaska, a necessary ingredient
to achieve the Secretary's restoration goals and the transition
framework.
land acquisition
Question. The agency has testified to the Congress that USFS has
60-80 million acres of unhealthy productive forestland at risk to
insects, disease, and wildfire. It has become increasingly apparent
through missed timber targets, reduced outputs, and a shift away from
active forest management that USFS cannot take care of the 193 million
acres it already has.
In light of these problems, can you explain the reason the agency
has increased its request for land acquisition programs by 160 percent,
from roughly $86 million to $225 million?
Answer. The fiscal year 2012 budget justification supports
President Obama's America's Great Outdoors (AGO) initiative to
strengthen citizen and community connections to the outdoors, including
the national forests and grasslands. The fiscal year 2012 budget
proposes program increases to ensure the success of the AGO initiative.
Those programs include:
--the Forest Legacy Program;
--community forest and open space conservation program;
--urban and community forestry;
--land acquisition; and
--recreation, heritage, and wilderness.
Land acquisition serves an important role in meeting the 2012
strategic plan objective to protect forests and grasslands from
conversion to other uses. We will focus on acquiring the highest-
priority lands that serve both the President's AGO initiative and the
Department's strategic plan for fiscal year 2010-2015.
Land acquisition can also reduce management costs by consolidating
landownership, avoiding further fragmented development within forest
boundaries which can exacerbate fire, insect, and disease management
challenges. Land acquisitions sought by USFS have broad support from
stakeholders at the local level and ensure water quality, recreational
access, wildlife habitat, and other public benefits. USFS actively
engages in land exchanges where there are opportunities to adjust
Federal ownership patterns while conveying lands to non-Federal
entities.
Land exchanges, acquisitions, right-of-way acquisitions, and
limited sales of USFS facilities and adjacent land are all important
land adjustment tools to promote the long-term health and
sustainability of the national forests and grasslands. These actions
will support a healthy, vibrant outdoor legacy for generations to come
in alignment with the AGO and the Department priorities for achieving
an ``all-lands vision'' for forest conservation.
facilities maintenance
Question. At the same time, you've also cut your facilities
maintenance programs by $31 million and your roads program by $37
million. I think these priorities are simply misplaced at a time when
we're looking at deep cuts in your core operations. How would you
respond to such criticism?
Answer. The fiscal year 2012 President's budget reflects difficult
choices we need to make to reduce the deficit while supporting targeted
investments. This decrease is achieved through several program re-
combinations and streamlining to increase operations and efficiencies.
Our fiscal year 2012 budget request reflects four priorities:
--enhancing water resources;
--responding to climate change;
--community based stewardship; and
--jobs in rural communities.
Emphasis will be on eliminating health and safety risks at agency-
owned buildings and recreation sites and reducing critical deferred
maintenance on the aging infrastructure. Priority will be placed on
repairing and improving those facilities that receive public use and
are critical to supporting agency operations. With regard to roads the
agency will focus on the work to ensure public safety, and critical
access needs.
alaska subsistence program
Question. Your budget proposes to eliminate the Alaska subsistence
program. How will you carry out these responsibilities, if at all, with
no funding?
Answer. At this time, there are no changes being implemented for
the Alaska subsistence program. The subsistence program delivery in
fiscal year 2012 would be similar to that implemented in fiscal year
2010. The subsistence program is a Federal inter-agency responsibility
administered by USFS, Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau of Land
Management, National Park Service, and the Bureau of Indian Affairs.
USFS will continue to meet its subsistence program management
responsibilities under Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act
(ANILCA).
Question. Are you simply going to assign other employees to add
this to their current duties?
Answer. We expect to continue to manage the program with adequate
personnel as managed in recent years and consistent with meeting our
responsibilities under ANILCA.
land management planning rule
Question. USFS expects to issue its new planning rule by the end of
the year. I have a number of questions about certain aspects of the
proposed rule.
Would you please explain ``species of conservation concern'' as
discussed in the draft land management planning rule? It seems from the
definition provided in the draft that a ``responsible official'' might
have overly broad latitude to deem any number of species as a ``species
of conservation concern'' without undergoing sufficient scientific
review.
Answer. The intent of the provisions in the new draft planning rule
is to provide for plant and animal diversity, and to keep common
species common, contribute to the recovery of threatened and endangered
species, conserve candidate species, and protect species of
conservation concern. Responsible officials would be required to
develop components in plans, using a two-pronged approach of overall
habitat (ecosystem and watershed) maintenance or restoration combined
with targeted measures designed to address the needs of specific
species (section 219.9, Federal Register/Vol. 76, No. 30, February 14,
2011/Proposed Rules, p. 8492). By including these requirements, the
draft rule recognizes that there will be circumstances outside of the
agency's capability that may impact particular species. The agency
believes that the proposed approach is both more reflective of the
National Forest Management Act, and more implementable than the 1982
planning rule.
The proposed rule requires that the best available scientific
information be considered throughout the rule-making process, and the
responsible official would have to document how the most relevant,
reliable, and accurate science was appropriately interpreted and
applied, including in determining which species are ``species of
conservation concern'' for the unit. USFS directives would contain
specific criteria for selecting species of conservation concern. For
example, State lists of endangered, threatened, rare, endemic, or other
classifications of species, such as those listed as threatened under
State law, may be used to inform the selection of species of
conservation concern for the unit.
The proposed rule's requirement for species of conservation concern
would be to maintain or restore ecological conditions to maintain
viable populations of species of conservation concern within the plan
area, within the agency's authority and consistent with the inherent
capability of the plan area. Where a viable population of a species of
conservation concern already exists within the plan area, the
appropriate ecological conditions needed to maintain the long-term
persistence of that species would continue to be provided.
The responsible official would identify ecosystem-level plan
components to provide the overall ecological conditions needed by a
species of conservation concern: for example, restoration of mature
longleaf pine habitat for red-cockaded woodpeckers. In addition, the
responsible official would identify specific ecological conditions
needed by a species: for example, providing artificial nesting cavities
for red-cockaded woodpeckers while longleaf pine stands that can
provide natural nesting cavities are being restored.
At times, factors outside the control of the agency will prevent
the agency from being able to maintain a viable population of species
of conservation concern within the plan area: for example, some of our
southern forest units are too small to provide nesting habitat for the
number of pairs needed to provide for a viable population of red-
cockaded woodpeckers solely within the boundaries of the unit. In such
cases, the proposed rule would require that the agency provide plan
components to maintain or restore ecological conditions within the plan
area for that species, and by doing so to contribute to the extent
practicable to a viable population across its range.
Additionally, the responsible official would be required to reach
out beyond National Forest System (NFS) boundaries, to coordinate
management with other land managers for the benefit of a species across
its range. This requirement does not impose any management requirements
or attempt to impose management direction on other land managers--
rather, it imposes a duty on the responsible official to reach out to
work with others and to coordinate management to the extent
practicable. This requirement recognizes that species move across the
landscape, and as habitat and ecological conditions change, greater
cooperation among land managers will be necessary to conserve
individual species.
Question. What is meant by ``landscape planning'' in the land
management planning rule?
Answer. The proposed rule takes an ``all-lands'' approach to
planning. What this means is that the responsible official would need
to understand the context for management within the broader landscape,
to determine the best management plan for a specific unit within the
NFS.
In the assessment phase, responsible officials would draw on
information from many sources to understand the social, economic, and
ecologic conditions and trends relevant to the plan area, and to
identify the distinctive roles and contributions of the unit in
providing various multiple uses or benefits to the local community,
region, and Nation. In the planning phase, responsible officials would
provide opportunities for other Government agencies and land managers
to participate, would review the planning and land use policies of
other governmental entities where relevant to the plan area, and would
coordinate with other planning efforts to the extent practicable and
appropriate. In the monitoring phase, responsible officials would
assess information and data from monitoring on both the unit and the
broader landscape to determine whether any change to management within
the boundaries of the plan area might be warranted.
This approach recognizes that management of national forests and
grasslands can both impact and be impacted by management or conditions
on the lands that surround the unit and that management can be improved
by understanding that context and communicating with other land
managers.
Question. How do you envision USFS managing at the ``landscape''
level, ``irrespective of ownership or other artificial boundaries?''
Answer. This ``all lands'' approach recognizes that management
issues do not stop and start on a property, political, or other
boundary line. The primary trends and threats that face our Nation's
forests such as:
--forest fragmentation;
--increased urbanization and conversion of forestlands;
--the effects of climate change;
--severe wildfire; and
--the spread of invasive species cross all jurisdictional boundaries.
To be successful in addressing these issues we must work with
landowners and interested parties to conserve, protect, and enhance the
Nation's forests.
USFS land management authority applies within national forest
boundaries, and USFS manages lands within NFS and its authorities.
Consistent with Federal law, USFS cooperates with adjacent landowners,
local government entities, and others on a range of land management
issues, including fire suppression, invasive plant control, law
enforcement, recreational use and access, and other shared priorities.
USFS, through its planning process and through project specific
management actions, consults and coordinates with adjacent landowners
to improve the health, sustainability, and productivity of national
forests and surrounding lands.
USFS also provides technical and financial assistance to landowners
and resource managers to help sustain the Nation's urban and rural
forests. The USFS works with our State partners to address those
priority landscape-level issues that they identified in their Statewide
forest resource assessments and strategies through cooperation and
coordination across jurisdictional boundaries. The primary trends and
threats that face our Nation's forests such as forest fragmentation,
increased urbanization and conversion of forestlands, the effects of
climate change, severe wildfire, and the spread of invasive species
cross jurisdictional boundaries. To be successful in addressing these
issues we must work with landowners and interested parties to conserve,
protect, and enhance the Nation's forests.
Question. And, do you believe that property lines are ``artificial
boundaries?''
Answer. USFS respects all boundaries, private property rights, and
understands the limits of the agency's land management authority. NFS
employees survey, mark, manage, and protect national forest and
grassland boundaries in order to protect the public's investment in the
national forests and grasslands. Property lines are legal landownership
boundaries whose location and extent is defined by the legal land title
ownership of the United States and the adjoining landowners. USFS does
not assert management authority on other Federal, State, tribal,
county, local, private, or corporate lands lying within the exterior
perimeter boundary of NFS. USFS does actively seek opportunities to
work cooperatively and collaboratively with adjoining landowners and
communities to protect both public and private estates.
Question. How far from USFS boundaries do you think your agency's
influence should extend?
Answer. USFS respects all boundaries, private property rights, and
the limits of the USFS' land management authority. The primary trends
and threats that face our Nation's forests (such as forest
fragmentation, increased urbanization and conversion of forestlands,
the effects of climate change, severe wildfire, and the spread of
invasive species) cross jurisdictional boundaries. To be successful in
addressing these issues we must work with landowners and interested
parties to conserve, protect, and enhance the Nation's forests.
Consistent with USFS' authority and direction, the State and
private forestry, research and development, and international programs
provide technical assistance, grants, and other support to non-Federal
forests and grasslands throughout the United States and
internationally. Together USFS programs improve forest health,
sustainability, and productivity, whether in an urban forest in
Chicago, on private forest land in northern New England, or in the
rainforests of Africa, and the benefits to the American people of these
investments are substantial. Likewise, the long-term health and
resilience of national forests and grasslands directly affect
surrounding non-Federal lands, communities, and waters that are
adjacent or downstream. Therefore, we implement management decisions to
improve the long-term health of broader ecosystems and watersheds as
well as respecting private property rights and the broader interests
within communities, States, and regions.
access to alaska lands
Question. Just recently small placer miners in Alaska have been
informed that the USFS is planning to restrict motorized access to a
host of mining claims in Alaska in the Chugach National Forest and also
in the Tongass National Forest. While some of this may be the result of
the USFS moving to close the use of logging roads no longer needed for
future timber sales based on a 2008-2009 study, some of the complaints
appear unconnected to budgetary concerns about the lack of funding for
maintenance of traditional access routes. Clearly access across lands
protected by the ANILCA is protected by the 1980 law, but the
complaints about access denial for mineral operations in the Chugach
National Forest is rapidly increasing.
What exactly is the reason for the attempt to close access?
Answer. The Chugach National Forest closed a number of roads and
trails to motorized access in 2002, as directed by the unit's land
management plan, which was revised that year. Those roads and trails
were closed based on environmental and economic concerns and were done
so with the appropriate level of NEPA analysis and documentation.
Motorized access to mining operations in areas otherwise closed to
motorized use on the Chugach National Forest is routinely allowed for
mining purposes by written authorization under a mining plan of
operations, consistent with 36 CFR 228.4.
Question. Under what scope of authority is the USFS moving to deny
access?
Answer. Land management plans are completed under authority of the
requirements of the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning
Act of 1974, as amended by the National Forest Management Act of 1976.
Question. And how can small miners access their valid claims to
minerals under the mining law without having the right to motorized
access on routes they have used for many decades?
Answer. Prior to mining activities, the miners must develop and
submit a plan of operations, which would identify motor vehicle use
needs. The plan of operations requires NEPA compliance and would enable
the USFS to identify where motor vehicle use is reasonable pursuant to
the proposed mining activities. Stipulations may include seasonal
restrictions to protect resource values, such as, road or trail
improvements and surfaces due to the particular and unique needs of the
mining operating plan.
Forest visitors including those engaged in recreational mining or
panning are subject to the same motorized access restrictions. USFS has
provided maps and brochures to the Gold Prospectors Association of
America showing locations open to the public that are easily accessible
near open roads and/or that can be accessed with off-road vehicles.
CONCLUSION OF HEARINGS
Senator Reed. If there are no further questions or
comments, then the hearing is concluded.
[Whereupon, at 3:58 p.m., Thursday, May 19, the hearings
were concluded, and the subcommittee was recessed to reconvene
subject to the call of the Chair.]
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, ENVIRONMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES
APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2012
----------
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 Association of Art Museum Directors
The Association of Art Museum Directors (AAMD), founded in 1916, is
composed of the directors of 200 leading art museums, including more
than 180 in the United States.
On behalf of its members, AAMD respectfully requests funding of
$167.5 million for the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) and an
equal amount for the National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH) for
fiscal year 2012. These two agencies help art museums contribute to
society in important ways.
By way of context, AAMD members employ 20,000 full-time equivalent
staff and have a significant economic impact. They have approximately
60 million visits on site each year. They charge visitors on average
$1.50, but spend approximately $85.50 for each visitor. Nearly all
offer at least limited free admission, for example each Thursday
afternoon and evening, or the first Saturday of every month.
According to data collected by the AAMD with support from the NEA,
our members assist approximately 40,000 American schools in any given
year, out of a total of perhaps 120,000, including public, private,
charter, magnet, and home schools, which have become significant
consumers of museum services. Programs range from docent-led tours to
full-year school-wide collaborations involving everything from
curriculum design to team teaching, including professional development
for teachers, with lesson plans that connect the unique works in museum
collections to State and local education standards. Art museums are by
nature multi-disciplinary and thus offer the ideal setting for teaching
and learning across a wide range of academic subjects.
Each of our members works with multiple school districts, often
across county and State lines. For example, three art museums in
Minneapolis--the Minneapolis Institute of Arts, the Walker Art Center,
and the Weisman Art Museum--serve more than 700 schools in all eight
Minnesota congressional districts and 66 countries, as depicted on the
map. Each of the three museums has received support from the NEA.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Art Museum Service in Minnesota
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Art Museum Service in the Twin Cities
The AAMD was proud to solicit its members' participation in the
Blue Star Museums program, conceived by Blue Star Families and the NEA,
which offers free admission to families of active duty members of the
military from Memorial Day to Labor Day. Well more than half of our
membership participated in 2010, the program's first year, and we
anticipate even broader participation in 2011. Altogether,
approximately 250,000 family members visited museums. This program, as
well as being a way of saying ``thank you'' to the Nation's military
members and families, also offers them a uniquely valuable service. As
the NEA has made clear for the past several years, art-making and arts
participation are powerful expressive vehicles for those who endure war
and absence. We believe the Nation owes the NEA a debt of gratitude for
encouraging these services.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
BLUE STAR MUSEUMS (including art museums as well as all other types of
museums)
A grant to the AAMD from the NEA has allowed us to look deeper into
the kind of programming that occurs at art museums beyond the
presentation of art exhibitions and beyond working with schools. Very
often, this programming occurs in partnership with other institutions.
While schools make up about two-thirds of the institutions served
by art museums, the other one-third is extraordinarily diverse. We have
learned that museums run programs for people with Alzheimers and their
caregivers. They run studio art programs for medical and nursing
schools that want their students to learn the skills of close
observation; research shows that students who receive this instruction
are more successful in their diagnoses. There are programs for autistic
children, for children in the juvenile justice system, and for the
incarcerated. There are programs for churches, universities, pre-
schools, and libraries. In short, museums have found ways for art,
which they hold in trust for the public, to serve the public in
multiple ways.
All too often, however, members of the public are not aware of the
richness of museum programming, in part perhaps because museum
communications efforts often, and understandably, focus on art
exhibitions. AAMD is now working directly with museum communications
offices to develop and place stories in local media so that people
become more aware of what is available to them and to the community in
general.
A story in the local newspaper in Ithaca, New York focused on
Cornell University Johnson Museum of Art program that is reducing the
rate of recidivism for people in a court-mandated addiction recovery
program. The Carnegie Museum of Art in Pittsburgh generated greater
awareness of its reduced-fee program, which allows admission for $1 to
people who are eligible for public assistance benefits such as food
stamps or Medicare. Eleven thousand people used the program last year.
The Seattle Art Museum got coverage of an exhibition developed at the
invitation of the Quileute tribe. Depicted in the Twilight series, the
tribe was inundated by people who had absorbed a Hollywood version of
the tribe's cultural identity. A curator worked with them for a full
year to create an exhibit that would inform the public of the true
Quileute story in their own voice. That particular effort was covered
in Indian Country Today.
The NEA and NEH provide modest but important assistance to art
museums, especially in helping them perform tasks that are critically
important, but for which it is difficult to raise private funding.
Perhaps prime among these tasks is the cataloging and digitization
of collections, which obviously makes them far more accessible both to
scholars and to the general public. Each of the three Minnesota museums
mentioned above has received this sort of assistance from the NEH. Just
in the most recent grant round, the NEH made grants to the Spencer
Museum of Art at the University of Kansas to photograph and catalog
5,800 Native American objects; to the Norman Rockwell Museum to
digitize 264 magnetic tapes containing video interview with Rockwell's
sons, colleagues, models, and studio assistants; and to the Frick
Collection to digitize 15,000 deteriorating photographs of works of art
held in private homes and small public institutions during the early to
mid-20th century.
In summation, with only modest funding, the NEA and NEH help art
museums fulfill their fundamental mission of collecting, preserving,
researching, presenting, and using art in service to the public.
______
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).
The 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. The AAPG has nearly 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.
The 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 (ERP)
The USGS ERP conducts both basic and applied geoscience research
focused on geologic energy resources (both domestic and international),
including oil, natural gas, coal, coalbed methane, methane hydrates,
geothermal, oil shale, and bitumen and heavy oil. The 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.
The President's fiscal year 2012 budget request reduces the ERP's
energy resources activities by $2 million. The AAPG does not support
this reduction. The President's request also includes $3 million for
the ERP to participate in the New Energy Frontier (wind) initiative. If
the Congress wishes to fund the New Energy Frontiers initiative, it
should provide supplemental funds to do so.
The AAPG encourages the subcommittee to fund the ERP activities at
$27.3 million, and provide an additional $3 million to fund the ERP's
participation in the New Energy Frontier initiative if the Congress
chooses to fund this activity.
Mineral Resources Program (MRP)
The United States is the world's largest consumer of mineral
commodities. They form the building blocks of our economy.
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; and the
Federal Reserve) and the private sector.
The USGS MRP is the only Federal and publicly available source for
comprehensive information and analysis of mineral commodities and
mineral materials. Yet, the President has proposed reducing this
program's funding by 18 percent to $44.2 million. The AAPG does not
support this reduction.
The AAPG encourages the subcommittee to fund the MRP at $53.7
million, equal to fiscal year 2010 appropriated levels.
core science systems
National Geologic and Geophysical Data Preservation Program (NGGDPP)
The NGGDPP was authorized in Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPACT 2005,
Public Law 109-58) section 351. The NGGDPP is designed to preserve
geological, geophysical data, and engineering data, maps, well logs,
and samples. It includes development of a national catalog of this
archival material, and providing technical and financial assistance
related to the samples and materials.
The NGGDPP is a cost-shared partnership between the State
geological surveys and the USGS. It was authorized for $30 million
annually, but since inception has received insufficient funding to
accomplish all of the objectives set out in the authorizing language.
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 these data may no longer have value to the company
that acquired it, and is in jeopardy of being discarded.
But these data still has value to society and the State geological
surveys have stepped in to preserve it. These data are valuable for
further natural resources exploration and development, management of
water resources, carbon sequestration research, 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 in the
years ahead.
Historical allocations for this program have ranged from $750,000
to $1 million per year. These funding levels are inadequate to achieve
the program's objectives.
The AAPG encourages the subcommittee to appropriate at least $1
million in fiscal year 2012 for the preservation of geological and
geophysical data, and consider higher funding levels.
geologic landscape and coastal assessments
National Cooperative Geologic Mapping Program (NCGMP)
The AAPG supports the NCGMP. This unique partnership between the
Federal and State governments and the university community further
demonstrates 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.
The 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.
The AAPG encourages the subcommittee to fund the NCGMP at a minimum
of fiscal year 2010 levels of $28.2 million.
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.
______
Prepared Statement of the Association of American Universities
Dear Chairman Reed, Ranking Member Murkowski, and members of the
subcommittee: On behalf of the Association of American Universities
(AAU), an organization of 61 leading U.S. public and private research
universities, I appreciate the opportunity to express strong support
for the National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH). AAU urges the
Congress to continue funding the NEH at the fiscal year 2010 final
funding level of $167.5 million. In particular, we remain committed to
maintaining existing funding levels for the core competitive programs
within the endowment.
It is important that the Congress take steps to reduce Federal
spending and address the Nation's growing debt. We need to do this in a
smart way, allocating money in a manner that gives us the best chance
of improving our future. Unfortunately, deficit-reduction efforts have
thus far focused almost exclusively on nonsecurity, domestic
discretionary spending--which is approximately one-sixth of the budget,
yet includes most of the Federal Government's priority spending for
long-term economic growth and prosperity. Reducing the Federal deficit
in fiscal year 2011 and beyond cannot, and should not, fall solely on
nonsecurity, domestic discretionary spending. Serious deficit reduction
efforts must put the entire Federal budget on the table, including
entitlements and defense spending, and additional revenues generated
through tax reform and measures to improve economic growth. Efforts to
reduce the Federal deficit in fiscal year 2011 should not preclude
prudent Federal spending, such as the core competitive research NEH
programs, which will pay dividends into the future.
We believe that there is a legitimate Federal role in supporting
the humanities as a strategic national priority. Federal support of the
humanities complements Federal investments in the sciences and
engineering. Our Nation's long-term economic success depends on
cultivating a broadly educated workforce ready to compete in a
knowledge-based, global economy. The humanities programs funded by the
Endowment represent the core fields of knowledge and capacities that
enrich individuals, provide a foundation for success in a wide range of
careers, undergird our civic institutions, support strategic national
interests, and help advance sound public policymaking in addressing the
challenges of the 21st century. The high-quality projects supported by
the NEH reach millions of Americans each year.
neh funding and core competitive programs
For fiscal year 2012, the President's budget would cut the
Endowment to $146.3 million, a reduction of $21.2 million (12.7
percent) from fiscal year 2010 levels, with a disproportionate cut of
16 percent for program funds that support the core competitive national
grants. These grants represent the pool of funds that support peer-
reviewed, competitive grant opportunities for a wide range of
educational institutions, nonprofit organizations, and individual
scholars around the country. They encompass NEH core programs,
divisions, and special initiatives:
--research, education, preservation, and access;
--challenge grants;
--public programs;
--the office of digital humanities; and
--bridging cultures.
These highly competitive grants are renowned for their quality. NEH
was able to fund only 16 percent of the competitive proposals it
received in fiscal year 2010. Funding erosion for core competitive
funds would continue to have a significant impact on the Endowment's
ability to support humanities research and education into the future.
Over time, the combined impact of budget cuts and inflation has reduced
the number, diversity, and buying power of grants provided by the NEH,
directly impacting faculty, researchers, students, and the broader
public. This translates into real consequences not only for continuing
efforts to understand and highlight our history, culture, and civic
values, but also for our economic competitiveness and national
security, as our most pressing and complex problems worldwide will not
be solved by science alone. In fact, most scientists and engineers
believe in the essential role of the humanities in higher education, as
their undergraduate and graduate liberal arts courses amplified their
effectiveness later as a scientist or engineer.
It is misleading to assume that colleges and universities or
private funding sources will be able to compensate for cut in Federal
funds. The recent financial crisis and subsequent recession continue to
have a significant impact on public and private colleges and
universities across the country, including budget cuts, hiring freezes,
staff layoffs, course reductions, and more. Institutions are struggling
to maintain continued access to high-quality programs, a struggle that
is particularly evident in the humanities disciplines.
In addition, foundation support for the humanities has slipped
since 2005. Approximately $12.34 billion was raised for arts, culture
and the humanities in 2009, a drop of 8.7 percent from 2005. Gifts to
arts, culture, and humanities organizations comprised only 4 percent of
the total estimated giving in 2009. The humanities community is
concerned about not only the overall reduction in foundation support,
but also the declining share of foundation giving in the humanities
compared to overall giving. In addition, there has been a long-term
shift away from funding for scholarship and core disciplines and toward
funding for public programming. These funding trends are of particular
concern to AAU because of the unmet need and rising debt assumed by
humanities students.
continued funding erosion for core programs
Within the NEH core competitive programs, AAU is particularly
focused on the research and education division. The Summer Seminars and
Institutes, which support national faculty development programs in the
humanities, are located in the education division. These programs
provide a critical forum for leading scholars and faculty to deepen
their knowledge of current scholarship in the key fields of the
humanities. Similarly, Faculty Humanities Workshops support local and
regional professional development programs that allow faculty and
scholars to engage in collaborative study. Within the research
division, several programs, including Summer Stipends and Fellowships,
support individuals or teams of two or more scholars (not including
graduate students) pursuing advanced research that will contribute to
scholarly knowledge or to the public's understanding of the humanities.
With respect to research, one of the problems that humanities
researchers and scholars face is that the reinterpretation and other
scholarly work that often defines the work of humanists and often
culminates in new discoveries, as in the sciences, does not fit the
traditional concept of research. AAU is working with the humanities
community to find ways to better communicate humanities research and
how it both resembles and differs from scientific research. NEH
research programs facilitate the transfer of new knowledge among
faculty, students, and the broader public.
AAU continues to support efforts to better engage humanities
graduate students. The NEH does not currently support graduate research
in the humanities. While the National Institutes of Health, National
Science Foundation, Department of Defense, Department of Energy, and
National Aeronautics and Science Administration, among others, have
graduate education components that complement the agencies' research,
the NEH stands as one of the few Federal agencies that does not support
or train the next generation of researchers or support collaboration
between students and faculty. While the NEH did at one time fund a
small dissertation fellowship program, it was defunded when the agency
was cut significantly in the mid-1990s.
Last year we proposed, in conjunction with the broader humanities
community, the creation of a new competitively awarded, graduate
student-faculty program to simultaneously expand scholarship in key
areas of inquiry, support the critical education of graduate students
in the conduct of research, and bring faculty and graduate students
together in the kind of collaborative arrangements that have long
characterized the sciences. The new program was designed to build on
the Endowment's 2009 decision to allow graduate students to participate
in the NEH summer seminars. We plan to revisit the proposal more
formally in future years. We believe that NEH is uniquely positioned to
promote a higher level of collaboration between faculty and graduate
students in a manner that helps to supply our Nation with the talented
and knowledgeable individuals who will contribute to a culturally
competent workforce.
aau universities and the humanities
As a follow-up to the 2004 report, AAU encouraged its members to
convene roundtable discussions on emerging trends and best practices in
the humanities. While many institutions had been actively engaged in
these discussions for some time, the AAU report provided a focal point
for the deliberations among campus constituencies. These campus efforts
culminated in a national convocation with the American Council of
Learned Societies in 2006, which brought together university,
association, Federal agency, and congressional leaders to discuss the
appropriate role for the humanities in meeting today's challenges.
These discussions continue today both on campuses and at the
national level. Several AAU university presidents, for example, will
serve as members of the Commission on the Humanities and Social
Sciences, which was established recently by the American Academy of the
Arts and Sciences, per the bi-partisan request from Senators Lamar
Alexander (R-TN) and Mark Warner (D-VA) and Representatives Tom Petri
(R-WI) and David Price (D-NC). AAU and its members look forward to
working with the Academy on this effort to identify the top actions
that the Congress, State governments, universities, foundations,
educators, and others can take to maintain national excellence in the
humanities and social sciences, and to achieve long-term national goals
for our intellectual and economic well-being.
bridging cultures: a link between the humanities and national security
It is important that the Nation recognize the link between the
humanities and national security issues, as we strive to improve our
armed services' understanding of the social, cultural, behavioral, and
political forces that shape the views of regions of the world of
strategic importance to the United States. Indeed, analysts in the
major national intelligence and security agencies are to a great extent
humanists and social scientists. As NEH Chairman Jim Leach stated in
his address to the College Art Association Centennial Convocation in
February 2011, ``In public policy, inadequate attention to cultural
issues can cost lives as well as money. There are, of course, costs to
all public programs, but the cost of not supporting some could be far
higher. Just as we need an infrastructure or roads and bridges, we need
an infrastructure of ideas. In a splintered society, bridging cultures
may be our most difficult challenge.'' The fiscal year 2012 budget
would devote $4 million to the Chairman's Bridging Cultures initiative,
designed to renew and reinforce the bridges between the different
cultures and viewpoints that are part of the fabric of American life.
Beginning in the spring of 2011, eight pilot-project grantees will host
regional public forums at venues across the country, focused on the
role of civility in our democracy and the history and culture of Muslim
societies. AAU applauds the attention on the need for a civil discourse
in American life, with the hope that colleges and universities can play
a role in facilitating this in the coming years.
conclusion
AAU encourages the subcommittee to take seriously the importance of
the humanities in our society today. NEH helps colleges and
universities around the country ensure that the humanities remain
central to their missions and to the cultural life of the Nation. NEH,
as the largest Federal supporter of the humanities, broadens public
awareness of and participation in the humanities through teaching,
scholarship, and research. Along with the larger humanities advocacy
community, AAU encourages the Congress to continue funding the NEH at
the fiscal year 2010 final funding level of $167.5 million to maintain
our Nation's capacity to address complex challenges by advancing an
educated and competitive workforce.
______
Letter From the American Bird Conservancy
April 25, 2011.
Hon. Jack Reed,
Chairman, Subcommittee on the Interior, Environment, and Related
Agencies, Washington, DC.
Hon. Lisa Murkowski,
Ranking Member, Subcommittee on the Interior, Environment, and Related
Agencies, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Reed and Senator Murkowski: American Bird Conservancy
(ABC) is a 501(c)(3) national nonprofit organization dedicated to the
conservation of wild native birds and their habitats throughout the
Americas. Founded in 1994, ABC is the only U.S.-based group dedicated
solely to overcoming the greatest threats facing native birds in the
Western Hemisphere.
As you know, America is blessed with a spectacular abundance and
rich diversity of birds, with more than 800 species inhabiting the
mainland, Hawaii, and surrounding oceans. Unfortunately, according to
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's (FWS) 2009 ``State of the Birds''
report, many of our bird species are in decline and some are threatened
with extinction making it more important now than ever to continue
funding Federal programs like the Neotropical Migratory Bird
Conservation Act (NMBCA) grants program, Joint Ventures (JVs), and the
North American Wetlands Conservation Act (NAWCA) which have been proven
and effective in maintaining healthy and abundant native bird
populations.
Funding Federal bird conservation programs not only provides
ecological benefits, it makes good economic sense. Birds are also a
very important economic driver. According to a report put together by
the Federal Government, Americans spend about $36 billion in pursuit of
birding activities every year. Approximately 1 in 5 Americans--48
million people--engages in bird watching, and about 42 percent travel
away from home to go birding. Birding activities also generate about
$4.4 billion in Federal tax revenues. Birds also naturally provide
billions of dollars worth of pest control each year benefiting farmers
and consumers alike.
American Bird Conservancy's report, ``Saving Migratory Birds for
Future Generations: The Success of the Neotropical Migratory Bird
Conservation Act'', found that of our 341 species that are neotropical
migrants--meaning birds that breed in the United States and Canada and
winter in Latin America and the Caribbean--127 are in decline. Sixty of
those species, including 29 songbirds, are in severe decline having
lost 45 percent or more of their population in the past 40 years. If
these trends continue, future generations of Americans may never be
able to see a bright blue Cerulean Warbler, Bell's Vireo, or Black-
chinned Sparrow.
This trend can be seen all throughout the country. Here in
Washington, DC for example an annual census of birds in Rock Creek Park
that started in the 1940s, found that the number of migratory songbirds
breeding there has dropped by 70 percent over the past half-century.
Three species of warbler (Black-and-white, Hooded, and Kentucky) no
longer breed there at all.
The main reasons for these precipitous declines are well
established and reported in the 2009 State of the Birds Report: The
largest source of bird mortality is due to habitat loss through
conversion for human uses. Resource extraction and a growing human
population have resulted in more development and land conversion for
suburban sprawl so there are simply fewer and fewer large blocks of
unbroken habitat for our native birds.
The second major impact is from habitat degradation from
ecologically harmful land uses, such as unsustainable forestry or
destruction of grasslands to create farm land. Deforestation,
especially in Latin America, is accelerating at an alarming rate,
driven by the needs of the rapidly expanding human population, which
has tripled from 1950-2000. Estimates of the percentage of remaining
forests that are lost each year in the neotropics are between 1-2
percent.
nmbca
To address these two problems--habitat loss and degradation, both
of which are rapidly increasing south of our border--ABC respectfully
suggests that the Congress act to help mitigate their impact by
continuing to fund the NMBCA grants program at the highest level
possible. As the subcommittee knows, NMBCA supports partnership
programs in the United States, Canada, Latin America, and the Caribbean
to conserve migratory birds, especially on their wintering grounds
where birds of nearly 350 species, including some of the most
endangered birds in North America, spend their winters. Projects
include activities that benefit bird populations such as habitat
restoration, research and monitoring, law enforcement, and outreach and
education.
The NMBCA grants program has a proven track record of reversing
habitat loss and advancing conservation strategies for the broad range
of neotropical birds that populate America and the Western Hemisphere.
The public-private partnerships along with the international
collaboration they provide are proving themselves to be integral to
preserving vulnerable bird populations.
Between 2002 and 2010, the program supported 333 projects,
coordinated by partners in 48 U.S. States/territories and 36 countries.
More than $35 million from NMBCA grants has leveraged more than $150
million in matching funds and $7 million in nonmatching funds. Projects
involving land conservation have affected about 2 million acres of bird
habitat. While there are more than 100 worthy proposal received each
year, the program is oversubscribed with funding only available to fund
about 40 projects. From these numbers, it is clear that conservation
that would benefit our migrant songbirds is not able to take place due
to a lack of funding for this program. ABC strongly believes expanding
this program is essential to achieving conservation goals critical to
our environment and economy. Just as importantly, this Federal program
is a good value for taxpayers, leveraging more than $4 in partner
contributions for every $1 that we spend. ABC respectfully requests
that NMBCA be funded at $6.5 million for fiscal year 2012.
jvs
JVs also exemplify a highly successful, cost-effective approach to
conservation. By applying science and bringing diverse constituents
together, JVs across the United States have created a model for solving
wildlife management problems and restoring habitats critical to
conserving declining species. Nationally, JVs have protected, restored,
or enhanced more than 13 million acres of important habitat for
migratory bird species. There are currently 21 JVs in the United States
that provide coordination for conservation planning and implementation
of projects that benefit all migratory bird populations and other
species.
JVs have a long history of success in implementing bird
conservation initiatives mandated by the Congress and by international
treaties. Projects are developed at the local level and implemented
through diverse public/private partnerships. These projects reflect
local values and needs, while addressing regional and national
conservation priorities. The projects benefit not only birds, but many
wildlife species, and have a positive impact on the health of
watersheds and local economies. In fiscal year 2010, every $1
appropriated for JVs leveraged more than $30 in non-Federal partner
funds. ABC respectfully requests that JVs be funded at $15 million for
fiscal year 2012.
ABC strongly believes increased funding for NMBCA and JVs is
essential to achieving conservation goals critical to our environment
and economy. Just as importantly, these Federal programs are good
values for taxpayers, leveraging more than $4 and $30, respectively, in
partner contributions for each one that the taxpayers spend.
nawca
NAWCA has helped conserve wetlands in North America for more than
20 years by providing funding for conservation projects that benefit
wetland-associated migratory birds in all 50 States, Canada, and
Mexico. NAWCA which has a proven track record of success leveraging
more than $3.4 billion in matching funds affecting 26 million acres
through the work of more than 4,440 partners and has fostered public
and private sector cooperation for migratory bird conservation, flood
control, erosion control, and water quality. For every $1 of money
invested in the program, an average of $3.20 is raised to match the
Federal share by non-Federal entities.
As an organization that works with migratory birds, which by
definition cross international borders during their migration patterns,
we know that protection and restoration of wetland and upland habitat
must occur across the continent if the goal is to protect the species.
As a result ABC respectfully requests that NAWCA be funded at $50
million for fiscal year 2012.
America faces a serious challenge to reverse the decline of many of
our bird species, but it is possible. Since birds are sensitive
indicators of how we are protecting our environment as a whole, this
decline signals a crisis that the Congress must act now to reverse it.
If these reports tell us anything, it is that when we apply ourselves
by investing in conservation, we can save imperiled wildlife, protect
habitats, and solve the multiple threats at the root of this problem.
Sincerely,
Darin Schroeder,
Vice President for Conservation Advocacy.
______
Letter From the American Bird Conservancy; National Audubon Society;
PRBO Conservation Society; and The Wildlife Society
April 29, 2011.
Hon. Jack Reed,
Chairman, Subcommittee on the Interior, Environment, and Related
Agencies, Washington, DC.
Hon. Lisa Murkowski,
Ranking Member, Subcommittee on the Interior, Environment, and Related
Agencies, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Reed and Senator Murkowski: As you may know, birds
are an important economic driver. A report by The Outdoor Industry
Foundation found all outdoor wildlife-related recreation activities
generate $730 billion annually for the United States' economy. The
report estimated that bird watching alone contributes $43 billion
annually. Birds also naturally provide billions of dollars worth of
pest control each year benefiting farms and consumers alike.
The Bird Conservation Funding Coalition (BCFC) consists of national
organizations that, together, advocate for Federal funding to advance
bird conservation. This year we urge you once again to provide the
highest level of funding possible 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)
The NMBCA supports partnership programs to conserve birds in the
United State, 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, and outreach and education.
The BCFC respectfully requests the subcommittee prioritize fiscal year
2012 funding for the NMBCA at $6.5 million.
Joint Ventures (JVs)
JVs 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 JVs 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 $15 million for fiscal year 2012.
Science and Monitoring
Science and monitoring done within the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (FWS) 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 $30.7 million for this important program.
North American Wetlands Conservation Act (NAWCA)
The 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. The 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 2012 funding for NAWCA at $50 million.
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, the Congress charged
each State and territory with developing an ``action plan''. Every
State and territory submitted their wildlife action plan to the FWS 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
$95 million for fiscal year 2012.
International Affairs within the FWS
International conservation programs, such as Wildlife Without
Borders (WWB), supports the preservation of endangered and migratory
species and habitat by providing capacity building, environmental
outreach, education and training. WWB is a mainstay of bird
conservation in Mexico, Central America, and the Caribbean typically
leveraging $4 for every appropriated $1. WWB also serves as a
foundation for long-term conservation efforts because they focus on
developing in-country capacity. There are currently 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
2012 funding at $12.9 million.
International Programs Within the USDA Forest Service (USFS)
International programs within the USFS has a distinct niche that is
not met by any other federally funded program emphasizing conservation
of migratory bird species throughout their range. It supports an array
of extremely effective bird conservation projects with a relatively
small budget. Specific emphasis is placed on forest, grassland, and
shorebirds which include high-priority species like the Cerulean
Warbler, Bicknell's Thrush, Western Sandpiper, and Rufous Hummingbird,
whose greatest threats are found outside the United States.
The BCFC respectfully requests the subcommittee provide $9 million
for fiscal year 2012.
United States Geological Survey American Breeding Bird Survey (BBS)
The 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,
Darin Schroeder,
Vice President of Conservation Advocacy,
American Bird Conservancy.
Mike Daulton,
Vice President for Government Relations,
National Audubon Society.
Ellie M. Cohen,
President and CEO,
PRBO Conservation Science.
Michael Hutchins, Ph.D.,
Executive Director and CEO,
The Wildlife Society.
______
Prepared Statement of the Alliance for Community Trees; American Forest
Foundation; California Forest Pest Council; City of Chicago Department
of Streets and Sanitation, Bureau of Forestry; Greenspace--The Cambria
Land Trust; Massachusetts Association of Campground Owners; Missouri
Forest Products Association; National Association of State Foresters;
National Plant Board; North American Maple Syrup Council, Inc.; Purdue
University, Department of Entomology; Society of Municipal Arborists;
The Davey Institute; The Nature Conservancy; and Virginia Forestry
Association
Dear Chairman Reed and Senator Murkowski: We urge the Subcommittee
on the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies to appropriate
adequate funding for the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Forest
Service (USFS) to manage non-native insects and plant diseases that
threaten America's forests. We recommend a fiscal year 2012
appropriation of $138 million for the USFS Forest Health Management
Program. This level is the same as the current level of funding. In
addition, we ask that you provide the President's request of
$295,773,000 for the USFS Research Program.
We recognize the importance of reducing Government spending and
taking other steps to reduce the deficit. However, forests and urban
trees are a treasured and integral part of American life. Forested
landscapes cover 1.15 million square miles in the United States. Every
American derives some type of value from forested land, whether in the
form of wood products for construction or paper, neighborhood
amenities, wildlife habitat, carbon sequestration, or spiritual
inspiration--or the jobs associated with these values. The U.S. lumber
and paper industries employ 1.3 million people. In Vermont alone, the
maple sugar industry provides 4,000 seasonal jobs. Tourism based on
fall foliage displays attracts 1 million tourists who annually generate
$1 billion in revenue in New England.
American forest ecosystems are under siege by a growing number of
exotic forest pests. Close to 500 species of invertebrates and
pathogens from other countries have become established in the country,
and a new damaging pest is introduced, on average, every 2 to 3 years.
The USFS Forest Health Program is the lead agency assisting other
Federal agencies, State agencies, and private landowners in their
struggle to respond to this growing threat. The USFS expertise is
essential to the success of pest eradication and containment programs
implemented by the USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
(APHIS)--including those targeting the Asian longhorned beetle, emerald
ash borer, and sudden oak death. The USFS contribution becomes
increasingly important when forest pests have become more widespread.
Thus, USFS forest health protection provides the greatest proportion of
the Federal Government's efforts to mitigate the impacts of gypsy moth,
hemlock woolly adelgid, white pine blister rust, Port-Orford-cedar root
disease, ohia rust, oak wilt, and Erythrina gall wasp--among others.
The President's requested funding level of $120 million would
necessitate cuts of 40 to 60 percent in programs addressing highly
damaging introduced pests that are already eliminating certain tree
species from the forest, or threaten to do so.
--Emerald ash borer occupies more than 100,000 square miles in 15
States. More than 200 million ash trees in the Plains States
and additional trees in the South are at risk to this pest.
Homeowners and municipalities collectively will pay $10 billion
or more to remove dead ash trees that would otherwise fall and
cause property damage or even loss of life. USFS forest health
protection has helped States and municipalities prepare by
conducting inventories of their ash resources and planning
coordinated management steps.
--Hemlock woolly adelgid has killed up to 90 percent of hemlock trees
in the Appalachians from Georgia to Massachusetts. Loss of
hemlock groves threatens unique ecosystems and watersheds. USFS
forest health protection has helped try to reduce the overall
damage by supporting development and testing of biological and
chemical control methods and supporting control efforts on
remote infestations resulting from artificial movement.
--Thousand cankers disease of walnut threatens to eliminate black
walnut trees from the forest. Black walnut's greatest economic
value comes from the wood. Top-grade walnut is used for
millwork and veneer; it is also exported. Medium-grade walnut
is used in furniture, cabinetry, flooring, and other
manufactured item. Lower-grade walnut is used as sleepers
(railroad ties), mine timbers, pallet parts, and flooring. USDA
APHIS estimates the timber value of black walnut throughout its
range at $500 billion. In addition, although most walnuts sold
in the United States for human consumption are from orchards of
English or Persian walnuts, a thriving niche market for native
black walnuts--centered on Missouri--harvests 25-30 million
pounds every year. USFS health protection has helped try to
reduce the overall damage by analyzing the risk to forests in
the East and supporting States' efforts to determine whether
they already harbor outbreaks of this recently discovered pest.
--Goldspotted oak borer has killed between 20,000 and 50,000
California live oak and black oak trees in San Diego County in
less than 15 years. The insect threatens oaks throughout
California, including close to 300,000 oak trees growing in
greater Los Angeles and trees in Yosemite Valley. USFS forest
health protection has helped try to limit the spread of this
insect by supporting delimitation of the outbreak, analysis of
the risk to trees in California, and efforts to develop better
detection tools.
The USFS Research and Development Program provides the science to
help manage forest invasive species. While we accept the proposed 4
percent reduction in research overall, we consider it vitally important
to maintain--at approximately current levels--research aimed at
improving detection and control methods for the emerald ash borer,
hemlock woolly adelgid, sudden oak death, thousand cankers disease, and
other non-native forest pests and diseases. In addition, we strongly
believe that additional funds should be allocated toward research on
the goldspotted oak borer; $156,000 provided in the President's request
represents a 37 percent cut in funding from the Research account for
the current year.
Emerald Ash Borer (EAB).--The USFS research continues on such
crucial fronts as developing control methods (biological, chemical, and
microbial); detection technologies (improved traps and lures); testing
host resistance; silvicultural treatments; and integrated management of
EAB via the Slowing Ash Mortality pilot project.
Hemlock Woolly Adelgid (HWA).--The USFS research continues on such
crucial fronts as developing control methods (biological and chemical);
testing host resistance and hybridization for incorporating resistance;
analysis of spread and impacts of HWA; population dynamics of HWA
including climatic drivers; and silvicultural treatments for coping
with HWA.
Thousand Cankers Disease.--The USFS research has sufficient funding
to monitor for the walnut twig beetle (vector of thousand cankers
disease) in only two States--Indiana and Missouri. The study will
analyze all bark and ambrosia beetles trapped at selected sites as well
as any fungi the beetles might be transporting, so as to better
understand this growing risk.
Pathways of Introduction and Spread.--The USFS research will
continue evaluation of the efficacy of quarantine programs aimed at
preventing transport of pests in various pathways, including wood
packaging and firewood. These studies provided the scientific
foundation for managing these pathways in the past.
Thank you for considering our views.
______
Prepared Statement of the Association of Community Tribal Schools, Inc.
My name is Dr. Roger Bordeaux, Executive Director of the
Association of Community Tribal Schools, Inc. (ACTS). I have been a
Tribal School Superintendent for 20 years and the executive director
for 25 years.
The tribal school movement started in 1966 with Rough Rock
Demonstration School. Now there are more than 28,000 students in tribal
elementary and secondary schools. The schools are in the States of
Maine, Florida, North Carolina, Mississippi, Louisiana, South Dakota,
Minnesota, North Dakota, Michigan, Iowa, Wisconsin, Kansas, Wyoming,
Oklahoma, Montana, California, Washington, Idaho, Nevada, Arizona, and
New Mexico. ACTS represents a significant number of the more than 125+
tribally controlled elementary and secondary schools. The schools have
more than 28,000 tribal children enrolled in pre-K-12 programs. ACTS's
mission is to ``assist community tribal schools toward their mission of
ensuring that when students complete their schools they are prepared
for lifelong learning and that these students will strengthen and
perpetuate traditional tribal societies.''
There was no equity in the appropriations over the last 10 years.
Bureau of Indan Education (BIE) education management, Indian School
Equalization Program (ISEP) adjustments, and education program
enhancements have grown by more than 200 percent while the
appropriations for all school-based programs have stayed relatively
stagnant.
The following charts illustrate the inequity:
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
This chart does not include an additional $ 10,000,000+ or at least
5 percent, the BIE uses for education program management from the
Department of Education program funds and other Bureau of Indian
Affiars (BIA) management funds.
school-based program funds
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
requested action
Restore Residential Education Placement Program Funds:
$3,760,000.--This program element provides funding for BIE-eligible
students who are temporarily place in residential facilities for
special education, alcohol/drug abuse, and court-ordered placements. If
there is a need to find funds, do not give BIE an additional $3,900,000
for ISEP adjustments.
Restore the ``Construction--Education Construction'' Activity to
the Fiscal Year 2010 Levels.--The BIA reports a $70,000,000 annual
facility deterioration rate and also reports a $3.4 billion school
replacement need. The schools will not be able sustain a $61,000,000
cut from education construction.
Decrease.--These funds are currently used to control the schools
and hamper progress, the BIE uses these funding program elements to
dictate what schools what they should do to improve assessment scores
based on AYP requirements, and has nothing to do with school
improvement, funds should be rolled into ISEP, transportation, facility
operations, facility maintenance, and tribal grant support costs:
[Dollars in thousands]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Item Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BIE--Elementary/Secondary Programs--ISEP program 7,238
adjustments............................................
BIE--Elementary/Secondary Programs--Education program 12,067
Enhancements...........................................
BIE--Elementary/Secondary Programs--Education management 5,000
---------------
Total............................................. 24,305
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Increase.--Based on BIE-generated needs formulas:
[Dollars in thousands]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Item Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BIE--Elementary/Secondary Programs--Facility maintenance 3,254
BIE--Elementary/Secondary Programs--Tribal Grant Support 18,627
Costs..................................................
BIE--Elementary/Secondary Programs--Facility operations. 30,737
BIE--Elementary/Secondary Programs--ISEP formula funds.. 112,858
BIE--Elementary/Secondary Programs--Student 6,212
transportation.........................................
---------------
Subtotal additional need for nearly 43,000 171,688
children.........................................
---------------
Less requested decrease................................. 24,305
---------------
Total requested increase for fiscal year 2012..... $147,383
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eliminate the Following Administrative Provisions Language.--To
allow current schools to expand grade level offerings and allow tribes
to apply to operate a grant school:
``Appropriations made available in this or any other Act for
schools funded by the Bureau shall be available only to the schools in
the Bureau school system as of September 1, 1996. No funds available to
the Bureau shall be used to support expanded grades for any school or
dormitory beyond the grade structure in place or approved by the
Secretary of the Interior at each school in the Bureau school system as
of October 1, 1995.''
Change Language, With Insert.--To allow additional appropriations
for tribal grant support costs:
``Provided further, That notwithstanding any other provision of
law, including but not limited to the Indian Self-Determination Act of
1975, as amended, and 25 U.S.C. 2008, not to exceed $46,373,000
$65,000,000 within and only from such amounts made available for school
operations shall be available for administrative cost grants associated
with ongoing grants entered into with the Bureau prior to or during
fiscal year [2009]2010 for the operation of Bureau-funded schools, and
up to [$500,000]$500,000 within and only from such amounts made
available for administrative cost grants shall be available for the
transitional costs of initial administrative cost grants to grantees
that assume operation on or after July 1, [2009]2010, of Bureau-funded
schools.''
______
Prepared Statement of the Amigos de la Sevilleta
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee: On behalf of the
Amigos de la Sevilleta (Friends of Sevilleta National Wildlife Refuge)
and its membership, thank you for your strong support for the National
Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS). The meaningful funding increases from
fiscal year 2008-fiscal year 2010 allowed the NWRS to emerge from the
years of declining budgets that followed the 2003 Refuge Centennial.
Unfortunately, the President's fiscal year 2012 budget request of flat
funding from fiscal year 2010 represents a $23 million cut when
factoring in the amount the NWRS needs annually to maintain existing
management capabilities and will result in a dramatic reduction in what
refuges will be able to do on the ground.
The Amigos de la Sevilleta appreciates the opportunity to submit
comments on the fiscal year 2012 Interior, environment, and related
agencies appropriations bill and we respectfully request the
subcommittee support the following funding allocations for programs in
the NWRS and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS):
--$511 million for the operations and maintenance (O&M) accounts of
the NWRS;
--$27 million for Refuge Revenue Sharing;
--$900 million for the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF),
including $140 million for the NWRS;
--$20.2 million for Landscape Conservation Cooperatives (LCCs) in the
FWS;
--$20 million for Inventory and Monitoring for refuges;
--$37 million for the NWRS construction account for large scale
restoration projects, visitor's centers and energy-efficiency
projects;
--$80 million for NWRS Visitors Services;
--$39 million for Refuge Law Enforcement;
--$5 million for the management of the new Pacific Marine Monuments;
--$65 million for the FWS' Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program;
--$95 million for the State and Tribal Wildlife Grants Program;
--$50 million for the North American Wetlands Conservation Fund;
--$6.5 million for the Neotropical Migratory Bird Fund;
--$8.4 million for Wildlife Without Borders; and
--$8.5 million for the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation (NFWF)
in the FWS' Resource Management General Administration
appropriation.
We believe the request of $511 million is a reasonable amount for
the FWS to maintain most management capabilities for next year. Without
providing adequate funding for these fixed costs, refuges will simply
be unable to maintain current programs and public services, and the
backlog will grow. Refuges have almost $1 billion worth of construction
needs, including the replacement of deteriorating structures that are
becoming more expensive to maintain. We request flat funding for the
NWRS' construction budget at $37 million, including funds for large-
scale habitat restoration. Refuges with a broad range of programs
create more service industry jobs and more income for local
communities. The visitor's center at the Sevilleta National Wildlife
Refuge is scheduled for slight remodeling to install displays and allow
for a store for Amigos de la Sevilleta merchandise to raise funds for
education and habitat restoration projects on Sevilleta.
Supporting Jobs and Leveraging American Volunteerism
Refuges are economic engines in local communities, returning on
average $4 in economic activity for every $1 appropriated by the
Congress. Nationwide this equates to more than $2 billion in annual
economic impact. Refuges are job creators; more than 30,000 jobs--
largely in the private sector--are attributed to refuge-related
activities. Ecosystem restoration activities deliver the biggest pay-
off, where $1 million invested creates 30 jobs, while $1 million
invested in recreation creates 22 jobs. Refuges provide significant
bang for the buck, despite receiving the least amount per acre of all
land management agencies. Refuges are managed with $3.36 per acre while
the National Forest Service and National Park Service receive $32.25
and $37.11 per acre, respectively. Refuges are also vital places for
the American people to connect with nature and volunteer. Currently,
refuge Friends and volunteers do approximately 20 percent of all work
on refuges, the equivalent of 648 full-time employees. We support the
request of $80 million for Visitors Services for the NWRS. The
administration's proposed $2.3 million cut to Visitors Services
represents a cut to the programs that oversee volunteers and thereby a
marked decline in the work volunteers are able to contribute, leaving
that work essentially undone. The Amigos de la Sevilleta provides bus
scholarships to our local schools to bus the students to our refuge to
learn about nature and to support Children In Nature.
Using Science to Guide Adaptive Management
The FWS and the NWRS are developing landscape level strategies to
address habitat changes due to shifting land use, increasing human
population, the spread of invasive species and changing climates. But
the need is urgent and time is of the essence--especially with species
on the verge of collapse in locations such as Alaska and Hawaii. We
strongly support the FWS initiative to establish Landscape Conservation
Cooperatives (LCCs) to bring the best science to bear to help local,
State, and Federal agencies make the most educated management
decisions. We recommend an allocation of $20.2 million to fund LCCs in
fiscal year 2012, building upon the initial LCC investments in fiscal
year 2010. The Amigos de la Sevilleta recommends an allocation of $20
million for the NWRS's Inventory and Monitoring program. As the gulf
oil spill showed, basic inventories of our natural assets are crucial
if the American people are to recoup costs in the event of manmade
disasters.
Commitment to Refuge Communities--Refuge Revenue Sharing
The NWRS uses the net income derived from use permits, timber
harvests, and so on to make payments to local counties or communities
to offset lost tax revenue, and relies on congressional appropriations
to the Refuge Revenue Sharing program to compensate for the shortfall
between revenues and obligations. Due to declining revenue and lack of
appropriations, the FWS has been paying less than 50 percent of its
tax-offset obligations since 2001. This has a measurable impact on
local communities that is felt even more starkly in difficult economic
times--and it creates severe strain in relations between the Federal
units and their local community, threatening the goodwill and
partnerships that are keystones of successful conservation. Amigos de
la Sevilleta requests $27 million for the Refuge Revenue Sharing
Program, which, in recognition of the President's proposal to zero out
funding, is still only half of what is needed. The Amigos de la
Sevilleta believes that a review of the Refuge Revenue Sharing Act of
1935 as amended, and consideration of conversion to a Payment-in-Lieu
of Taxes (PILT) program to be consistent with the National Park
Service, the Bureau of Land Management and the U.S. Forest Service will
provide Refuge communities with more equitable payments. Sevilleta
National Wildlife Refuge is in a predominantly Federal land managed
county in New Mexico and there are several institutions that rely on
property tax funding to provide services to the communities within our
County.
Partnerships and Strategic Growth
The Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program is a powerful tool for
working with private landowners to collaboratively conserve refuge
landscapes. The program consistently leverages Federal dollars for
conservation, generating between $4-$10 in conservation return for
every $1 appropriated, and has been key to the success of many iconic
landscape conservation projects. In the past 2 years, the Wyoming
Landscape Conservation Initiative used $454,000 in habitat restoration
and enhancement to leverage an additional $1.4 million from private
partners! But the Partners program saw its purchasing power erode
between 8-24 percent in 2010 due to rising diesel fuel and seed costs.
If funded at its authorized level of $75 million, the program would net
at least $300 million worth of additional conservation. We request an
fiscal year 2012 appropriation of $65 million for the Partners for Fish
and Wildlife Program, a $5 million increase to maintain capabilities.
The Amigos de la Sevilleta also calls upon the Congress to fully fund
the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) at its authorized level of
$900 million, with 75 percent devoted across agencies to investments in
iconic landscapes. Created in 1965 and authorized at $900 million per
year (more than $3 billion in today's dollars), the LWCF is our most
important land acquisition tool. With more than 8 million acres still
unprotected within existing designated refuge boundaries, and the need
to establish key wildlife corridors and connections between protected
areas, the LWCF is more important than ever. We also urge the
subcommittee to appropriate $95 million for the State and Tribal
Wildlife Grants Program to implement State Wildlife Action Plans; $50
million for the North American Wetlands Conservation Fund; $6.5 million
for the Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Fund and $8.5 million
for the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation.
Returning to fiscal year 2008 Funding Levels
Some in the Congress have recommended returning to fiscal year 2008
funding levels; we must caution that this would have immediate and
severe impacts to our national wildlife refuges. With the NWRS already
44 percent underfunded, proposals to return the agency to fiscal year
2008 levels would result in an estimated 20 percent cut to current
funding and would have dramatic ramifications including:
--Elimination of hundreds of staff positions, significantly reducing
the NWRS's ability to:
--restore habitats;
--control invasive species;
--maintain roads; and
--respond to illegal activities; and
--Decline in the quality and quantity of visitor services programs,
forcing an estimated 54 visitor centers to close and preventing
11 more under construction from opening at all;
--Reduction of volunteer efforts, as cuts to staff who oversee
volunteers will result in a decline in the work volunteers are
able to contribute;
--Reduction of hunting programs on an estimated 48 refuges and
reduction of fishing programs on an estimated 45 refuges;
--A halt on progress of the NWRS' inventory and monitoring program,
likely reducing it to a skeletal operation. The need for this
program was made clear by the Deepwater Horizon oil spill,
which forced FWS staff to hastily catalog gulf coast refuge
assets in order to prove damages and recoup costs from
responsible parties. Now the only refuges nationwide with a
comprehensive inventory of species and water quality are those
that were in the path of oil.
In conclusion, the Amigos believes the National Wildlife Refuge
System can meet its important conservation objectives only with strong
and consistent funding leveraged by the valuable work of refuge
volunteers. We extend our appreciation to the subcommittee for its
ongoing commitment to our NWRS. As a ``Friends'' organization, the
Amigos de la Sevilleta will continue to do its part by raising funds
for educational activities on the Sevilleta National Wildlife Refuge
and continue to assist with volunteer days for habitat restoration, as
well as fundraising for habitat restoration dollars.
______
Prepared Statement of Americans for the Arts
Americans for the Arts is pleased to submit written testimony to
the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on the Interior, Environment,
and Related Agencies supporting fiscal year 2012 funding for the
National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) at the fiscal year 2010 enacted
level of $167.5 million.
Arts Advocacy Day was last month on Capitol Hill, an annual
grassroots gathering hosted by Americans for the Arts and cosponsored
by more than 80 national organizations representing dance, theater,
music, literature, and the visual and media arts--the full landscape of
American culture. Collectively these national groups represent tens of
thousands of nonprofit and governmental cultural organizations at the
State and local levels across the country.
We are well aware that this subcommittee and the Congress are under
tremendous pressure to help fix our economy, reduce our debt and
provide for a better country for future generations. I want to say
unequivocally that our sector stands ready to be a part of the
solution.
Awareness of the new budget realities are reflected in our
legislative ``ask'' before you today. $167.5 million for the NEA
represents fiscal year 2010's enacted level of funding.
Households, municipal governments, and the Federal Government are
being asked to tighten their belts and the arts community is cognizant
of the difficult financial landscape we currently find ourselves in as
a Nation. We echo the sentiments of President Obama and congressional
leaders that our Nation's new austerity should not impair crucial
investments that will lead us out of the current recession. We believe
the arts are one of those investments.
Yet despite the best efforts of arts leaders in the Congress, we
face the daunting task of continuing the upward trend of support that
we have seen over the recent past. The NEA has steadily approached its
previous high from the early 1990's after the drastic 40 percent cuts
and threatened termination of the mid 1990s. Past arts leaders, such as
former Chairwoman Senator Feinstein, have provided invaluable support
in maintaining NEA increases, and we hope that you and your colleagues
will continue that commitment during these admittedly challenging
times.
There is some sobering news across the country that emphasizes the
importance of the NEA's contribution to the health of the larger arts
landscape. The 2009 National Arts Index, a project of Americans for the
Arts that studies the well being and vitality of the arts, illustrates
the bad news that the health of the arts industry has hit a 12-year-
low. The creative sector is an industry that profoundly impacts and is
impacted by the Nation's business cycles. In 2008, 41 percent of
nonprofit arts organizations reported a deficit to the IRS, up from 36
percent in 2007. Additionally, the portion of philanthropic giving to
the arts dropped from 4.9 percent to 4 percent over the past decade.
The good news is that the arts mean jobs. We have given you the
numbers before but they warrant repeating. The nonprofit arts industry
is a $166.2 billion economic sector that supports 5.7 million full-time
equivalent jobs and pumps $29.6 billion in tax revenue back into local,
State, and Federal treasuries. They are home-grown, made in America
jobs. According to our Creative Industries study, there are 2,788 arts-
related nonprofit and for-profit businesses that employ 12,675 people
in the State of Rhode Island, Mr. Chairman. In Senator Murkowski's
State of Alaska, 1,857 arts-related businesses employ 5,523 people. It
cannot be emphasized enough that the arts industry is uniquely
positioned to help us rebound out of the current fiscal crisis. The NEA
is a modest but highly effective Federal investment and reaches into
every State and Congressional District to support jobs, deliver
programming, leverage private giving, and spur economic activity.
Support for the States
Forty plus years ago, something as simple as requiring States to
match funds received from the NEA helped spur the creation of State
arts agencies in every State. They now appropriate $272 million in
funds to support the arts. Through Partnership Agreements, the NEA
provides funding for State priorities more than matched by State
legislature appropriations and augmenting the majority of financial
support to the arts that is provided through earned income and private
charitable giving.
State arts agencies have a tremendous impact on the vitality of the
communities within their jurisdiction by regranting NEA and State funds
to local nonprofit institutions, artists, educational and community
groups. These funds support individual artistic productions, in-and-
after school instruction, arts organization management training and a
host of other needs including general operating support to keep the
``lights on'' so resources can be focused on delivering access to arts
programming. Each State arts council relies on Federal collaboration to
ensure local arts organizations across their States have the resources
to extend access to the arts, promote community economic growth and
support creative sector jobs. Some examples of the types of work State
councils support:
--The Arizona Commission on Arts supports the Chandler Children's
Choir in Chandler, Arizona; the Symphony of the Southwest in
Mesa; and the Gilbert Global Village Festival, a multicultural
celebration for all ages to ``celebrate, share and sustain the
arts and the rich cultural traditions of countries from around
the world.''
--The California Arts Commission. The City of Corona was identified
by the Riverside County District Attorney's Office as a
community whose schools were in need of gang prevention
programming. At least 233 separate criminal street gangs
comprised of approximately 8,000 members have been identified
by Riverside County law enforcement. The DA's Office partnered
with the Riverside Arts Council (RAC) in developing Project
Safe Neighborhoods to address this growing issue.
Local Government Support
Similarly at the local level, the NEA's original local arts agency
program created an even higher 2 to 1 match that was welcomed by local
governments. Since 1984, the NEA's Local Arts Agency program has
supported more than 800 grants totaling $47 million. This program
spurred unprecedented growth in local government support for the arts
due in large part to higher matching requirements, sensitivity to local
standards and tastes, and their proven track record of being
trustworthy stewards of public funds.
Today, local governments invest more than $688.5 million of their
own funds in direct support to artists and community-based nonprofit
arts organizations, ranging from symphonies and operas to ethnically
specific cultural programs and arts education initiatives. Through Arts
Works and Challenge America Fast Track Grants, under the grant category
of Grants to Projects, the NEA extends critical lifelines directly to
local arts agencies as well as helping to preserve jobs in those
communities they serve.
To give you an idea about the remarkable work that the NEA helps
fund at the local level, it gives me enormous pleasure to tell you that
Louisiana's City of Slidell's Department of Cultural & Public Affairs
just celebrated their move from post-Katrina FEMA trailers into new
office space. After nearly 6 years rebuilding and growing their flood-
ravaged community, with budget cut after budget cut, at no point in
time was it ever considered to terminate cultural funding from the
city's services. Any Louisianan will tell you that their art and
culture is the heartbeat of the State. The tremendous outpouring of
support for the city's cultural events stood testament to the
unshakeable strength of the people and their insistence that Katrina
may have taken buildings but not their spirit. To quote Slidell's
Cultural Director Kim Bergeron, ``I can state with quite certainty that
many of our nonprofit arts organizations would have ceased to exist
were it not for the arts funding available through NEA and the
Louisiana Division of Arts.''
Innovative Programming and Grants
Under the leadership of Chairman Rocco Landesman, the NEA has made
great strides in bringing new initiatives that confront modern urban
problems by using the intersection of arts, culture, and design as a
foundation for urban renewal. The Mayors' Institute on City Design 25th
Anniversary Initiative (MICD25) ``supported creative placemaking
projects that contribute toward the livability of communities and help
transform sites into lively, beautiful, and sustainable places with the
arts at their core.'' Inspired by MICD25, a separate new initiative,
Our Town, goes a step further by establishing a permanent grant program
proposing to take the very same principles and fund projects that
transform towns, cities, and regions using the arts as an anchor for
revitalization.
Leveraging Private Contributed and Earned Income Support
The NEA plays an important role in helping these arts organizations
leverage both contributed income as well as earned income. Information
from Giving USA demonstrates that during the largest cut to NEA funding
in the late 1990s and subsequent years of underfunding, private giving
to the arts fell dramatically as a percentage of total giving. Fewer
NEA grants mean less endorsement of arts programming and institutions
and, in turn, less assistance from charitable sources.
Leveraging Other Federal Agency Support
The NEA plays a very important role in developing partnerships with
other Federal agencies--such as the Departments of Housing and Urban
Development, Education, and Transportation--in order to open new
channels for arts organizations to work with all aspects of government.
For example, Community Development Block Grant funds can be used for
restoring cultural facilities, transportation funds can be used for
public art, and education funds to deliver quality arts education
programs to kids in- and after-school. I know that Chairman Landesman
has extensive connections with his fellow agency heads in furthering
this dialogue.
So, my message here today is that arts and the NEA have been and
are part of the solution to our ongoing recovery. If I could indulge in
a historical anecdote, in past recessions the Congress has responded
affirmatively that the arts matter. During the national recessions of
1969-1970, 1973-1975, early 1980, early 1990s and the most recent
downturn, our congressional leaders responded by increasing funds for
the NEA. It is my hope that this subcommittee embraces the idea that
arts and culture are partners in making our country stronger.
I respectfully ask the subcommittee to continue its commitment to
the creative sector by supporting a funding level of $167.5 million for
the NEA in the fiscal year 2012 budget to save jobs, reshape our
communities, and maintain America's cultural competitiveness.
______
Prepared Statement of the American Forest & Paper Association
introduction
The American Forest & Paper Association (AF&PA) is the national
trade association of the forest products industry, representing pulp,
paper, packaging and wood products manufacturers, and forest
landowners. Our companies make products essential for everyday life
from renewable and recyclable resources that sustain the environment.
The forest products industry accounts for approximately 5 percent of
the total U.S. manufacturing GDP. Industry companies produce about $175
billion in products annually and employ nearly 900,000 men and women,
exceeding employment levels in the automotive, chemicals, and plastics
industries. The industry meets a payroll of approximately $50 billion
annually and is among the top 10 manufacturing sector employers in 47
States.
Declining Federal timber harvests have adversely affected many
rural communities, resulting in thousands of jobs lost. Actions are
needed to restore and increase Federal timber harvest to help ensure
adequate fiber supply and address forest health priorities. Within the
jurisdiction of this subcommittee, we urge you to direct the U.S.
Forest Service (USFS) to help sustain the forest products industry and
the vital jobs it supports. Specific recommendations follow.
national forest system (nfs)--forest products
The President's budget request for the NFS proposes an Integrated
Resource Restoration (IRR) account, incorporating NFS programs
previously funded under several line items into a single $864 million
line item. The AF&PA understands the administration's desire to
``accelerate the refocusing of national forest management to forest
ecosystem restoration project work, including global climate change
adaptation and mitigation''; however, combining these line items
reduces the accountability of the USFS and makes it difficult for the
Congress to perform its oversight duties. The AF&PA opposes the
combination without further clarification by the USFS. Moreover, we do
not feel that the $80 million specifically delineated within the IRR
for priority watershed projects is appropriate without further
explanation of how this fund would be used. We also question why the
administration has designated $40 million for the Collaborative Forest
Landscape Restoration Fund (CFLRF); the CFLRF originally was intended
to be funded with ``new'' money, not through diversion from other
program funding.
To create forest industry jobs, more Federal timber should be made
available for sale. At a time when most Americans are concerned about
jobs and the economy, studies indicate that the USFS timber sale
program could produce more than 6,000 direct and indirect jobs with an
annual infusion of $57 million into the forest products line item while
improving the health and reducing the fire risk of forest ecosystems.
nfs--hazardous fuels reduction
As we have testified in previous years, hazardous fuels reduction
is essential to the Federal forest health restoration effort and the
AF&PA supports maintaining the program at the fiscal year 2010 enacted
level ($340 million) for this vital program. We also urge the
subcommittee to instruct the USFS to implement these projects in
forested stands, using mechanical treatments that produce merchantable
wood fiber for utilization by local mills. Prescribed burns and debris
removal will not solve the hazardous fuel overload by themselves. The
forest products industry can and does play a key role in reducing
hazardous fuels from Federal lands as evidenced by the fact that
mechanical hazardous fuel reduction costs are frequently significantly
lower in regions with a substantial forest products industry presence.
The USFS must take advantage of these synergies.
We also continue to believe the USFS must move away from using
``acres treated'' as the sole metric of accomplishment in the hazardous
fuels reduction program. Exclusive focus on this measure incentivizes
the USFS to treat low-priority acres repeatedly and discourages the
treatment of higher-priority forested acres in Condition Class 3. More
aggressive pursuit of mechanical treatments, including more frequent
use of Healthy Forest Restoration Act authorities, will result in
treatments that produce usable wood fiber and--more importantly--
longer-lasting and more meaningful positive impacts on the long-term
fire problem.
forest and rangeland research
Forest Inventory and Analysis.--Targeted research and data
collection is needed to support forest productivity, forest health, and
economic utilization of fiber. The Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA)
Program within USFS Research and Development Program (R&D) is the
backbone of our knowledge about the Nation's forests, and is a vital
technical resource that allows assessment of the sustainability,
health, and availability of the forest resource. The FIA is utilized by
a large swath of stakeholders interested in the state of America's
forests: forest resource managers at mills, land managers, conservation
groups, and State and Federal agencies all look to the program for data
about our Nation's forests. We are concerned that the administration is
proposing to cut funding ($5 million) for this vital program. The
administration has demonstrated an interest in a sustainable renewable
biomass industry through actions in many agencies. With an increased
focus on utilizing woody biomass for renewable energy and other
products, we do not understand why the administration is proposing to
cut funding for the very program that allows managers to determine
sustainability of the forest resource. We oppose these harmful cuts to
this valuable program.
The Forest Resources Information and Analysis (FRIA) Program under
the cooperative forestry budget compliments the FIA by providing cost-
share assistance through State contributions to the FIA Program. This
assistance allows States to improve the ongoing FIA assessments offered
through R&D by improving sampling resolution, increasing sampling
frequency, and tailoring assessments to address State-specific forest
resource needs. Completely cutting FRIA would hinder the abilities of
States to implement renewable portfolio standards while ensuring the
sustainability and productivity of forests.
The AF&PA requests funding levels of $67 million for the FIA
Program and $5 million for the FRIA Program, which would allow the USFS
to cover the majority of U.S. forest lands, expedite data availability
and analysis, and support our growing data needs in the areas of
bioenergy and climate mitigation.
We also recommend increased funding within the USFS R&D Program in
support of the Agenda 2020 Technology Alliance. Working in partnership
with universities and the private sector, the USFS funding for the
Agenda 2020 Program supports research to develop and deploy wood
production systems that are ecologically sustainable, socially
acceptable, and economically viable to enhance forest conservation and
the global competitiveness of forest product manufacturing and
biorefinery operations in the United States. In particular, we
encourage greater support for research on forest productivity and
utilization at the forest products lab and research stations.
Innovative wood and fiber utilization research, including
nanotechnology research, contributes to conservation and productivity
of the forest resource. The development of new forest products and
important research on the efficient use of wood fiber directly address
the forest health problem through exploration of small diameter wood
use and bioenergy production.
state and private forestry
The AF&PA applauds the subcommittee's sustained support for the
USFS state and private forestry programs. With ongoing droughts,
invasive species infestations, and significant forest health problems,
private forest resources remain vulnerable to damage from threats that
do not respect public/private boundary lines.
As you know, private forests provide the bulk of the Nation's wood
fiber supply, while also sequestering huge amounts of carbon from the
atmosphere, providing millions of acres of wildlife habitat, and
supplying clean drinking water for millions of Americans. The USFS
state and private forestry programs protect these resources from
threats beyond the capability of small landowners to combat
effectively. Therefore, we urge funding at no less than their fiscal
year 2010 enacted levels of $49 million for cooperative forest health;
$39 million for cooperative fire assistance; $29 million for forest
stewardship; and $76 million for forest legacy.
international forestry
The AF&PA's believes that full and effective implementation and
enforcement of the 2008 Lacey Act amendments will reduce the
destructive impacts of illegal logging on tropical forests, enable
American forest product companies to compete on a level playing field,
and contribute to cutting of global greenhouse gas emissions through
reduced deforestation and sustainable forest management practices. A
2005 AF&PA report on illegal logging found that up to 10 percent of
global timber production could be of suspicious origin and that illegal
logging depresses world prices for legally harvested wood by 7 to 16
percent on average. The report also calculated that if there were no
illegally harvested wood in the global market, the estimated value of
U.S. wood exports could increase by more than $460 million each year.
The USFS International Forestry Program lends critical technical
assistance for Lacey Act implementation and to improve sustainable
forest management practices in developing countries, which helps reduce
illegal logging overseas. The International Forestry Program has been
completely cut from the administration's fiscal year 2012 budget.
Although the administration claims the USFS will conduct its highest-
priority international work under existing USFS authorities, it is
unclear if funding for Lacey-related activities will continue to be
available and from where it would be derived. Despite a budget
allocation for the USDA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
Lacey Act account in the President's fiscal year 2012 for the first
time ($1.5 million), the AF&PA believes cuts to the international
forestry accounts could be detrimental to full Lacey Act compliance and
enforcement efforts, and advocates funding the International Forestry
Program at fiscal year 2010 levels ($10 million).
______
Prepared Statement of the American Geological Institute
Thank you for this opportunity to provide the American Geological
Institute's (AGI) perspective on fiscal year 2012 appropriations for
geoscience programs within the subcommittee's jurisdiction. The AGI is
a nonprofit federation of 49 geoscientific and professional
associations that represents more than 120,000 geologists,
geophysicists, and other Earth scientists who work in industry,
academia, and government. Founded in 1948, the AGI provides information
services to geoscientists, serves as a voice of shared interests in our
profession, plays a major role in strengthening geoscience education,
and strives to increase public awareness of the vital role the
geosciences play in society's use of resources, resilience to natural
hazards, and the health of the environment. We ask the subcommittee to
support and sustain the critical geoscience work in the United States
Geological Survey (USGS), the National Park Service (NPS), and the
Smithsonian Institution. Specifically we ask for at least $1.2 billion
for the USGS, $356 million for the NPS's Resource Stewardship Program,
and $861.5 million for the Smithsonian Institution.
As the U.S. economy improves, the Nation must continue to focus on
intersecting needs for energy resources, water resources, mineral
resources, soil resources, and healthy ecosystems. To speed up the
recovery of our economy and workforce, we need to sustain and
efficiently use our natural resources and cost-effectively improve our
quality of life and the quality of the environment, while reducing
risks from natural hazards. The USGS is the Nation's only natural
resource science agency that can provide the objective data,
observations, analyses, assessments, and scientific solutions to these
intersecting critical needs.
The AGI supports the small, but vital increases for research at the
Smithsonian Institution and for the Geologic Resources Division within
the Resource Stewardship Program of the NPS. Both conduct research,
assessments, and analysis of natural resources that are important for
addressing national needs, while stimulating the economy and
maintaining a skilled workforce.
usgs
Virtually every American citizen and every Federal, State, and
local agency benefits either directly or indirectly from the USGS
products and services. Furthermore, a wide variety of industries rely
on the USGS for assessments and data to reduce their costs and risks
and to help them develop their own products and services. As was made
clear by the National Research Council report Future Roles and
Opportunities for the USGS, the USGS's value to the Nation goes well
beyond the Department of the Interior's stewardship mission for public
lands.
The USGS addresses a wide range of important problems facing the
Nation:
--natural hazards;
--global environmental change;
--water resources;
--waste disposal; and
--energy and mineral resources.
The AGI prepared a brief document entitled ``Critical Needs for the
Twenty First Century: The Role of the Geosciences'' that lists seven
critical needs followed by policy actions to help the Nation meet these
needs (available online at www.agiweb.org/gap/criticalneeds/
index.html). With a burgeoning human population, rising demand for
natural resources and the ever-present threat of natural hazards, it is
critical to more fully integrate Earth observations and Earth system
understanding into actions for a sustainable world. The USGS plays a
prominent role in meeting national needs, while growing the economy,
building a skilled workforce and ensuring a natural resource-literate
public.
The AGI strongly supports a modest additional investment of about
$90 million in fiscal year 2012 for a total budget for the USGS of $1.2
billion to cover fixed costs, emergencies such as oil spills, water
disputes, earthquakes and volcanic eruptions, the $48 million needed
for Landsat, and to provide tens of millions of dollars to currently
underfunded core programs. It is imperative that these missions be
recognized and valued within the Department and by the administration.
The AGI asks the subcommittee to continue to support the USGS.
Mineral Resources Program (MRP).--The value of domestically
processed nonfuel mineral resources is estimated to be about $578
billion in 2010 and growing. The USGS MRP is the only entity, public or
private, that provides an analysis and assessment of the raw materials
and processed minerals accessible from domestic and global markets.
This highly regarded research program is the Nation's premier credible
source for regional, national, and global mineral resource and mineral
environmental assessments; statistics and research critical for sound
economic, mineral-supply, land-use, and environmental analysis; and
planning and decisionmaking. Not only does the program track global
commodities, it also prepares assessments such as the recent report on
rare Earth element deposits in the United States.
The data and analyses of the MRP are used by the Departments of the
Interior, Defense, State, the Central Intelligence Agency, the Federal
Reserve, other Federal, State and local government entities, foreign
governments, private companies, and the general public. Analyses based
on the MRP data are essential for guiding economic and environmental
policy and for providing options for land-use decisions posed by
industry, government, and private land owners. We urge the subcommittee
to support the MRP at a level of $54 million so that it may perform its
core missions. This level is the same as the fiscal year 2010 and
fiscal year 2005 levels and more than the fiscal year 2012 request of
$44 million.
Water Program.--The AGI is concerned with the decreased funding in
the President's request for the USGS's Water Resources Programs. The
USGS is the Nation's premier Federal water science agency and knowledge
about water quality and quantity is necessary for economic growth and
to avoid catastrophes. Going forward for fiscal year 2012, the AGI
supports modest budgets to sustain many critical water programs at the
USGS including:
--National Streamflow Information;
--Groundwater Resources;
--the National Water Quality Assessment;
--Hydrologic Research and Development;
--Toxic Substances Hydrology;
--Hydrologic Networks; and
--the Cooperative Water Program.
We respectfully ask that $18 million in proposed cuts for water
programs in the fiscal year 2012 request be restored, so that water
resource efforts remain stable at fiscal year 2010 levels.
National Cooperative Geologic Mapping Program (NCGMP).--The AGI is
very grateful to the Congress for passing the re-authorization of the
NCGMP in the 2009 public lands omnibus (Public Law 111-11, section
11001). This important partnership between the USGS, State geological
surveys, and universities provides the Nation with fundamental data for
addressing natural hazard mitigation, water resource management,
environmental remediation, land-use planning, and raw material resource
development. The AGI supports at least the request of $25.4 million for
the NCGMP and asks for consideration of returning the budget to its
fiscal year 2010 level of $28 million.
National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP) and Other
Natural Hazards.--A key role for the USGS is providing the research,
monitoring, and assessment that are critically needed to better prepare
for and respond to natural hazards. The tragic earthquake/tsunami in
Japan and the Indian Ocean, Hurricanes Katrina and Rita striking the
gulf coast and the massive earthquakes in New Zealand, Chile, Haiti,
Pakistan, and Wenchuan, remind us of the need for preparation,
education, mitigation, and rapid response to natural hazards. Several
National Academies' reports and studies by other hazard experts have
shown that mitigation, and preparation reduces fatalities, injuries,
and economic losses. With great forethought, the Earthquake Hazards
Reduction Authorization Act of 2000 (Public Law 106-503) called for a
significant Federal investment in expansion and modernization of
existing seismic networks and for the development of the Advanced
National Seismic System (ANSS)--a nationwide network of shaking
measurement systems focused on urban areas. The ANSS can provide real-
time earthquake information to emergency responders as well as building
and ground shaking data for engineers and scientists seeking to
understand earthquake processes and mitigate damage.
With only 886 of 7,100 stations in operation at the end of fiscal
year 2009, the ANSS is far from achieving its goals. Stimulus funding
in 2009 for the ANSS will help to reduce the gap, but robust and steady
appropriations are a high-priority right now. Critical investments now
will help to reduce earthquake risks; help to create jobs and grow the
economy by improving and modernizing seismic networks and the built
environment; help support external earthquake research and education
efforts; and help to support other major earthquake science
initiatives, such as the EarthScope Observatories run by the NSF. A
major component of EarthScope is a seismic network that is moving
across the country and is appropriately complemented and connected to
the ANSS. Given all of these factors, now is really the time to
increase investments in USGS-NEHRP through the NEHRP. The AGI strongly
supports reauthorization of the NEHRP in 2011 and appropriations to
meet the goals of the NEHRP in fiscal year 2012.
The AGI strongly supports returning the NEHRP, the Volcano Hazards
Program, the Landslide Hazards Program, and the Global Seismographic
Network Program back to their fiscal year 2010 enacted levels. We
respectively ask the subcommittee to consider adding $6.3 million to
avoid any cuts to these vital programs.
National Geological and Geophysical Data Preservation Program.--The
data preservation program (Public Law 109-58, section 351) is
administered by the USGS in partnership with State geological surveys
and other stakeholders. Private and public entities collect geologic
and geophysical data in the form of paper records, digital files, and
physical samples. Often these data and samples are given to State
geological surveys either voluntarily or because of regulatory
statutes. These data are worth far more than the cost of preserving
them because they provide information about natural resources and
natural hazards that are used by others for business or safety. The
program generates more value in terms of economic development,
environmental stewardship, hazard mitigation, and fulfilling regulatory
requirements than it costs to run. The AGI supports an appropriation of
$1 million, the same as the fiscal year 2010 amount to sustain the
program.
smithsonian institution
The Smithsonian's National Museum of Natural History plays a dual
role in communicating the excitement of the geosciences and enhancing
knowledge through research and preservation of geoscience collections.
The AGI asks the subcommittee to support Smithsonian research with
steady funds that are a tiny fraction of the overall budget, but will
dramatically improve the facilities and their benefit to the country.
We strongly support the President's request of $861.5 million for
Smithsonian research in fiscal year 2012.
nps
The national parks are very important to the geoscience community
and the public as unique national treasures that showcase the geologic
splendor of our country and offer unparalleled opportunities for
research, education, and outdoor activities. The NPS' Geologic
Resources Division was established in 1995 to provide park managers
with geologic expertise. Working in conjunction with the USGS and other
partners, the division helps ensure that geoscientists are becoming
part of an integrated approach to science-based resource management in
parks. The AGI supports the President's small increase for additional
support for geological staff positions to adequately address the
treasured geologic resources in the National Parks, especially as the
National Parks approach their 100th anniversary.
Thank you for the opportunity to present this testimony to the
subcommittee.
______
Prepared Statement of the American Geophysical Union
The American Geophysical Union (AGU), a nonprofit, nonpartisan
scientific society, appreciates the opportunity to submit testimony
regarding the President's fiscal year 2012 budget request for the
United States Geological Survey (USGS). The AGU, on behalf of its more
than 62,000 Earth and space scientist members, would like to
respectfully request the Congress to appropriate at least $1.2 billion
to accommodate the President's request, and to restore critical funding
for the USGS programs that will enable implementation of natural
hazards warning and monitoring systems that will reduce risks from
floods, earthquakes, severe storms, volcanic eruptions, and other
hazards.
USGS Benefits Every State in the Union.--The USGS is uniquely
positioned to address many of the Nation's greatest challenges. The
USGS plays a crucial role in reducing risks from earthquakes, tsunamis,
floods, landslides, wildfires, and other natural hazards, assessing
water quality and quantity, providing emergency responders with
geospatial data to improve homeland security, assessing mineral and
energy resources (including rare earth elements and unconventional
natural gas resources), 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 and providing
services for every State in the United States, 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.
Virtually every American citizen and every Federal, State, and
local agency benefits either directly or indirectly from USGS products
and services. Furthermore, a wide variety of industries rely on the
USGS for assessments and data to reduce their costs and risks and to
help them develop their own products and services. As was made clear by
the National Research Council report ``Future Roles and Opportunities
for the U.S. Geological Survey'', the USGS's value to the Nation goes
well beyond the Department of the Interior's stewardship mission for
public lands.
National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP) and Other
Natural Hazards.--Providing the information necessary to mitigate the
impacts of natural hazards is a core function of the USGS. The USGS
operates seismic networks and conducts seismic hazard analyses that are
used to formulate earthquake probabilities and to establish building
codes across the Nation. It monitors volcanoes and provides warnings
about impending eruptions. Data from the USGS network of stream gages
enable the National Weather Service to issue flood warnings. The USGS
and its Federal partners monitor seasonal wildfires and 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.
A key role for the USGS is providing the research, monitoring, and
assessments that are critically needed to better prepare for and
respond to natural hazards. The tragic earthquake and tsunami events in
both Japan and the Indian Ocean, Hurricanes Katrina and Rita striking
the gulf coast, and the massive earthquakes in New Zealand, Chile,
Haiti, Pakistan, and Wenchuan, remind us of the need for preparation,
education, mitigation, and rapid response to natural hazards. Several
National Academies' reports and studies by other hazard experts have
shown that mitigation and preparation reduces fatalities, injuries and
economic losses.
With great forethought, the Earthquake Hazards Reduction
Authorization Act of 2000 (Public Law 106-503) called for a significant
Federal investment in expansion and modernization of existing seismic
networks and for the development of the Advanced National Seismic
System (ANSS)--a nationwide network of shaking measurement systems
focused on urban areas. The ANSS can provide real-time earthquake
information to emergency responders as well as building and ground-
shaking data for engineers and scientists seeking to understand
earthquake processes and mitigate damage.
As USGS Director Marcia McNutt noted in her March 17 testimony
before the subcommittee, the reduction in fatalities in large
earthquakes in Japan (140,000 fatalities in the 1923 Kanto earthquake,
then 6,800 in the 1995 Kobe earthquake, and only about 200 in the 2011
Tohoku earthquake) has been due to increased understanding of
earthquakes and subsequent improvement of engineering and early warning
systems. The value of saving hundreds of thousands of lives is
immeasurable, yet clearly depends on the priorities of our society and
our leadership in the Congress.
With only 1,300 of 7,100 stations in operation as of October 2010,
the ANSS is far from achieving its goals. Robust and steady
appropriations are a high-priority right now. Critical investments now
will help to reduce earthquake risks, help to create jobs, and grow the
economy by improving and modernizing seismic networks and the built
environment; help support external earthquake research and education
efforts; and help to support other major earthquake science
initiatives, such as the EarthScope Observatories run by the National
Science Foundation. A major component of EarthScope is a seismic
network that is moving across the country and is appropriately
complemented and connected to ANSS. Given all of these factors, now is
really the time to increase investments in USGS-National Earthquake
Hazards Reduction Program through the Earthquake Hazards Program.
The AGU strongly supports robust appropriations of at least the
request for the Earthquake Hazards Program ($52.3 million), the Volcano
Hazards Program ($23.6 million), and Landslide Hazards Program ($3.3
million). We respectfully ask the subcommittee to consider adding $4.7
million to return the hazards programs to their fiscal year 2010 levels
and avoid any cuts to these vital programs.
National Cooperative Geologic Mapping Program (NCGMP).--The AGU is
very grateful to the Congress for passing the re-authorization of the
NCGMP in the 2009 public lands omnibus (Public Law 111-11, section
11001). This important partnership between the USGS, State geological
surveys, and universities provides the Nation with fundamental data for
addressing natural hazard mitigation, water resource management,
environmental remediation, land-use planning, and raw material resource
development. The AGU supports at least the request of $25.4 million for
the NCGMP and asks for consideration of returning the budget to its
fiscal year 2010 level of $28 million.
National Geological and Geophysical Data Preservation Program
(NGGDP).--The data preservation program (Public Law 109-58, section
351) is administered by the USGS in partnership with State geological
surveys and other stakeholders. Private and public entities collect
geologic and geophysical data in the form of paper records, digital
files, and physical samples. Often these data and samples are given to
State geological surveys either voluntarily or because of regulatory
statutes. These data are worth far more than the cost of preserving
them because they provide information about natural resources and
natural hazards that are used by others for business or safety. The
program generates more value in terms of economic development,
environmental stewardship, hazard mitigation, and fulfilling regulatory
requirements than it costs to run. The AGU supports an appropriation of
$1 million, the same as the fiscal year 2010 amount to sustain the
program.
Mineral Resources Program (MRP).--The value of domestically
processed nonfuel mineral resources is estimated to be about $578
billion in 2010 and growing. The USGS MRP is the only entity, public or
private, that provides an analysis and assessment of the raw materials
and processed minerals accessible from domestic and global markets.
This highly regarded research program is the Nation's premier credible
source for regional, national, and global mineral resource and mineral
environmental assessments, statistics, and research critical for sound
economic, mineral-supply, land-use and environmental analysis,
planning, and decisionmaking. Not only does the program track global
commodities, it also prepares assessments such as the recent report on
rare earth element deposits in the United States.
The data and analyses of the MRP are used by the Departments of the
Interior and Defense, the Central Intelligence Agency, the Department
of State, the Federal Reserve, other Federal, State, and local
government entities, foreign governments, private companies, and the
general public. Analyses based on the MRP data are essential for
guiding economic and environmental policy and for providing options for
land-use decisions posed by industry, government, and private land
owners. We urge the subcommittee to support the MRP at a level of $54
million so that it may perform its core missions. This level is the
same as the fiscal year 2010 and fiscal year 2005 levels and more than
the fiscal year 2012 request of $44 million.
Water Program.--The AGU is concerned with the decreased funding in
the President's request for the USGS's water resources programs. The
USGS is the Nation's premier Federal water science agency and knowledge
about water quality and quantity is necessary for economic growth and
to avoid catastrophes. Going forward for fiscal year 2012, the AGU
supports modest budgets to sustain many critical water programs at the
USGS including national streamflow information; ground water resources;
the National Water Quality Assessment (NAWQA); hydrologic research and
development; toxic substances hydrology; and hydrologic networks and
cooperative water program. We respectfully ask that $18 million in
proposed cuts for water programs in the fiscal year 2012 request be
restored, so that water resource efforts remain stable at fiscal year
2010 levels.
The AGU 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 appreciate
the opportunity to submit this testimony to the subcommittee and thank
you for your thoughtful consideration of our request.
______
Prepared Statement of the American Institute of Biological Sciences
The American Institute of Biological Sciences (AIBS) appreciates
the opportunity to provide testimony in support of appropriations for
the United States Geological Survey (USGS) and Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) for fiscal year 2012. The AIBS encourages the Congress to
provide the USGS with at least $1.2 billion in fiscal year 2012, with
at least $171 million for the ecosystems activity. We further request
that the Congress provide the EPA's Office of Research and Development
(ORD) with at least $597 million, with at least $72 million for
ecosystem research.
usgs
The USGS provides unbiased, independent research, data, and
assessments that are needed by public and private sector
decisionmakers. Data generated by the USGS save taxpayers money by
reducing economic losses from natural disasters, allowing more
effective management of water and natural resources, and providing
essential geospatial data that are needed for commercial activity and
natural resource management. The data collected by the USGS are not
available from other sources. Our Nation cannot afford to sacrifice
this information. Funding for the USGS is a wise investment that
produces real returns for the country.
The fiscal year 2012 budget request for the USGS is inadequate to
sustain the USGS' critical work. The proposed budget would cut funding
from programs that support the USGS' core missions, resulting in the
termination of 230 full-time staff positions. These reductions would be
especially destructive because, in constant dollars, the USGS has been
flat funded for more than a decade. Given the USGS' critical role in
informing the environmental and economic health of the Nation, more
support is justified. We urge the Congress to fully fund the USGS by
restoring administration-proposed reductions to core science programs.
One area that would be negatively impacted by the proposed budget
is the ecosystems activity within the USGS. Three programs within this
budget authority are slated for reductions. The Status and Trends,
Fisheries, and Wildlife Programs would collectively lose $4.4 million.
This budget would undercut the USGS' ability to fulfill its valuable
programmatic missions in biology. The Status and Trends Program
inventories populations of plants and animals, and monitors changes in
these species and their habitats over time. The fisheries: Aquatic and
Endangered Resources Program and Wildlife: Terrestrial and Endangered
Resources Program conduct research that informs our understanding of
biodiversity, and provide information to other Department of the
Interior (DOI) bureaus that is used to manage endangered species.
Collectively, the knowledge generated by these programs is used by
Federal and State natural resource managers to maintain healthy and
diverse ecosystems while balancing the needs of public use.
Another program inadequately funded in the administration's request
is the National Biological Information Infrastructure (NBII). Under the
fiscal year 2012 budget, all new data collection activities would be
eliminated. This would halt efforts to make data on invasive species,
wildlife disease, habitat loss, wetlands, and pollinators more
accessible to resource managers, scientists, and the public. The budget
would also eliminate partnerships with more than 40 Federal and State
agencies, 20 universities, and other networks. Moreover, this plan
would have global consequences, as the NBII serves as the U.S. node for
the Global Biodiversity Information Facility, an international
collaboration of nearly 60 countries that enables public access to
global biodiversity data.
Other external partnerships would be negatively impacted under the
proposed budget. Through the Cooperative Research Units (CRUs), the
USGS and their partners address pressing issues facing natural resource
managers, such as invasive species and wildlife diseases. In addition
to providing research expertise, these partnerships at 40 universities
in 38 States serve as important training centers for America's next
generation of scientists and resource managers. Although the CRUs are
effective investments that leverage Federal funding, the program's
budget would decline by $500,000 in fiscal year 2012.
The National Streamflow Information Program within the water
resources activity also provides needed information for resource
managers and scientists. Its national network of streamgages records
changes in streamflow due to alterations in precipitation, land use,
and water use. This information is vital to State and local
governments, utilities, and resource managers who make decisions about
water use.
In summary, the USGS is uniquely positioned to provide a scientific
context for many of the Nation's biological and environmental
challenges, including water quality, energy independence, and
conservation of biological diversity. Biological science programs
within the USGS gather long-term data not available from other sources.
These data have contributed fundamentally to our understanding of the
status and dynamics of biological populations and have improved our
understanding of how ecosystems function, all of which is necessary for
predicting the impacts of land management practices and other human
activities on the natural environment. This array of research expertise
not only serves the core missions of the DOI, but also contributes to
management decisions made by other agencies and private sector
organizations. In short, increased investments in these important
research activities will yield dividends.
epa
The ORD is the science division for the EPA. The ORD supports
valuable extramural and intramural research that is used to understand,
prevent, and mitigate environmental problems facing our Nation. The ORD
research informs decisions made by public health and safety managers,
natural resource managers, businesses, and other stakeholders concerned
about air and water pollution, human health, and land management and
restoration. In short, the ORD provides the scientific basis upon which
the EPA monitoring and enforcement programs are built. Funding for the
ORD, however, has declined since fiscal year 2004, when it peaked at
$646.5 million. At $584.1 million, the budget request for fiscal year
2012 falls far short of addressing past budget deficits. We ask that
the Congress restore funding for the ORD to at least the fiscal year
2010 level.
The Ecosystem Services Research Program within the ORD 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. ``EPA's Ecosystem Services
Research Program is bold, innovative, and necessary,'' wrote Dr. Judith
Meyer, chair of the Ecological Processes and Effects Committee of the
EPA's Science Advisory Board in a 2009 Committee consultation. However,
``[t]he considerable potential of the program is unlikely to be
achieved with its current level of funding and staff.'' The fiscal year
2012 budget request would do little to solve the problem, with a
proposed $10.8 million cut in funding and a reduction of 16.7 full-time
equivalents for ecosystem research. We ask that the Congress fully fund
the program.
The Science to Achieve Results (STAR) Graduate Fellowship
contributes to the training of the next generation of scientists by
supporting graduate students pursuing an advanced degree in
environmental science. The USGS' request of $6 million in new funding
represents the first real increase for the program since fiscal year
2006 and would provide 105 new fellowships. Since its inception in
1995, this successful program has supported the education and training
of 1,500 STAR Fellows who have gone on to pursue careers as scientists
and educators.
In conclusion, we urge the Congress to restore funding for the ORD
to the fiscal year 2010 enacted level and to proportionally increase
funding for ecosystem research within the program. These appropriation
levels would allow the ORD to address a backlog of research needs.
Thank you for your thoughtful consideration of this request.
______
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 2012
appropriations recommendations for the 29 colleges funded under the
Tribally Controlled Colleges and Universities Assistance Act (Tribal
College Act); the Bureau of Indian Education (BIE) postsecondary
institutions; and the Institute of American Indian Arts. The BIE
administers these programs, save for the Institute of American Indian
Arts, which is congressionally chartered and funded directly through
the Department.
In fiscal year 2012, TCUs seek $71 million for institutional
operations and technical assistance grants under the Tribally
Controlled Colleges and Universities Assistance Act of 1978 or Tribal
College Act; of which, $63.7 million for titles I and II grants (27
TCUs); $6.7 million for title V; and $601,000 for technical assistance.
This request represents funding at the level appropriated since
fiscal year 2010. AIHEC's membership also includes three other TCUs
funded under separate authorities within Interior, environment, and
related agencies appropriations, namely: Haskell Indian Nations
University; Southwestern Indian Polytechnic Institute; and the
Institute of American Indian Arts. The AIHEC supports the independently
submitted requests for funding of the institutional operations budgets
of these institutions.
brief background
Today, there are 36 TCUs operating 79 campuses in 14 States. These
institutions were begun specifically to serve the higher education
needs of American Indians. Annually, these institutions serve students
from well 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. TCUs are young, geographically isolated, and poor. Our oldest
institution, Dine College, was established in 1968. Most TCUs are
located in areas of Indian country that the Federal Government defines
as extremely remote. They serve their communities in ways that reach
far beyond college level programming and are often called beacons of
hope for American Indian people. Our institutions provide much needed
high school completion (GED), basic remediation, job training, college
preparatory courses, and adult education programs. They serve as
community libraries and centers, tribal archives, career and business
centers, economic development centers, public meeting places, and elder
and child care centers. It is an underlying goal of all TCUs to improve
the lives of students through higher education and to move American
Indians toward self-sufficiency. This goal is fundamental because of
the extreme poverty in which most American Indians live. In fact, 3 of
the 5 poorest counties in America are home to TCUs, where unemployment
rates are consistently well above 60 percent. By contrast, the current
national unemployment rate, which is considered to be extremely high,
is 8.8 percent.
TCUs remain the most poorly funded institutions of higher education
in the Nation. Howard University, located in the District of Columbia,
is the only other minority-serving institution, besides the tribal
colleges, to receive its basic institutional operating funds from the
Federal Government. The similarity ends there, as Howard University's
Federal support for operations is approximately $19,000 per student. In
contrast, the tribal colleges currently receive $5,523 per Indian
student, with no Federal funding towards operations for the non-Indian
students that attend TCUs, which account for approximately 21 percent
of TCU enrollments.
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. While the latest Decennial Census data is
not yet available, the 2000 Census reported the annual per capita
income of the U.S. population as $21,587. However, the annual per
capita income of American Indians was $12,923 or about 40 percent less.
In addition to serving their students, TCUs serve their communities
through a wide variety of community outreach programs.
TCUs are producing a new generation of highly trained American
Indian 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; contributing to the achievement
of the national graduation goal, and serving 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. All TCUs offer at least certificates and
associate degrees with 10 offering bachelor's and two conferring
master's degrees, making tribal colleges a critical component in
achieving the national goal to once again lead the world in the
percentage of the population with college degrees by 2020.
Additionally, TCUs' transfer function from 2-year to 4-year degree
institutions is significant. An independent survey of TCU graduates
conducted 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 one-
half of respondents dropped out of mainstream colleges and nearly 40
percent went on to earn a bachelor's degree. This clearly illustrates
TCUs' positive impact on the persistence of American Indian students in
pursuit of baccalaureate degrees. The overwhelming majority of
respondents felt that their TCU experience had prepared them well for
further education and noted that it had a very positive influence on
their personal and professional achievements.
Despite a proven track record of success, TCUs still face serious
disparities in institutional operations funding. 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.
Distribution of funds under title I of the Tribal College Act is
enrollment driven. The 25 institutions that are currently funded under
title I are receiving $5,523 per Indian student toward their
institutional operating budgets. If you factor in inflation, the buying
power of the current appropriation is $1,437 less per Indian student
than it was 30 years ago, when the program was initially funded at
$2,831 per Indian student. Because they are located on Federal trust
lands, States have no obligation to fund the TCUs. While TCUs do seek
funding from their respective State legislatures for the non-Indian
State-resident students sometimes called nonbeneficiary students, who
as noted earlier, account for 21 percent of our enrollments, their
successes have been at best inconsistent. TCUs are accredited by the
same regional agencies that accredit mainstream institutions, yet they
have to continually advocate for basic operating support for their non-
Indian State students, within their respective State legislatures. If
these nonbeneficiary students attended any other public institution in
the State, the State would provide that institution with ongoing
operations funding.
While the other TCUs' operating funds allocations are not
enrollment driven and therefore the disparity is not as easily
illustrated, they too suffer from a lack of stable operating revenue.
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.
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 more than 310 percent.
Between fiscal year 2005 and fiscal year 2012, five additional TCUs
have become eligible for funding 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 being
established and increasing enrollments have caused an already
inadequate annual funding pie to be sliced into even smaller pieces.
Local Tax and Revenue Bases.--TCUs cannot rely on a local tax base
for 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. As noted earlier, on Indian reservations that are
home to TCUs, the unemployment rate can well exceed 60 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. These institutions
are simply and effectively providing access to quality higher education
opportunities to all reservation community residents, both Indian and
non-Indian.
president's budget and appropriations request for fiscal year 2012
As noted earlier, it has been three decades since the Tribal
College Act was first funded and the TCUs have yet to receive the
congressionally authorized per Indian student funding level ($8,000),
which is less than half that currently appropriated for Howard
University, the only other media sales institute to receive
institutional operating funds from the Federal Government. To fully
fund the TCUs institutional operating grants at their authorized level
would require an increase of $29 million more than the current funding
level. However, we recognize the budget constraints the Nation is
currently facing and consequently, we are not requesting an increase in
fiscal year 2012, but rather seek to have our institutional operating
and technical assistance grants programs maintained at the fiscal year
2010 appropriated level, as recommended in the President's fiscal year
2012 budget request, outlined in the request summary above.
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 2012
appropriations requests.
______
Prepared Statement of the American Lung Association
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY'S PROGRAM TO IMPROVE THE NATION'S AIR
[In millions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Program Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Taking action on climate change and improving air 1,103.9
quality................................................
Federal stationary source regulation................ 34.1
Federal support of air quality management........... 141.4
Clean air allowance trading program................. 30.6
Federal vehicle and fuels standards................. 100.6
Climate protection program.......................... 127.8
State and Local Air Quality Management (STAG)....... 305.5
Air monitoring.................................. 15.0
Diesel emission reductions.......................... 50.0
Human health risk assessment............................ 45.7
Reducing risks from indoor air.......................... 20.8
Indoor air: Radon program............................... 5.8
Research: Air, climate, and energy...................... 108.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The American Lung Association is pleased to support the
Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) program to improve the Nation's
air. The American Lung Association was founded in 1904 to fight
tuberculosis and today, our mission is to save lives by improving lung
health and preventing lung disease.
We urge the subcommittee to support ensuring that the EPA has the
necessary resources to protect the public health from air pollution.
Protecting the public from the health threats of pollution is a core
mission of the EPA. In March, the EPA released a report that documents
the tremendous health benefits of the Clean Air Act (CAA). According to
the report, in 2010 alone the reductions in fine particle and ozone
pollution from the 1990 CAA amendments prevented more than 160,000
premature deaths, 130,000 heart attacks, 13 million lost work days, and
1.7 million asthma attacks.\1\ Despite this tremendous success, much
work remains to ensure each American has air that is safe and healthy
to breathe. Our 2011 State of the Air report showed that nearly more
than one-half of the Nation--154.5 million people--live in areas where
the air is unhealthy.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The Benefits and Costs of
the Clean Air Act From 1990 to 2020. Washington, DC., March 2011.
\2\ American Lung Association. State of the Air 2011. Washington,
DC. April 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The public expects the EPA to implement the CAA and strongly
opposes congressional interference in the law's implementation. In
February, we released a bipartisan public opinion poll that shows 69
percent of voters support the EPA updating the CAA standards on air
pollution. The survey shows that 79 percent of voters support stricter
limits on mercury; 77 percent support stricter limits on smog; 74
percent support stricter limits on carbon; and 74 percent support
tougher fuel efficiency standards for heavy duty trucks.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ American Lung Association. Clean Air Survey. Washington, DC.
February 16, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Implementing the CAA to protect health and save lives is a
tremendous responsibility and the EPA workload is vast. In 2012, we
expect the EPA to update health-based air-quality standards; implement
rules to clean up toxic pollution from major sources such as power
plants; clean up toxic pollution from automobile tailpipes;
aggressively enforce the law to ensure compliance and protect the
public; support State and local air pollution cleanup; continue
research on the health impacts of air pollution; improve air pollution
monitoring; and ensure that the CAA is implemented in a way that
protects the most vulnerable. As a Nation, we need the EPA to be able
to do all of these things.
The Congress must ensure that the EPA moves forward to implement
the CAA. We urge the subcommittee to pass an fiscal year 2012 bill free
from any policy riders.
The American Lung Association would like to highlight for you some
key provisions of the President's fiscal year 2012 budget that provide
additional focus on protecting vulnerable populations. The budget
includes a $2 million increase in funding for Civil Enforcement to
reduce toxic air pollution around schools and within at-risk
communities. Since children are especially vulnerable to the health
impacts of toxic pollution, we are heartened to see this budget
increase.
We are pleased to see the President's budget increase support for
the Air Quality Management Program to improve pollution monitoring and
analysis at the fence lines of polluting facilities. People who live
adjacent to and near major sources of pollution often face the greatest
health risk. Increases of more than $3 million as part of the Air
Toxics Initiative and almost $3 million as part of the Healthy
Communities initiative will help improve the understanding of
community-wide impacts of toxic air pollution and ultimately lead to
better protection.
We support the President's budget increase of nearly $7 million to
fund Federal Stationary Source Regulations. These funds will support
the updating of air pollution health standards that tell local
communities when the air is unhealthy to breathe, as well as the
setting of air toxics standards that will clean up arsenic, lead, acid
gases, formaldehyde, and other toxic pollutants currently emitted
across the Nation. In March, the EPA proposed new mercury and air toxic
standards for oil- and coal-fired power plants. This proposal will save
an estimated 17,000 lives per year in 2016. It is vital that the EPA
complete these lifesaving rules on time and begin their implementation.
We strongly support increased funding for State and local air
pollution agencies. State and local air pollution control agencies are
on the front lines in the effort to improve air quality across the
Nation. These agencies will be called on to put in place the safeguards
set under the CAA. These agencies will adopt and enforce a range of new
emissions reduction programs designed to meet the needs of each area.
State and local air pollution agencies need additional resources to
protect the health of their communities. Key to this is the investment
in air pollution monitoring. Improving the Nation's air pollution
monitoring network will provide better information to enhance health
protection.
We strongly support the EPA's planned work to update tailpipe
standards. Light duty cars and trucks remain a significant source of
air pollution. This work is vital to correct for any adverse air-
quality impacts that may result from increased use of renewable fuels.
We also support the EPA's continued work under the CAA to control
greenhouse gases. It is clear that the EPA is taking a careful and
common-sense approach to addressing this global threat. Climate change
will bring serious adverse health consequences. Scientists warn that
the buildup of greenhouse gases and the climate changes caused by it
will create conditions, including warmer temperatures, which will
increase the risk of unhealthful ambient ozone levels. Higher
temperatures can enhance the conditions for ozone formation. Even with
the steps that are in place to reduce ozone, evidence warns that
changes in climate are likely to increase ozone levels in the future in
large parts of the United States.
We strongly support the EPA's air pollution research program.
Research is essential to improve the understanding of the health
effects of air pollution. Sound science underscores all of the EPA's
work. Continued investment in research is vital to increase that level
of knowledge and inform future agency action.
The American Lung Association opposes cuts in the President's
budget to the widely supported Diesel Emission Reduction Act (DERA)
that was reauthorized in late 2010. Twenty million old diesel engines
are in use today that pollute communities and threaten workers. Immense
opportunities remain to reduce diesel emissions through the DERA.
Please restore funding to the $50 million level.
We also strongly oppose cuts to the EPA's successful indoor air
program that works to reduce asthma attacks and lung cancer. Although
this program is almost completely voluntary, the EPA has demonstrated
that creative leadership and collaboration with nongovernmental partner
organizations can yield big results in protecting the public in the
places where they spend the vast majority of their time. In particular,
the low-cost, voluntary Indoor Air Quality Tools For Schools Program
must not be eliminated. Tools for Schools has succeeded in improving
environmental conditions and reducing asthma triggers in schools across
the country, but more schools need this help. Please fund this program
at least $20.8 million.
For 40 years the CAA has charged the EPA to protect the public from
air pollution and fulfill the promise of air that is clean and healthy
for all to breathe. We urge the subcommittee to ensure that the EPA is
meeting the required deadlines and updating standards to reflect the
best science with the maximum health protection. Mr. Chairman, thank
you for the opportunity to present the recommendations of the American
Lung Association. Every day we are fighting for air--clean, healthy air
for all Americans to breathe.
______
Prepared Statement of the Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium and
the Kodiak Area Native Association
Good afternoon Chairman Reed, Ranking Member Murkowski and members
of the subcommittee. My name is Andy Teuber, I am the chairman and
president of the Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium (ANTHC) and the
president and CEO of the Kodiak Area Native Association (KANA). For the
fiscal year 2011 Indian Health Service (IHS) budget we are requesting a
$15 million increase for dental health, $10 million for a child abuse
and neglect prevention initiative, an $81 million increase in contract
support costs, and an $83 million increase for facility operational
needs.
ANTHC is a statewide tribal health organization that serves all 229
tribes and more than 135,000 American Indian and Alaska Natives (AI/AN)
in Alaska. ANTHC and Southcentral Foundation co-manage the Alaska
Native Medical Center (ANMC), the tertiary care hospital for all AI/ANs
in Alaska. ANTHC also carries out virtually all nonresidual Area Office
functions of the IHS that were not already being carried out by tribal
health programs as of 1997.
KANA is a nonprofit tribal organization formed in 1966 to provide
health and social services to AI/ANs in the Kodiak Island area. KANA
service area includes the city of Kodiak and six Alaska Native
villages:
--Akhiok;
--Karluk;
--Old Harbor;
--Ouzinkie;
--Port Lions; and
--Larsen Bay.
ANTHC and KANA are both self-governance tribal organizations that
compact with the IHS to provide health services to AI/ANs under the
authority of the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance
Act, Public Law 93-638.
My testimony addresses the areas of deficiency in the IHS budget. I
extend an invitation to members of this subcommittee to visit Alaska to
see first-hand, the many successes we have been able to achieve in
providing high-quality health services throughout rural Alaska with its
challenging environment. Such successes include our advanced, statewide
telehealth network, community health aide program, numerous sanitation
facilities construction projects, and the Alaska Native Medical Center,
Alaska's only Level II Trauma Center.
All of the IHS budget items work together to achieve the objective
of providing the best-quality care possible to AI/ANs. Increases in the
clinical and preventive services portions of the IHS budget are
necessary, but their full value cannot be realized if other portions of
the budget that provide essential support for those services are not
adequately funded. Before healthcare can be delivered, many things have
to be in place. For example, there must first be safe, adequately
maintained facilities, suitable medical equipment and supplies,
telephones, trained support personnel, and so on.
oral health
Indian country faces considerable oral health problems. AI/ANs,
especially children, continue to be plagued by oral health disparities.
Alaska Native children suffer a dental caries rate of 2.5 times the
national average. For AI/AN children ages 2-4 the rate of tooth decay
is 5 times the U.S. average. An astounding 79 percent of AI/AN children
ages 2-5 have tooth decay, 60 percent of which are severe caries. One-
third of school-aged children have missed school because of dental
pain. Far too many have needed surgery to remove many or all of their
baby teeth.
Due to the high cost of travel in rural Alaska, just one operating
room dental case for a child with early childhood dental caries can
cost up to $7,000. An increase in appropriations for the IHS dental
health aimed at oral health promotion and disease prevention activities
is a sound investment for improving the oral health of AI/AN children,
but is an even better investment in reducing future oral healthcare
costs.
Increases for dental health in the IHS budget the past few years
have barely been sufficient to maintain the current service levels,
which are grossly inadequate to meet the needs of Indian country. A
substantial program increase is warranted to address this issue and we
request a 10 percent, or $15 million, increase for dental health to be
used for community oral health promotion and disease prevention which
is essential to long-term improvement of the oral health of AI/ANs.
child abuse and neglect
Alaska has the highest reported, substantiated incidence of child
abuse and neglect in the United States. The Alaska Department of Health
and Social Services has reported that children in Alaska suffer abuse
at six times the national average. Alaska Native children suffer
disproportionately: Although less than 20 percent of the population, 45
percent of the reports to the Alaska Office of Children's Services and
51 percent of the incidents of abuse and neglect that Office
substantiated in 2009 involved Alaska Native children. Approximately 75
percent of abused and neglected children are under 10 years of age.
The funding of the Domestic Violence Prevention initiative in
fiscal year 2009 at $7.5 million and $10 million in fiscal year 2010
was a great step in addressing the pressing domestic violence
prevention needs in Indian country. We would like to see a similar
program instituted to address the equally important need for the
prevention of child abuse and neglect and request that $10 million be
provided for a Child Abuse and Neglect Prevention initiative.
contract support costs (csc)
In addition to the healthcare allocation, an essential element to
the success of self-determination and self-governance is full funding
for CSC. I would like to thank this subcommittee for its commitment to
addressing this important issue and the $9 million increase for CSC
that this subcommittee added to the President's budget request last
year.
Indian tribes and tribal organizations are the only Federal
contractors that do not receive full CSC. There is a clear obligation
on the part of the Federal Government to fully fund CSC. But more
importantly, lack of full funding for CSC has a very real and
detrimental impact on our programs that are already substantially
underfunded. CSC is used to pay for items that we are required to have
but are not otherwise covered by the IHS budget either because another
governmental department is responsible or because the IHS is not
subject to that particular requirement. Examples include federally
required annual audits and telecommunication systems. We cannot operate
without these things, so when CSC is underfunded we have to use other
program funds to make up the shortfall which means fewer providers that
we can hire and fewer types and quantity of health services that we can
provide to our patients.
From 2002 to 2009, while there were virtually no increases for the
IHS CSC appropriations, the level of tribal CSC need increased by more
than $130 million. During that period, as our fixed costs increased
every year, all major tribal health programs in Alaska were forced to
layoff staff due to lack of funds.
With full funding of our CSC needs, ANTHC would be able to fill
scores of support positions, such as enrollment technicians, financial
analysts, medical billing staff, professional recruiters, maintenance
technicians, security officers, information technology support, and
professional support staff.
Thanks to this subcommittee there was a substantial increase for
the IHS CSC in fiscal year 2010. However, even with that increase the
IHS CSC is still only funded at 80 percent of the full funding our
contracts require. We request an increase of $150 million for CSC in
order meet the full IHS CSC requirement. If that is not possible given
the current financial environment, we would like to see full funding
for CSC within 3 years. To accomplish this, based on the latest data
available, it would require an increase of approximately $81 million in
each of the next 3 years.
facility operational needs
When addressing facility needs, it is important to look beyond new
construction. In order for existing facilities to remain functional and
provide maximum use, it is also important to adequately fund medical
equipment replacement, facility and environmental support, maintenance
and improvement, and the Village Built Clinic Lease program. Adequate
funding for these programs will ensure that the facilities we build
today will be available for continued use into the future. Thus, we
recommend an increase of $83 million for these needs as more
specifically described below.
Medical Equipment Replacement
In order to assure patient safety, the industry standard for the
replacement of medical equipment is an average of every 6 years.
Unfortunately, current IHS medical equipment funding levels cover only
one-third of the level of need. Thus, equipment that should have been
replaced after 6 years often continues to be used for 18 years or
longer. Medical equipment maintenance and replacement presents obvious
patient safety issues, and some tribes are forced to divert funds from
direct patient care to make up this gap. This year medical equipment
funding is $22.7 million, when the annual need is actually $68 million.
We request a $45 million increase for medical equipment.
Facility and Environmental Support (FES) Funding
FES funding provides for the maintenance staff and basic operations
of health facilities, including utilities. These funds also pay for
area office programs, like core staffing for health facilities,
environmental health, and sanitation construction.
The level of funding has stayed relatively flat or received small
increases (less than 2 percent). Funding for FES has not kept up with
the rising cost of salaries and double digit annual increases in energy
costs. We recommend that an increase of $5 million annually for FES to
meet the current national need.
Maintenance and Improvement (M&I)
M&I funds are used to maintain facilities so they can continue to
be used in the future. Unfortunately, the level of M&I funding is
substantially lower than what is needed. It is estimated that the base
M&I funding needed to just sustain the facilities in their current
condition should be $80 million annually. Because funds have not kept
pace with the need, there is a tremendous backlog of maintenance needs.
In October 2009, the IHS estimated $476 million was needed just to get
caught up.
Failing to maintain existing facilities will only hasten the need
for new construction. Health programs with existing facilities have
tremendous and growing maintenance and improvement needs especially
those with older facilities. We recommend that the M&I appropriation be
increased by $26 million to sustain existing facilities and to address
the more than $476 million backlog of maintenance and improvement
issues.
Village Built Clinic (VBC) Lease Program
The VBC Lease Program funds rent, utilities, insurance, janitorial,
and maintenance costs of healthcare facilities in villages in rural
Alaska. Despite an increase in the number and size of clinics
throughout Alaska as well as the rapidly increasing fuel costs, funding
for the VBC Lease Program has barely increased since 1996. Current
funding for leases covers less than 60 percent of the current operating
costs and those costs are expected to continue to increase sharply as
energy costs continue to skyrocket in rural Alaska.
Without additional funding for the VBC Lease Program, Alaska
villages will be increasingly forced to reduce clinic operations and
defer long-term maintenance and improvement projects. This situation
reduces the healthcare available locally to village residents and
threatens the nearly $200 million investment in these facilities by the
Federal Government, Alaska villages, and the regional tribal health
organizations in the Alaska Native healthcare system.
Thus, we recommend an increase of $7 million in funding for the VBC
Lease Program to the current program base of the VBC Lease Program.
These funds are required immediately to sustain the program, covering
the expected operating costs in fiscal year 2011 as well as
establishing funding for long-term maintenance and improvement. Without
this funding, many of Alaska's villages will not be able to continue
supporting local clinics, eventually leading to serious consequences
for the health and safety of Alaska Native people.
On behalf of ANTHC, KANA and myself, I thank you for providing me
the opportunity to testify today and highlight some of the most urgent
needs for AI/ANs. I appreciate your consideration of our
recommendations for additional funding to improve the level, quality,
and accessibility of desperately needed health services for AI/ANs
whose healthcare status continues to lag far behind other populations
in Alaska and in this Nation, and for giving special consideration to
addressing the tragedy of child abuse with a Child Abuse and Neglect
Prevention initiative. I would be happy to provide any additional
information the subcommittee may find helpful on these issues.
______
Prepared Statement of the American Public Power Association
The American Public Power Association (APPA) respectfully requests
$75 million for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) ENERGY STAR
program, robust funding for the Landfill Methane Outreach Program, and
$3.4 million for the Council on Environmental Quality.
APPA is the national service organization representing the
interests of more than 2,000 municipal and other State and locally
owned electric utilities in 49 States (all but Hawaii). Collectively,
public power utilities deliver electricity to 1 of every 7 electric
consumers (approximately 46 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 understand that the Congress is operating in a tight fiscal
environment. APPA's priority is to support programmatic requests that
bring down costs, conserve resources, or benefit our public power
customers in other ways. We appreciate the opportunity to submit this
statement outlining our fiscal year 2012 funding priorities within the
jurisdiction of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies
Subcommittee.
epa: energy star programs
APPA is disappointed in the modest 6 percent increase in the EPA
ENERGY STAR program. We request an additional $20 million in funding
for the program to bring the total amount to $75 million.
ENERGY STAR is a voluntary partnership program pairing EPA with
businesses and consumers nationwide to enhance investment in
underutilized technologies and practices that increase energy
efficiency while at the same time reducing emissions of criteria
pollutants and greenhouse gases. APPA member systems across the country
have been active participants in ENERGY STAR programs to reduce
electricity consumption.
According to the EPA, ENERGY STAR is saving businesses,
organizations, and consumers more than $18 billion a year, and has been
instrumental in the more widespread use of technological innovations
like LED traffic lights, efficient fluorescent lighting, power
management systems for office equipment, and low standby energy use.
epa: 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 EPA to
provide adequate funding for the program. The Landfill Methane Outreach
Program helps to partner utilities, energy organizations, States,
tribes, the landfill gas industry, and trade associations to promote
the recovery and use of landfill gas as an energy source. According to
EPA, LMOP has more than 800 partners that have signed voluntary
agreements to work with EPA to develop cost-effective landfill-gas-to-
energy (LFG) projects. There are approximately 540 operational LFG
projects in the United States. LMOP has also developed detailed
profiles for more than 510 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
APPA supports the President's budget request of $3.4 million for
fiscal year 2012 for the White House's Council on Environmental Quality
(CEQ), and urges the subcommittee to maintain this funding level.
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.
______
Letter From APS Four Corners Power Plant; Aurora Water; BHP Navajo Coal
Company; Central Utah Water Conservancy District; City of Farmington;
Colorado River District; Colorado River Energy Distributers
Association; Colorado River Water Conservation District; Colorado
Springs Utilitites; Colorado Water Congress; Denver Water; Dolores
Water Conservancy District; Grand Valley Water Users Association;
Jicarilla Apache Nation; Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District;
Orchard Mesa Irrigation District; PNM Resources, Inc.; San Juan Water
Commission; Southern Ute Indian Tribe; Southwestern Water Conservation
District; State of New Mexico; State of Wyoming; The Nature Conservancy
and Western Resources Advocates; The Navajo Nation; Tri County Water
Conservancy District; Uncomahgre Valley Waters Users Association; Utah
Water Users Association; and Wyoming Water Association
March 28, 2011.
Hon. Jack Reed,
Chairman, Subcommittee on the Interior, Environment, and Related
Agencies, Washington, DC.
Hon. Lisa Murkowski,
Ranking Member, Subcommittee on the Interior, Environment, and Related
Agencies, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Reed and Senator Murkowski: I am requesting your
support for fiscal year 2012 appropriations to the Fish and Wildlife
Service (FWS) for the Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery
Program and the San Juan River Basin Recovery Implementation Program
consistent with the President's recommended budget. I request that the
subcommittee:
--Appropriate $706,300 in ``Recovery'' funds (Resource Management
Appropriation; Ecological Services Activity; Endangered Species
Subactivity; Recovery Element; within the $83,692,000 item
entitled ``Recovery'') to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(FWS) to allow FWS to continue its essential participation in
the Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program.
--Appropriate $485,800 in operation and maintenance funds (Resource
Management Appropriation; Fisheries and Aquatic Resource
Conservation Activity; National Fish Hatchery Operations
Subactivity; within the $42,761,000 item entitled ``National
Fish Hatchery System Operations'') for endangered fish
propagation and hatchery activities at the FWS' Ouray National
Fish Hatchery. Operation of this facility is integral to the
Upper Colorado Recovery Program's stocking program.
--Allocate $200,000 in ``Recovery'' funds for the San Juan River
Basin Recovery Implementation Program to meet expenses incurred
by F/VS's Region 2 in managing the San Juan Program's diverse
recovery activities.
I request the subcommittee's assistance in assuring fiscal year
2012 funding to allow the FWS to continue its financial and personnel
participation in these two vitally important recovery programs. I
recognize and appreciate that the past support and assistance of your
subcommittee has greatly facilitated the success of these ongoing
efforts.
Mark T. Pifher,
Director,
Aurora Water.
______
Prepared Statement of APS Four Corners Power Plant; Aurora Water; BHP
Navajo Coal Company; Central Utah Water Conservancy District; City of
Farmington; Colorado River Energy Distributors Association; Colorado
River District; Colorado River Water Conservation District; Colorado
Springs Utilities; Colorado Water Congress; Denver Water; Dolores Water
Conservancy District; Grand Valley Water Users Association; Jicarilla
Apache Nation; Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District; Orchard
Mesa Irrigation District; PNM Resources, Inc.; San Juan Water
Commission; Southern Ute Indian Tribe; Southwestern Water Conservation
District; State of New Mexico; State of Wyoming; The Nature Conservancy
and Western Resources Advocates; The Navajo Nation; Tri County Water
Conservancy District; Uncomahgre Valley Waters Users Association; Utah
Water Users Association; and Wyoming Water Association
March 28, 2011.
Hon. Jack Reed,
Chairman, Subcommittee on the Interior, Environment, and Related
Agencies, Washington, DC.
Hon. Lisa Murkowski,
Ranking Member, Subcommittee on the Interior, Environment, and Related
Agencies, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Reed and Senator Murkowski: I am requesting your
support for fiscal year 2012 appropriations to the Fish and Wildlife
Service (FWS) for the Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery
Program and the San Juan River Basin Recovery Implementation Program
consistent with the President's recommended budget. I request that the
subcommittee:
--Appropriate $706,300 in ``Recovery'' funds (Resource Management
Appropriation; Ecological Services Activity; Endangered Species
Subactivity; Recovery Element; within the $83,692,000 item
entitled ``Recovery'') to FWS to allow FWS to continue its
essential participation in the Upper Colorado River Endangered
Fish Recovery Program.
--Appropriate $485,800 in operation and maintenance funds (Resource
Management Appropriation; Fisheries and Aquatic Resource
Conservation Activity; National Fish Hatchery Operations
Subactivity; within the $42,761,000 item entitled ``National
Fish Hatchery System Operations'') for endangered fish
propagation and hatchery activities at the FWS' Ouray National
Fish Hatchery. Operation of this facility is integral to the
Upper Colorado Recovery program's stocking program.
--Allocate $200,000 in ``Recovery'' funds for the San Juan River
Basin Recovery Implementation Program to meet expenses incurred
by F/VS's Region 2 in managing the San Juan program's diverse
recovery activities.
I request the subcommittee's assistance in assuring fiscal year
2012 funding to allow the FWS to continue its financial and personnel
participation in these two vitally important recovery programs. I
recognize and appreciate that the past support and assistance of your
subcommittee has greatly facilitated the success of these ongoing
efforts.
Mark T. Pifher,
Director,
Aurora Water.
______
Prepared Statement of the American Society of Civil Engineers
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee: The American Society
of Civil Engineers (ASCE) is pleased to present the ASCE's views on the
proposed budgets for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the
United States Geological Survey (USGS) for fiscal year 2012.
epa
The President's proposed budget for the EPA in fiscal year 2012
represents a setback for the Nation because it reduces spending on
critical infrastructure systems designed to protect public health.
Our 2009 Report Card for America's Infrastructure gave the Nation's
wastewater and drinking-water systems identical grades of D-, marking
them as systems in near total failure. We estimated then that the
physical condition of many of the Nation's 16,000 wastewater treatment
systems was poor due to a lack of investment in plants, equipment, and
other capital improvements over the years, while Federal funding under
the Clean Water Act State Revolving Loan Fund (SRF) Program had
remained flat for more than a decade. Federal assistance has not kept
pace with the needs, yet virtually every authority agrees that funding
needs remain very high, a condition that has not improved in the last 2
years.
The EPA ``Clean Water Needs Survey'' for 2008, released last
October, put the total wastewater and stormwater management needs for
the Nation at $298.1 billion as of January 1, 2008. This amount
includes $192.2 billion for wastewater treatment plants, pipe repairs,
and buying and installing new pipes; $63.6 billion for combined sewer
overflow correction; and $42.3 billion for stormwater management. Small
communities have documented needs of $22.7 billion.
In addition to the $298.1 billion in wastewater and stormwater
needs, the report documented needs of $22.8 billion for nonpoint source
pollution prevention and $23.9 billion for decentralized wastewater
(septic) systems. An estimated $334.5 billion and $81.5 billion in
needs are potentially eligible for assistance from the EPA's Clean
Water SRF and Nonpoint Source Control Grant Programs, respectively, the
Agency reported.
Meanwhile, the Nation's drinking-water systems also face staggering
public investment needs over the next 20 years. Although America spends
billions on water infrastructure each year, drinking water systems face
an annual shortfall of at least $11 billion in funding needed to
replace aging facilities that are near the end of their useful life and
to comply with existing and future Federal water regulations. The
shortfall does not account for any growth in the demand for drinking
water over the next 20 years. Nevertheless, the Agency's overall budget
proposal for fiscal year 2012 represents about a 13 percent decrease
from the fiscal year 2010 enacted budget of $10.3 billion for all the
EPA programs.
The most serious cutback totals $2.5 billion--a decrease of $938
million--for the Clean Water SRF and Safe Drinking Water Act SRF. The
wastewater treatment SRF is being reduced by $550 million and the
drinking-water SRF by $388 million from the fiscal year 2010 enacted
amounts.
On its Web site, the EPA states: ``While this budget includes
significant cuts, it is designed to ensure that the EPA can effectively
carry out its core mission to protect public health and our
environment, including the reductions of . . . water pollution.''
http://www.epa.gov/planandbudget/annualplan/fy2012.html.
We respectfully disagree. The EPA's own budget states the problem
succinctly. ``America's waters remain imperiled.''
Federal funds contributed to the SRFs have ensured efficient
systemwide planning and continuing management of sustainable water
infrastructure since 1987. With the Nation facing a $400-$500 billion
investment gap in its wastewater and drinking-water infrastructure over
the next 20 years, now is not the time to cut Federal investments in
public health.
We recognize of course that the Congress is dealing with enormous
deficits and a growing Federal debt, but the remedies for these
problems must not come at the expense of programs aimed at protecting
public health from the dangers of increased contamination in our
rivers, lakes, and streams and our drinking-water supplies.
The ASCE recommends an appropriation of $2 billion for the Clean
Water SRF and an appropriation of $1.5 billion for the Safe Drinking
Water Act SRF in fiscal year 2012.
usgs
The USGS is one of the Nation's foremost science agencies. It
produces the scientific data essential for the protection of the
quality of economically vital water resources, for the prediction of
earthquakes and volcanoes, for the cataloging of America's vast
biological resources and for dozens of other critically important
technical needs.
The administration's fiscal year 2012 budget request for the USGS
is $1.118 billion, an overall decrease of $15 million or 1.3 percent
below the USGS budget request for fiscal year 2011, but a small
increase of $6 million or one-half of 1 percent above the fiscal year
2010 enacted level.
Although there is a $6 million increase in the total USGS budget
request for fiscal year 2012 compared to the fiscal year 2010 enacted
level, the fiscal year 2012 budget request contains significant cuts in
many programs that are offset by increases in other areas, including a
$59.6 million increase in a new account for national land imaging.
The USGS budget request for fiscal year 2012 includes $89.1 million
in program reductions in longstanding programs. The proposed budget
cuts would have significant impacts on the USGS programs. Proposed
budget cuts in the fiscal year 2012 USGS budget request include
decreases of $9.8 million for biological information management and
delivery, $9.6 million for mineral resources, $8.9 million for national
water quality assessment, $6.5 million for cooperative water program,
and $4.7 million for earthquake hazards.
In fiscal year 2012 the administration seeks to cut the National
Water Quality Assessment Program (NAWQA) by $6.7 million from fiscal
year 2010. The NAWQA is one of the Nation's major sources of
information on the flow and volume of rivers, streams and groundwater
formations. The least harmful effect of these cuts would postpone the
implementation of real-time technology for water-quality monitoring
necessary to public health programs at the State and local levels. At
their worst they would eliminate funding for monitoring and assessment
of groundwater in 33 States. This information is used to identify
contaminants in public drinking-water wells and manage groundwater to
meet future needs for potable drinking-water and uncontaminated
irrigation flows.
The USGS operates approximately 7,000 stream gages nationwide.
These gages provide real-time data typically are recorded at 15- to 60-
minute intervals, stored onsite, and then transmitted to the USGS
offices every 1 to 4 hours, depending on the data relay technique used,
through the stream-gauging program. These data are used to predict
floods, allocate water supplies, provide water flow data for publicly
owned treatment works, and assist in the design of flood-resistant
bridges. National Stream Flow Information Program is being reduced by
more than $800,000 from the fiscal year 2010 enacted appropriation for
stream flow in the President's budget. We urge the Congress to
reinstate this cut.
The administration also proposes to cut $3.5 million from the
coastal and marine geology program. We support efforts to restore the
entire amount of the reduction. This program supports the USGS' effort
to understand the science of coastal and marine hazards, coastal
groundwater studies and research into catastrophic storms, leaving
funding only for the largest hurricanes to make landfall. These cuts
are ill conceived and threaten the safety of Americans living along our
coastlines.
We understand the challenges presented by the Federal budget
deficit. But any failure to prevent natural hazards from becoming
natural disasters will increase future expenditures for disaster
response and recovery. Recent natural disasters provide unmistakable
evidence that society is vulnerable to staggering losses. The magnitude
9.0 earthquake and tsunami that devastated Japan on March 11, 2011, the
magnitude 7.0 earthquake that killed more than 200,000 people in Haiti
on January 12, 2010, and the small volcanic eruptions in Iceland that
disrupted global air traffic in April 2011, provide compelling evidence
that the United States should take further actions to reduce risks from
natural hazards.
The administration's fiscal year 2012 budget request includes
$133.9 million for natural hazards, $5.1 million below the 2010 enacted
level. The ASCE is concerned that this decrease could compromise public
safety. The USGS, and other Federal agencies involved in hazards
research and mitigation, have face many years of underfunding; the
proposed budget request will continue this trend.
The recent earthquakes highlight the importance of such programs as
the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP), of which the
USGS is an important part. The NEHRP is one part of the USGS'
contribution to the NEHRP. Earthquakes pose significant risk to 75
million Americans in 39 States. The EHP provides information and
products for earthquake loss reduction, including hazard and risk
assessment, and comprehensive real-time earthquake monitoring. The ASCE
request that the Congress restore funding to fiscal year 2010 levels
for natural hazards.
The Congress must increase the total appropriation for the USGS in
fiscal year 2012. It must restore the $39 million in cuts proposed for
biological information, mineral resources, water-quality assessment,
and earthquake hazards programs in order to provide full funding for
uncontrollable cost increases, and to provide new funds to enable the
agency to address a growing backlog of needs for the USGS science and
information, accelerate the timetable for deployment of critical
projects, and undertake new initiatives that address new challenges.
The ASCE recommends an appropriation of $1.2 billion for the USGS
in fiscal year 2012.
______
Prepared Statement of the Association of State Drinking Water
Administrators
who we are
James D. Taft, Executive Director, on behalf of the Association of
State Drinking Water Administrators (ASDWA), is pleased to provide
testimony to the Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related
Agencies subcommittee on fiscal year 2012 appropriations for the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The ASDWA represents the State
drinking water programs in each of the 50 States and territories and
the Navajo Nation in their efforts to provide safe drinking water to
more than 275 million consumers nationwide.
summary of request
The ASDWA respectfully requests that, for fiscal year 2012, the
subcommittee appropriate funding for three State drinking water
programs at levels commensurate with Federal expectations for
performance and at levels that ensure appropriate public health
protection. The ASDWA requests $200 million for the Public Water System
Supervision (PWSS) Program; $1.287 billion or the Drinking Water State
Revolving Loan Fund (DWSRF) Program; and $10 million for State Drinking
Water Program security initiatives. A more complete explanation of the
needs represented by these requested amounts and a further explanation
of these requested levels follows.
how states use federal funds
States Need Increased Federal Support To Maintain Overall Public
Health Protection.--State drinking water programs strive to meet public
health protection goals through two principal funding programs: the
PWSS and the DWSRF programs. These two programs, with their attendant
State match requirements, provide the means for States to work with
drinking water systems to ensure that American citizens can turn on
their taps with confidence that the water is both safe to drink and the
supply is adequate. In recent years, State drinking water programs have
accepted additional responsibilities to work with all public water
systems to ensure that critical drinking water infrastructure is
protected; that plans are in place to respond to both natural and
manmade disasters; and that communities are better positioned to
support both physical and economic resilience in time of crisis.
Vibrant and sustainable communities, their citizens, workforce, and
businesses are dependent upon a safe and adequate supply of drinking
water. Economies only grow and sustain themselves when they have
reliable water supplies. More than 90 percent of the population
receives water used for bathing, cooking, and drinking from a public
water system. Even people who have their own private wells to meet
their daily water needs will visit other homes or businesses served by
a public water system. Children and the elderly are typically the most
susceptible to illness and death from several of the contaminants
regulated by Federal drinking water laws including lead, mercury,
nitrates, bacteria, and viruses. As important as public water systems
are to the quality of water we drink and our health, the majority of
water produced by public water systems is used by businesses for a
variety of purposes. Businesses need adequate supplies of good quality
water for processing, cooling, and product manufacturing. The
availability of adequate supplies of water is often a critical factor
in attracting new industries to communities. Public water systems--and
the cities, villages, schools, and businesses they support--rely on
State drinking water programs to ensure they are in compliance with all
applicable Federal requirements.
The PWSS Program.--To meet the requirements of the Safe Drinking
Water Act (SDWA), States have accepted primary enforcement
responsibility for oversight of regulatory compliance and technical
assistance efforts for more than 155,000 public water systems to ensure
potential health-based violations do not occur or are remedied in a
timely manner. Since 1996, State drinking water programs have
participated in the development and implementation of more than 25 new
Federal regulations and strategic initiatives designed to enhance the
protection of public health. States are also implementing an array of
proactive initiatives to protect public health from ``the source to the
tap''. These include drinking source water assessments and protections;
technical assistance with water treatment and distribution; and
enhancement of overall water system performance capabilities. In recent
years, States have taken on an increasingly prominent role in working
with Federal and local partners to help ensure sufficient water
quantity. In short, State activities go well beyond simply ensuring
compliance at the tap.
The DWSRF Program.--Drinking water in the United States is among
the safest and most reliable in the world, thanks to significant
infrastructure investments made over the decades. The payback on this
investment has been exceptional: in the core DWSRF Program, $12 billion
in capitalization grants from the Congress since 1997 has been
leveraged by States into nearly $21.2 billion in infrastructure loans
to small and large communities across the country. As a recent
indicator of States' extraordinary accomplishments through this
program, all States met the February 17, 2010 deadline (1 year from
enactment) for having $2 billion in American Reinvestment and Recovery
Act (ARRA) funds under contract or construction. Such investments pay
tremendous dividends--both in supporting our economy and in protecting
our citizens' health. State drinking water programs have also used the
DWSRF funds to support the technical assistance and training needs of
small drinking water systems and to help these water systems obtain the
technical, managerial, and financial proficiency needed to meet the
requirements of the SDWA.
State Drinking Water Security Responsibilities.--Since the events
of September 2001, as well as the more recent experiences of
devastating hurricanes, wildfires, and floods, States have taken a
variety of critical steps to meet the security and emergency response-
related needs of the drinking water community. State drinking water
programs have responded to requests for assistance, training,
information, and financial support from the water systems under their
purview as well as supported utility-based ``mutual aid'' networks.
States continually work toward integrating security considerations
throughout all aspects of their drinking water programs. Technological
advances in contaminant detection and decontamination capabilities, new
economic risk and impact analysis models, and enhancements in cyber
security techniques also demand State program awareness,
implementation, and outreach to the water community.
why increased funding is urgently needed
State Drinking Water Programs are Hard Pressed.--States must
accomplish all of the above-described activities, and take on new
responsibilities, in the context of the current national economic
downturn. This has meant further cutting State budgets, streamlining
their workforces, and operating with less State-provided financial
support. State drinking water programs have often been expected to do
more with less and States have always responded with commitment and
ingenuity. However, State drinking water programs are now in crisis.
Insufficient Federal support for this critical program increases the
likelihood of a contamination event that puts the public's health at
risk.
State Funding Gap Continues To Grow; States Cannot Keep Up.--
Although the 1996 SDWA amendments authorized the PWSS Program at $100
million per year, appropriated amounts have only recently reached that
authorized level--a level that now, almost 15 years from the date of
those amendments, falls far short of the need. An amount of $105.7
million was appropriated for the PWSS Program in fiscal year 2010. A
proportionate amount of that level was also provided to States in
fiscal year 2011, through a series of continuing resolutions, from
October 1, 2010 until April 8, 2011. However, as explained below, due
to the Congress' zeroing out of the State drinking water program
security grant of $5 million, the net gain to States--from fiscal year
2009 to fiscal year 2010 and fiscal year 2011--was only $1 million. The
President's fiscal year 2012 budget requested $109. 7 million for the
PWSS grant--again, an amount that is woefully inadequate for the
enormity of the task faced by State drinking water programs. A few
years ago, State drinking water program administrators identified an
annual shortfall nationally of approximately $360 million between
available funds and those needed to administer their programs. That gap
only continues to grow and has negative consequences. Many States are
simply unable to implement major provisions of the newer regulations,
leaving the work undone or ceding the responsibility back to the EPA
where it is likely to languish because of their own resource
constraints and lack of ``on the ground'' expertise. This situation
could create a significant implementation crisis in several regions of
the country and ultimately delay implementation of critically needed
public health protections.
fiscal year 2012 request levels and sdwa program obligations
The PWSS Program.--The number of regulations requiring State
implementation and oversight as well as performance expectations
continue to grow while at the same time, the Federal funding support
necessary to maintain compliance levels and meet expectations has been
essentially ``flat-lined'' or included only meager increases. Inflation
has further eroded these inadequate funding levels. State drinking
water programs are hard pressed to understand a justification for these
funding levels since they are engaged in the critical phases of
implementing the LT 2/Stage 2 Rule cluster (two sophisticated and
complex initiatives to control disinfection by-products and microbial
contaminants), the recently promulgated Ground Water Rule, and changes
to the Lead and Copper Rule. States want to offer the flexibilities
allowed under these and other rules to local water systems; however,
fewer State resources mean less opportunity to work one-on-one with
water systems to meet their individual needs. Looking ahead, States
expect that new rules for perchlorate and carcinogenic volatile organic
carbon compounds will be forthcoming in the near future as well as
revisions to the Total Coliform Rule.
The ASDWA respectfully requests that the fiscal year 2012 funding
for the PWSS Program be appropriated at $200 million. This figure was
calculated by starting with a baseline of $124.3 million (the fiscal
year 2004 appropriated figure after adjustment for inflation); adding
$50.7 million to implement recently promulgated rules (per the EPA's
economic analyses for these rules); and adding $25 million for other
new program requirements (e.g., emerging contaminants, modernizing data
systems, and supporting small water systems).
The DWSRF Program.--States were very encouraged by the $1.387
billion appropriated for the DWSRF in fiscal year 2010 and the $1.287
billion requested in the President's fiscal year 2011 budget. We were,
however, disappointed to see the administration request drop to $990
million for fiscal year 2012. States strongly support the higher
levels. The primary purpose of the DWSRF is to improve public health
protection by facilitating water system compliance with national
primary drinking water regulations through the provision of loans to
improve drinking water infrastructure. Water infrastructure is needed
for public health protection as well as a sustainable economy, as
explained above. States have very effectively and efficiently leveraged
Federal dollars with State contributions by turning more than $12
billion in cumulative Federal capitalization grants (not counting ARRA
funds) into almost $21.2 billion in water infrastructure loans since
1997. In so doing, States have provided assistance to more than 7,000
projects, improving health protection for millions of Americans.
Approximately 72 percent of projects and 38 percent of assistance has
been provided to small communities (serving less than 10,000 people).
However, the EPA's most recent National Drinking Water Infrastructure
Needs Survey (2007) indicated that water system needs total $334.8
billion over the next 20 years to comply with the SDWA mandates. States
believe the $2 billion in ARRA funds and the fiscal year 2010
appropriated level were very substantial down payments on addressing
those needs and filling the infrastructure gap. In light of these
indicators of success and documented needs, we believe funding at the
$1.287 billion level will better enable the DWSRF to meet the SDWA
compliance and public health protection goals for which it was
designed.
The ASDWA respectfully requests $1.287 billion in fiscal year 2012
funding for the DWSRF program.
Security Responsibilities.--After 7 years of supporting State
security programs through a small grant of approximately $5 million in
the EPA's appropriation, no funds were provided for this purpose in
fiscal year 2010 and none were requested for fiscal year 2011 or 2012.
State drinking water programs need funds to continue to expand their
security activities, particularly for small and medium water systems
and to support utility-based mutual aid networks for all drinking water
systems. It is very difficult to understand why this grant has been
zeroed out of the EPA's proposed budget. Given the realities
exemplified by ongoing Homeland Security initiatives, the goals of the
National Infrastructure Protection Plan, and the lessons learned from
Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, and Gustav, State drinking water programs are
working more closely than ever with their water utilities to evaluate,
assist, and support drinking water systems' preparedness, response, and
resiliency capabilities. Beyond the mandates of the Bioterrorism Act of
2002, States are being directed to expand their efforts to reflect an
``all hazards'' approach to water security and to focus their efforts
toward smaller water systems not covered by the act. These systems rely
heavily on the States to help them meet their needs and identify
potential funding sources.
The ASDWA respectfully requests $10 million in fiscal year 2012
funding for the State security initiatives. These funds would be
commensurate with the security tasks State drinking water programs must
take on.
conclusion
In conclusion, the ASDWA respectfully recommends that Federal
fiscal year 2012 budget needs for the provision of safe drinking water
be adequately funded by the Congress. A strong drinking water program
supported by the Federal-State partnership will ensure that the quality
of drinking water in this country will not deteriorate and, in fact,
will continue to improve--so that the public can be assured that a
glass of water is safe to drink no matter where they travel or live.
States are willing and committed partners. However, additional Federal
financial assistance is needed to meet ongoing and ever growing
regulatory and security needs. In 1996, the Congress provided the
authority to ensure that the burden would not go unsupported. For
fiscal year 2012, the ASDWA asks that the promise of that support be
realized.
______
Letter From the Alliance to Save Energy
April 1, 2011.
Hon. Jack Reed,
Chairman, Subcommittee on the Interior, Environment, and Related
Agencies,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Lisa Murkowski,
Ranking Member, Subcommittee on the Interior, Environment, and Related
Agencies,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Reed and Senator Murkowski: I am writing to express
the strong support of the Alliance to Save Energy for the President's
budget request of $55 million in fiscal year 2012 funding for the
Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) ENERGY STAR Program. For well
more than a decade, the ENERGY STAR program has greatly helped
businesses, governments, and consumers across the country to save money
each year by investing in energy-efficient products.
The program currently has partnerships with more than 20,000
private and public sector organizations, who have invested a combined
total of $80 billion to help to deliver technical information and tools
that consumers need to choose energy-efficiency solutions and best
management practices. 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 that
amount to more than $200 million annually.
ENERGY STAR's track record of success and cost-effectiveness
throughout the years has demonstrated the worth of the program. The EPA
estimates that for every Federal $1 spent on ENERGY STAR, $75 or more
in consumer energy bills are saved and about 3.7 tons of carbon dioxide
emissions are avoided. In 2010 alone, Americans, with the help of the
ENERGY STAR Program, saved nearly $18 billion on their utility bills.
Further investment by the Government to break down market barriers that
currently hamper the purchasing of energy efficient products will
achieve even greater results, which is why we are asking for your
support for the President's request for a 6 percent increase in the
fiscal year 2012 budget for the EPA ENERGY STAR to $55 million. A
modest increase in funding would be effectively directed at the
following areas:
--ENERGY STAR Product Labeling.--Individual product choices are a
significant driver of total national energy use. While the
ENERGY STAR product labeling program already encompasses more
than 60 product categories across 3,000 manufacturers, there
remain a substantial number of new products that can be added
in the future.
--ENERGY STAR New Home Construction.--Expanding the number of ENERGY
STAR qualified new homes is an essential part of a
comprehensive approach reducing energy demand in the country.
More than 1 million ENERGY STAR qualified homes have been built
in the United States, with more than 100,000 constructed in
2009 alone--representing more than 20 percent of the total U.S.
housing starts.
--ENERGY STAR Existing Home Improvements.--In 2009, more than 23,000
existing homes were retrofitted from home performance with
ENERGY STAR with more than 30 program sponsors across 28
States. Additional funding would expand the number of
communities where these services are offered and the savings
that result, helping to grow these energy efficiency services
to be nationally available.
--ENERGY STAR New Commercial Building Construction.--Improving the
efficiency of new commercial and institutional building
construction is an essential part of a comprehensive approach
to reducing energy demand and addressing climate change, due to
the expected expansion in the commercial building industry. As
part of ENERGY STAR, the EPA has developed a new construction
program enabling more than 3,900 commercial buildings to earn
the ENERGY STAR approval in 2009, and a cumulative total of
almost 9,000 buildings.
--ENERGY STAR Industrial.--The EPA's ENERGY STAR Program recognizes
the incredible potential of the U.S. industrial sector for
energy savings. The EPA benchmarked energy performance in 2009
in the industrial sector, which indicated that fuel use has
improved by 12 percent. Additional resources could be used to
expand the program to represent the top 25 to 30 energy-using
sectors across the country, and to develop streamlined
assistance tools for smaller industry.
The ENERGY STAR program in the past year has taken a number of
initiatives to improve the administration and accountability of the
program. The EPA ENERGY STAR program helps consumers reduce high energy
bills, promotes economic growth through investments in new
technologies, reduces pollution in a cost-effective way, and enhances
the reliability of our electric system by reducing peak demand. We
strongly urge you to fund the President's request and provide $55
million for the EPA ENERGY STAR program in fiscal year 2012. Thank you
for your time and I ask that this letter be submitted as part of the
record of your subcommittee's hearing on the fiscal year 2012 EPA
budget.
Sincerely,
Brad Penney,
Director of Government Relations.
______
Prepared Statement of the American Society for Microbiology
The American Society for Microbiology (ASM) wishes to submit the
following statement on the fiscal year 2012 appropriation for the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) science and technology (S&T)
programs. The ASM is the largest single life science organization in
the world with more than 38,000 members. The ASM mission is to enhance
the science of microbiology, to gain a better understanding of life
processes and to promote the application of this knowledge for improved
health and environmental well-being.
The ASM is concerned about the administration's fiscal year 2012
budget request of $826 million for the EPA's science and technology
programs, a 2 percent decrease from fiscal year 2010 enacted levels.
Within the S&T proposal, the $584 million set aside for research is a
decrease of $13 million for the EPA's scientific efforts. The ASM urges
the Congress to support increased funding for the EPA's S&T programs
which are essential to the EPA's mission.
The EPA's mission to protect the environment and public health is
dependent upon cutting-edge technologies and science-based risk
assessments. The quality of the EPA science directly impacts food
safety, industry, agriculture, the economy, local ecosystems, the
Nation's natural resources, air quality and consequently, public well
being. The EPA oversight requires the best scientific knowledge
available to prevent pollution, enforce environmental standards,
remediate contaminated sites, ensure the safety of chemicals and
safeguard human health. When working with its partners in academia,
industry, nonprofits and government, the EPA is most effective when it
can utilize the best science and technology tools to resolve complex
challenges such as last year's devastating Gulf of Mexico oil spill.
In fiscal year 2012, the EPA is restructuring its scientific
research efforts by shifting from problem-focused projects to system-
oriented approaches, integrating related activities into multi-
disciplinary projects. As a result, it has realigned its 12 base
research programs into 4 new research programs with greater emphasis on
sustainability:
--air, climate, and energy;
--safe and sustainable water resources;
--sustainable and healthy communities; and
--chemical safety and sustainability.
The administration's fiscal year 2012 proposed budget for the EPA
recognizes the importance of innovative research. Support is increased
for the Science To Achieve Results (STAR) extramural grant programs,
studies of endocrine disruptors in water systems and computational
toxicology. Other program budget increases would upgrade the EPA's e-
reporting and monitoring tools, necessary to both expedite risk
assessments and improve enforcement of environmental regulations.
epa science protects public health and the environment
The EPA oversight of the environment requires the most advanced
tools to monitor, measure, and evaluate threats to environmental
quality. The ASM supports the EPA S&T and is concerned about budget
reductions for the EPA's Office of Research and Development (ORD). The
ORD manages several laboratories and research centers across the
country, distributes significant extramural funding to universities and
other stakeholders and supports research across the environmental
spectrum. The ORD programs address both risk assessment and management
in the following focus areas:
--clean air;
--drinking water;
--ecosystem services research;
--endocrine disruptors;
--global climate change;
--human health;
--human health risk assessment;
--land;
--safe pesticides/safe products; and
--water quality.
Within the ORD, the Microbiological and Chemical Exposure
Assessment Research Division is responsible for evaluating air, water,
and soil samples for microbial and chemical contaminants. Collected
during studies like the NEEAR Water Study, which investigates the human
health effects of using recreational waters, these samples are an
important tool in safeguarding human, plant, and animal health. Methods
used by agency scientists to measure human risk factors range from
state-of-the-art chemical assays to microbiological assays based on
genomics, immunological techniques, and other technologies. The EPA
laboratories provide reference standards, training, and other technical
services such as incident investigations to other EPA and Federal
entities and State laboratories.
The ORD supported studies of microbial pathogens and toxic
chemicals in environments like indoor air and drinking water often use
new analytical tools developed in house by the EPA scientists. These
EPA innovations include molecular methods to compare the DNA of
microbes isolated from the environment with DNA from human isolates as
well as animal models to measure pathogen virulence. In the past year,
the EPA scientists reported results from research on how arsenic is
absorbed into the mammalian bloodstream, and others developed a new
immunoassay for quantifying antibodies in saliva, a noninvasive test
for human infections by waterborne pathogens. In 2010, the EPA
researchers and collaborators from the Department of Energy received an
R&D 100 Award for the CANARY software, which helps water system
managers detect a wide variety of chemical and biological contaminants
quickly. The free software tool is already monitoring drinking water
operations in more than a dozen countries. The recent unveiling of a
new high-speed robot screening system that can test the potential
toxicity of 10,000 different chemicals, highlighted a successful
investment in multi-year research and cross agency collaboration.
epa science responds to changing environments
The EPA mission to protect human health and the environment
requires a rapid response to unforeseen situations like natural or
human caused disasters and subsequent new threats. It also requires the
ability to adjust the EPA enforcement activities within evolving
circumstances like updated scientific information or new products
entering the market. The most dramatic example from the past year was
the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. The EPA
personnel quickly initiated assessments of air and water quality and
outlined protocols to monitor long-term effects of the disaster. The
EPA was vice chair of the National Response Team, mobilized its own
headquarters and Regional Emergency Operations Center, and provided
regular updates to the public and private sectors. Specific EPA
activities included lab analysis of air, water, and soil samples; input
on cleanup efforts along the shoreline; and collaboration with the
National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration to design strategies for
monitoring possible toxicity of the oil dispersants utilized. The EPA
Administrator now chairs the Gulf Coast Ecosystem Restoration Task
Force, created last September to coordinate remediation of the affected
areas.
In the past year, the EPA S&T programs informed the agency's
efforts to update regulations or propose new recommendations including:
--Proposed revisions to the Total Coliform Rule requiring all public
water systems to investigate and correct any potential
microbial contamination;
--A new EPA Drinking Water Strategy to improve drinking water
technology that simultaneously detects groups of contaminants,
continuing the EPA's progress toward ensuring water systems
that meet standards for more than 90 contaminants;
--In March 2011 the EPA proposed adding 30 currently unregulated
contaminants (two viruses and 28 chemicals) to those already
monitored in drinking water;
--New air quality standards for sulfur dioxide and stronger standards
for nitrous oxide (the first new SO2 standard in
almost 40 years and the first for NO2 in 35 years);
the SO2 standard may help avoid 54,000 asthma
attacks per year;
--New limits for mercury emissions from cement plants, aimed at a 92
percent reduction from projected 2013 levels, expected to save
$7-$19 in health costs for every $1 spent; and
--New Federal rules, jointly established with the Department of
Transportation, that set the first national greenhouse gas
emissions standards, expected to conserve about 1.8 billion
barrels of oil.
epa grants stimulate innovation in environmental sciences
The EPA awards grants outside the agency to academic institutions,
State programs, the private sector, nonprofit organizations and others
to fund an impressive array of projects from laboratory research to
local toxic spill cleanup. Within the ORD budget allocation, the
National Center for Environmental Research (NCER) supports extramural
research that complements the EPA's own research areas, through
competitive grants, fellowships, and its Small Business Innovative
Research (SBIR) program. The NCER's STAR grant program currently
focuses on drinking water and water quality, pollution prevention using
new technologies, the health effects of particulate matter, global
change, children's health, ecosystem assessment and restoration, human
health risk assessment, endocrine disrupting chemicals and societal
implications.
The ASM commends the proposed fiscal year 2012 increase of $24.7
million for the STAR program which consistently generates innovative
technologies and new scientific knowledge that strengthen the EPA
mission. The EPA also contributes to the Nation's future technical
workforce. Under the proposed fiscal year 2012 budget, the agency would
distribute $14 million for STAR Fellowships including support for an
estimated 243 continuing fellows and 105 new STAR fellows. In addition,
the NCER supports tomorrow's scientists and engineers through its
Greater Research Opportunities Fellowships for graduate and
undergraduate students and its People, Prosperity, and the Planet
Program sponsoring undergraduate design competitions that are focused
on sustainability. The NCER receives approximately 2,000-2,500
proposals annually for its STAR grants and fellowships, of which only a
small percentage can be funded.
s&t funding impacts epa protection, present and future
The EPA must be able to access the latest methods for risk
assessment and monitoring to be effective. The EPA's New Chemicals
Program relies on evolving technical tools to ascertain the potential
risks of roughly 1,100 new chemicals, biotechnology products, and
nanomaterials submitted each year for pre-market review. The Pesticide
Program's three laboratories not only assess chemical residues, but
have had to develop test methods for products from genetically modified
organisms, biothreat agents like the anthrax bacterium, and the
efficacy of antimicrobials in controlling infectious pathogens in
healthcare settings. The EPA scientists developed assays for measuring
pharmaceuticals and personal care products in waters and biosolids,
another example of emerging environmental threats that must be
monitored using new or up-to-date methods.
The EPA's S&T programs are the crucial base for effective oversight
of the environment. We recommend that the Congress increase the EPA S&T
programs to protect both human health and the environment.
______
Prepared Statement of the Arctic Slope Native Association
The Arctic Slope Native Association (ASNA) hereby joins the call of
other tribal contractors across the country for full appropriations to
cover the obligations of the Indian Health Service (IHS) and the Bureau
of Indian Affairs (BIA) to pay full contract support costs (CSC) when
tribes like ASNA contract to operate IHS and BIA facilities and
services. The total requirements to meet these legal obligations are
$615 million for IHS contract payments and $228 million for BIA
contract payments. The fiscal year 2012 proposed budget should be
adjusted to meet these required levels.
ASNA has long suffered from contract underpayments, dating back to
when ASNA first began contracting with IHS.
In 1996, ASNA was awarded a contract to operate the IHS's Samuel
Simmonds Hospital in Barrow, Alaska. That hospital serves all the
tribes of the North Slope of Alaska. As soon as contracted hospital
operations started, IHS refused to pay us the full amounts due under
the law to operate the hospital. IHS said it did not have the money to
pay us. As a result, over the years hospital operations suffered. We
believed IHS and we made the cuts we had to make in hospital operations
to cover IHS's shortfall, only to learn years later that IHS had the
money all along (we learned this from the Supreme Court Cherokee Nation
case).
Today, we are fighting to recover damages for the amounts that IHS
should have paid us. We have several appeals pending before the
Contract Appeals Board and the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals
totaling $7,529,334.
But IHS continues to violate the law. In fiscal year 2010 we ended
the year with more than $900,000 left unpaid by IHS, and we expect to
suffer at least the same shortfall this year too. So once again,
services will remain cut to make up for the IHS's failure, since these
CSCs are all fixed costs like insurance and auditing costs that we have
no choice but to pay. Our people will suffer again.
The same is true with the BIA, which this last year again failed to
pay the ASNA's CSC requirement in full.
When IHS and BIA hire us under contract to operate their programs
the agencies have a duty to pay us promptly and in full, just like any
other contractor. But the two agencies keep underpaying us, year after
year. We should not be treated like ``second-class contractors'' just
because we are Native American contractors. If anything, the
Government's trust responsibility to provide healthcare and social
services to our people ought to compel these agencies to be more
respectful of their contract obligations, not less. Instead, they have
shifted the cost of the contracts to our people, forcing cuts in
healthcare, educational assistance, child welfare assistance--the list
goes on and on. That is unconscionable.
Fulfilling the contractual requirement to pay CSC also means vacant
positions can be filled. Last year the administration and the Congress
supported an unprecedented increase in CSC payments to partially offset
the shortfalls we have suffered. ASNA's shortfall dropped by $466,204,
and we used those funds to add six direct patient care positions,
including a certified coding technician vital to billing the Medicare
and Medicaid systems and other third-party payors, a patient case
management assistant, a deputy director for our dental program, a
Resource and Patient Management System site manager, a nurse, and a
patient support coordinator. Even still, 16 positions remain unfilled.
ASNA asks that the Congress take the necessary final steps this
year to at long last end the persistent shortfalls Indian country
suffers in the payments of our contracts and self-governance compacts.
______
Prepared Statement of the Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes of the Fort Peck
Reservation
On behalf of the Fort Peck Tribes, I am pleased to present
testimony on the fiscal year 2012 Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA),
Indian Health Service (IHS), and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
budget. We are a large, land-based tribe. The Fort Peck Reservation
encompasses 2.09 million acres. The reservation population is growing
and our tribal enrollment is approximately 12,500 members. Our greatest
need is healthcare, public safety, infrastructure, and education.
The tribes' unemployment rate on the reservation is 56 percent. Of
our tribal members who are working, approximately 43 percent live below
the poverty level. Given the enormous unemployment and poverty rates on
the reservation, our needs for both the BIA and the IHS programs and
services are substantial.
The United States has a continuing trust responsibility to assist
tribes to address the basic governmental services such as safe drinking
water, public safety, and 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.'' If the Federal Government could provide greater assistance
to us with these core governmental services, our members would be so
much better off.
To be clear, the appropriation of funds for tribal governments is
not a discretionary act, rather these appropriations represent the
United States' fulfillment of its mandatory obligation under the
treaties and agreements entered into with tribal governments.
ihs
Indian country continues to suffer higher rates of infant
mortality, suicide, accident, alcoholism, diabetes, and heart disease
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 to tribal communities. The
Federal Government has a trust responsibility 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 are particularly concerned about the IHS mismanagement of the
limited resources that are made available to the agency. We encourage
the appropriators to examine the root of this mismanagement and to
encourage the IHS to engage with tribes with regard to this
investigation and to provide us with the information that we need to be
assured that these limited resources are properly accounted for.
Mental Health.--During the 2009-2010 school year, 5 of our middle
school children committed suicide, and 20 more of our children have
tried. Since October 2010, two more teenagers committed suicide,
including the 17-year-old son of our former vice-chairwoman, and
several more throughout our reservation have reportedly tried. Further,
between April 2009-April 2010, we had 153 suicide-related calls to the
law enforcement agencies serving the reservation. According to recent
testimony before the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs, the IHS
reported that suicide is the second leading cause of death for Indian
youth ages 15-24 and that suicides in this age group make up 64 percent
of all suicides throughout Indian country.
A loss of a life is tragic in any circumstance, but when this loss
happens because a young person cannot see the promise of tomorrow and
the hope for a better future, it is not only tragic; it is
catastrophic. It is catastrophic for not only the family involved, but
the entire reservation. These young people are the Fort Peck Tribes'
future. Addressing suicide requires a multi-prong effort that includes
all aspects of health, including substance abuse, mental health,
spiritual health, and physical health. We know that it requires quick
intervention and involvement by all parts of our community from the
health professionals, social service agencies, schools, tribal
government, and the families. We don't need anymore reports to tell us
this. We need the resources to carryout this work. We urge the
subcommittee to continue to support mental health and suicide
prevention programs to respond to this devastating crisis in Indian
country.
Fort Peck Dialysis Center.--There is a desperate need for fully
staffed and equipped health facilities 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, including the urgent
expansion of the Fort Peck Tribal Dialysis Unit to 18 stations (from
10) or construction of a new dialysis unit. We are now at capacity,
serving 33 patients 6 days a week. We have an additional 73-100 pre-
renal patients. If we cannot expand our services, these patients will
have to travel long distances for this life-sustaining care. The
reauthorization of the Indian Health Care Improvement Act now allows
the IHS to dedicate resources to dialysis, which is an important aspect
of healthcare in Indian communities. I request that the subcommittee
direct the IHS to report to the Congress on its efforts in the area of
diabetes treatment and dialysis.
Contract Health.--We recognize the significance of the requested
$169.3 million increase in Contract Health Care (CHC), but this
increase is inadequate to address the growing healthcare crisis in
Indian country. The Fort Peck Tribes alone need a near doubling of our
inadequate CHC 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 CHC services that their primary healthcare
professionals determine are medically necessary because we are at life
or limb stage treatment.
Currently, the IHS does not refer people with insurance out for
necessary medical care, because the IHS does not want to pay the
minimal co-pays or deductible for these services. Thus, people do not
get care until it reaches the critical ``life or limb'' stage of
necessity at which this point the IHS would still only have to pay the
minimal co-pay or deductible. It would seem that it would be a far
better health policy decision to pay the co-pay or deductible long
before the health situation has arisen to a life or limb crisis. Yet,
the IHS will not reconsider its interpretation of the payor-of-last-
resort policy to allow for these sound health policy decisions to be
made.
bia
The Fort Peck Reservation Rural Water System.--The health status of
a community is directly related to the quality of water available,
which is why the Fort Peck Tribes took the lead in building the Fort
Peck Reservation Rural Water System, a system that will provide quality
drinking water to the reservation and surrounding communities.
The Congress enacted the Fort Peck Reservation Rural Water System
Act of 2000, Public Law 106-382, to ensure a safe and adequate drinking
water supply to all of the residents of the Fort Peck Indian
Reservation. The law directs that funding for the operation and
maintenance of the water system is to be fully paid for by the BIA. The
tribes and the Bureau of Reclamation have completed construction of
many components of this $200 million project, including the raw water
intake facility, and will soon complete the water treatment facility.
This water treatment facility coming on-line this year is vital, as the
EPA has determined that the wells that now provide water to the city of
Poplar, the seat of tribal government, home to the BIA and IHS agency
and the location of the Poplar schools, is contaminated by a brine
plume.
While the BIA budget includes $200,000 for the Operation and
Maintenance (O&M) of this important project, more funding is needed.
The BIA is well aware that the O&M costs would rise as the water
treatment plant came on line and the project begins to deliver water to
most of the residents on the reservation. To date the Federal
Government has invested $100 million, to construct this vitally needed
project. We now need the Department of the Interior to provide adequate
operational funds to ensure that this $100 million investment does not
go to waste. Thus, an additional $800,000 is needed to fully operate
the Fort Peck Reservation Rural Water System.
Funding for Public Safety and Detention.--The need for increased
law enforcement and tribal courts remains a priority for the Fort Peck
Tribes. We greatly appreciate the increases the Congress has recently
provided for public safety programs. These increases, however, are
insufficient to fulfill the United States' basic trust responsibility
in the areas of health and safety. Our reservation needs more officers
and the resources they require to patrol a large land base. This must
be matched with additional resources for tribal courts. The Congress
should ensure that the $20 million proposed increase in law enforcement
funding for fiscal year 2012 translates into more officers on the Fort
Peck Reservation.
For the period April, 2009-April 2010, there were 17,353 calls for
service to the law enforcement agencies serving the Fort Peck
Reservation. These calls include driving under the influence (852),
aggravated assault (78), sexual assault (142), and domestic violence
(462). The Fort Peck Police Department has 14 officers. This is more
than 50 percent below what is considered necessary for adequate
coverage for a community the size of Fort Peck. This means that in most
instances when our officers respond to a call they are doing so alone.
This places our officers in grave danger, as these circumstances are
frequently scenes that involve violence, alcohol, or other substances.
Thus, while we appreciate the requested increase in funding, emphasis
must continue to be placed on ensuring that tribal law enforcement
programs have the resources that they need to keep our communities
safe.
I want to particularly support the $11.4 million requested to fund
the operations of the newly constructed detention facilities. The Fort
Peck Tribes received a $1 million grant from the Department of Justice
to rebuild our detention facilities. We have entered into a contract
with the BIA for the operation of this newly expanded facility and are
excited. We have broken ground and will be operational in fiscal year
2012. This new facility will allow us to better house and care for our
prisoners close to their families and the community support that they
need to become productive members of our society again.
contract support costs (csc)
The Fort Peck Tribes operate 14 programs through Indian Self-
Determination Act Contracts and grants with the BIA and the IHS. The
fundamental goal of the Indian Self-Determination Act is to empower
tribal governments to operate Federal programs to better meet the needs
of the people living on the reservation. After more than 30 years, it
is well documented that tribes have taken up the challenge and are
fulfilling the goals of the Indian Self-Determination and Assistance
Act. The act requires that tribes must have at least as much money as
the Federal Government had to operate these programs. Importantly, this
includes the administrative costs, which are called CSC. Currently,
however these costs are not fully funded. At Fort Peck alone we have a
$627,000 shortfall in contract support funding, which means we are
forced to use program funds to cover these necessary administrative
costs. While we are pleased that the Congress and the administration
have provided significant increases for CSC in the last 2 years, it is
important that this trend continue.
environment
Finally, I want to express the tribes' strong support for the
increased funding for tribal environmental programs. Specifically, I
urge the subcommittee to support the $71 million for the Tribal General
Assistance Program and the $20 million for a new initiative to fund
tribal multimedia programs to better implement environmental programs
on tribal lands. The Fort Peck Tribes were one of the first tribes in
the country to obtain Treatment as a State Status under the Clean Water
Act and one of the first to obtain Class I air designation for our
reservation. For the Fort Peck Tribes, protecting the land and
resources that our ancestors fought so hard to preserve for us is our
paramount mission. We work closely with our Federal and State partners
to accomplish this goal and appreciate the continuing support of the
Congress for these efforts.
Thank you for providing me the opportunity to present the views of
the Fort Peck Tribes.
______
Prepared Statement of the Appalachian Trail Conservancy
On behalf of the Appalachian Trail Conservancy (ATC), for reasons
described below, I am requesting a fiscal year 2012 appropriation from
the Land and Water Conservation Fund in the amounts of $1,750,000 for
the National Park Service (NPS) and $9,200,000 for the USDA Forest
Service (USFS) for the acquisition of lands and interests in lands
surrounding or bordering the Appalachian National Scenic Trail in the
States of Vermont, Tennessee (Cherokee NF), and North Carolina (Pisgah
NF). In addition, we are requesting appropriations under the Forest
Legacy program for the USFS totaling $8.73 million for two land-
conservation projects in the State of Maine.
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 Appalachian National
Scenic Trail 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 193,000 acres, more than
3,378 parcels, in 14 States. Today, only approximately 5 miles of the
2,181-mile AT remain to be protected through public ownership.
Resource Characteristics.--The AT is a 2,181-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 administered as a unit of the
National Park System, connects eight National Forests, six other units
of the National Park System, and approximately 60 State parks, forests,
and game-management units. With an estimated 2 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 with more than 2,200 documented occurrences of
federally and State-listed rare, threatened, or endangered species at
more than 500 discrete sites.
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 Appalachian Trail Conservancy
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 2010,
for example, 6,128 volunteers contributed more than 213,900 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. The ATC, through
its network of 31 club affiliates, is now responsible for virtually all
phases of ``park'' operations, ranging from trail and facility
maintenance and construction to lands and resources management to
visitor education and services. The 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
Appalachian National Scenic Trail protection program represents one of
the most successful land-acquisition programs in the history of the
conservation movement in the United States, that program is not yet
complete. Although our hope had been to complete the program by the
year 2000, escalating land values coupled with diminished
administrative capacity in the affected agencies have conspired to
delay full program completion. Nevertheless, a number of critical
parcels are now ``ripe'' for land acquisition from willing sellers and
we are seeking fiscal year 2012 LWCF appropriations to secure those
properties. A brief description of each of those critical parcels
follows.
Chateauguay-No Town Project, Vermont.--This project involves four
parcels, totaling 1,000 acres, in the towns of Barnard and Bridgewater,
Vermont, to be acquired in fee-simple and an additional 81.39-acre
parcel in Pomfret, Vermont, to be placed under a conservation easement.
Negotiations have been spearheaded for several years by The
Conservation Fund. 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. The fifth, easement parcel is situated on a
hillside adjacent to and above the trail in the Town of Pomfret that is
under threat of residential subdivision. A partial appropriation for
this project was included in the fiscal year 2010 Interior,
environment, and related agencies appropriations bill and, in March
2011, the NPS acquired a portion (631 acres) of the affected
properties. The ATC and The Conservation Fund are requesting second-
installment funding for this project in fiscal year 2012 of $1.75
million for the NPS.
Rocky Fork, Tennessee/Cherokee National Forest.--In mid-December,
2008, the USDA Forest Service 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. The Conservation Fund 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 Appalachian National Scenic
Trail and its acquisition will permit future construction of a 3-mile
relocation to provide a much-improved alignment for the footpath. Total
costs for the acquisition were approximately $43 million and the 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.
Substantial portions of the property already have been acquired from
previous year appropriations. ATC and The Conservation Fund are
requesting an fiscal year 2012 LWCF appropriation of $5 million for the
USFS as ``final installment'' funding to acquire the remaining
approximately 1,190 acres of the property.
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 above) 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 The
Conservation Fund. 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.
The ATC is requesting an fiscal year 2012 LWCF appropriation of
$450,000 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. The ATC is requesting a fiscal year 2012 LWCF appropriation
of $890,000 for the USFS to acquire the property at appraised value.
Ripshin Tract, Tennessee/Cherokee National Forest.--This 392-acre
property is situated below the cliff-top viewpoints from the AT on
Little Bald Knob, west of Ripshin Lake, in the Cherokee National
Forest. The property encompasses the headwaters of Roaring Creek and is
adjacent to the Moffett Laurel Botanical Area. It contains habitat and
breeding grounds for the bog turtle--a State threatened species as well
as six other State-listed plants and animals. The ATC is requesting an
fiscal year 2012 LWCF appropriation in the amount of $1,710,000 for the
USFS to acquire the property.
Roan Mountain National Trails Tract, North Carolina/Pisgah National
Forest.--Acquisition of this 136-acre property will protect the
viewshed of both the Appalachian Trail and the Overmountain Victory
National Historic Trail (OVNHT) near their intersection in the
Highlands of Roan. The property provides outstanding views of Yellow
Mountain Gap and the Roaring Creek valley, contains numerous
waterfalls, and supports nesting populations of both golden-winged
warblers and native brook trout. The property also likely provided a
campsite during the Revolutionary War when, in 1780, the Overmountain
Boys marched to Kings Mountain to confront and defeat the British army.
The ATC is requesting an fiscal year 2012 LWCF appropriation of $1.2
million for the USFS to acquire the property.
High Peaks Conservation Project, Forest Legacy, Maine.--ATC is
supporting a request from the State of Maine and the Trust for Public
Lands for funding through the fiscal year 2012 Forest Legacy program to
support the acquisition of interests in lands affecting 17,000 acres in
western (Franklin County) Maine in two separate projects-Crocker
Mountain and Orbeton Stream. The Crocker Mountain project includes
approximately 11,800 acres containing three of the highest peaks in the
State. The property also is home to Eastern brook trout, lynx, marten,
and snowshoe hare and contains 25 percent of the global population of
the State-listed endangered Roaring Brook mayfly. The property borders
a 10-mile section of the AT and also includes a 3-mile segment of Route
115--a prominent segment of the State's Interconnected (snowmobile)
Trail System (ITS) and 4 miles of State-sanctioned ATV trails. The
property also provides numerous opportunities for hunting, fishing,
hiking, and cross-country skiing as well as a productive timber stand
that the State's Bureau of Public Lands will manage on a sustainable
basis. The 5,800-acre Orbeton Stream property includes a productive
timber stand and a critical 6-mile link in the State's ITS snowmobile
system. It is in the foreground viewshed of the AT and it also has been
designated a high priority within the State's wildlife action plan. The
entire parcel also has been identified by NOAA as a critical habitat
for the federally listed Atlantic salmon. The ATC is requesting a total
fiscal year 2012 appropriation of $8.73 million ($7 million for Crocker
Mountain and $1.73 million for Orbeton Stream) through the Forest
Legacy program.
Thank you for the opportunity to submit this testimony and for your
consideration of our request.
______
Prepared Statement of the American Wild Horse Preservation Campaign
Thank you for the opportunity to submit testimony on the Department
of the Interior's Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Wild Horse and Burro
(WHB) Program. The American Wild Horse Preservation Campaign (AWHPC) is
dedicated to preserving the American wild horse in viable free-roaming
herds for generations to come, as part of our national heritage. Our
grassroots efforts are supported by a coalition of more than 40
historic preservation, conservation, horse advocacy, and animal welfare
organizations.
costs of the wild horse program are spiraling out of control
Between fiscal year 2000 and fiscal year 2009, appropriations
increased from $20.4 million to $40.6 million. In fiscal year 2010, the
BLM's authorized budget for this program increased by 58 percent to $64
million. At that time, the Senate Appropriations Committee warned that
the costs of gathering and holding wild horses and burros ``have risen
beyond sustainable levels.'' In fiscal year 2011, the BLM's budget
increased to $75.7 million.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Source.--Congressional Research Service report, May 2010; the BLM
2011 Budget Report.
For fiscal year 2012, the BLM is requesting another $12 million
increase for its WHB Program budget. As long as the Congress continues
to award the BLM's requested budget increases, the Bureau will not
substantively change the course of this broken Federal program.
the problem: removals exceed adoption demand
In 2000, the BLM's trend of removing large numbers of horses from
the range in excess of adoption demand began to accelerate. The trend
worsened as removals increased more than 2000 levels, yet adoption
demand declined.
The result: a steady increase in the number of mustangs stockpiled
in Government holding facilities.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Source.--Slide 19 of BLM Wild Horse and Burro Program Power Point
presentation.
For the first time in history, there are more wild horses (42,000+)
warehoused in taxpayer-funded pens and pastures than are left free on
the range (<33,000).
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
blm ``new'' strategy, same old approach
The majority of the BLM's budget continues to be consumed by
roundup, removal, and warehousing costs. Cost-effective on-the-range
management strategies, including fertility control, remain underfunded.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Source.--BLM fiscal year 2011 updated spending plan.
Under ``accelerated reform'' strategy:
--Mass removals continue. (38,200 to be removed from range over next
4 years.)
--Fertility control underutilized (2,000 per year too few to impact
reproductive rates); and
--Holding population increases to at least 52,000 by fiscal year
2014; burden to taxpayers grows.
Unless the Congress restricts funding for removals, the BLM will
continue to add to its self-created fiscal crisis by sending thousands
more mustangs annually to holding facilities.
The following chart highlights the BLM's continued focus on
removals vs. fertility control.
COMPARISON OF THE BLM'S PROPOSED STRATEGY AND THE CURRENT MANAGEMENT APPROACH
[Dollars in millions]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed strategy Current management approach
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Item Fiscal Fiscal Fiscal Fiscal Fiscal Fiscal Fiscal Fiscal
year year year year year year year year
2011 2012 2013 2014 2011 2012 2013 2014
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Funding needs........................... $75.6 $75.9 $75.6 $75.4 $75.7 $81.8 $89.4 $94.6
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total no. removed....................... 10,000 7,600 per year 10,000 10,500 10,500 7,700
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fertility control (treat no.)........... 2,000 per year 850 2,000 2,250 2,500
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No. adopted............................. 3,715 4,200 per year 3,715 3,500 per year
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total no. in holding.................... 43,999 46,786 49,323 51,753 44,581 50,968 57,102 60,330
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No. on the range (projected)............ 35,472 33,979 33,175 32,210 35,472 32,279 28,235 25,882
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AML (West-wide)......................... 26,600
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source.--Details of the BLM's Proposed Strategy for Future Management of America's Wild Horses and Burros, p.
16.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Given the lack of crisis on the range and the real crisis to
taxpayers, the Congress should suspend funds for all removals pending
the outcome of the BLM-requested National Academy of Sciences review of
the program, scheduled to begin this year and to be completed by 2014.
fertility control saves tax dollars
In 1982, the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) called on the BLM
to use immunocontraception to manage WHB populations, finding it an
effective part of a pro-active management strategy. In the 1990
Government Accountability Office's (GAO) report on the BLM wild horse
management program found that keeping excess animals in long-term
holding was costly and recommended that the BLM examine alternatives,
such as treating animals with reproductive controls and releasing them
back on the range.
The BLM failed to address reproduction on the range with fertility
control, resulting in the current unsustainable situation. The BLM now
claims that utilizing fertility control on more than 2,000 horses per
year is not cost-effective because they have to roundup the entire
herd. However, the BLM's claims are contradicted by the economic model
developed by an independent economist commissioned by the Humane
Society of the United States (HSUS). That model demonstrates
significant short- and long-term cost savings to the BLM through
implementation of fertility control utilizing the PZP
immunocontraception vaccine.
Common sense tells us that the BLM's claims are not based in
reality:
--Every female vaccinated with fertility control will prevent two
horses from being sent to holding given the BLM's estimate of a
50/50 male/female ratio mustangs on the range. (Applying PZP to
mares allows stallions to remain on the range as well.)
--Treating mustangs with fertility control and releasing them back to
the range eliminates all the backend costs of removal and
warehousing:
--$1,500 per horse for short-term holding (based on average 10-
month stay, according to the GAO); or
--$463 per horse per year for long-term holding; and
--Lifespan of horses in holding 20-30 years; and
--Any increased costs associated with rounding up ``the entire herd''
for application of fertility control, are easily offset by the
enormous short-term holding costs.
The Congress must mandate that no less than 20 percent of the BLM
WHB budget be used for fertility control application to wild horses on
the range.
accountability through appropriations
The Congress must ensure that the BLM is accountable for the
expenditure of tax dollars and address the ever-increasing public
interest in the Bureau's WHB Program. The safeguards listed below will
not hinder the program and will only increase its accountability to the
American taxpayer:
--Contracts with private companies for roundup services must be
amended to eliminate the per-animal compensation scheme. The
current contracts with independent companies for roundup
services are inherently flawed. The per-head payment for
captured horses provides incentive for contractors to roundup
as many horses as fast as possible instead of placing priority
on humane gather techniques.
--The BLM's 2012 appropriations request to amend its contracting
authority and extend the maximum length of multi-year contracts
to 10 years should be rejected. The current maximum 5-year
contract period allows the Bureau more flexibility to adjust
the program based on current need.
--Transparency improvements should be mandated:
--Live-streaming cameras with global positioning system (GPS) on
all helicopters, trap sites, and areas where horses are
being processed.
--All short- and long-term holding facilities open to the public in
order to provide opportunity for meaningful observation and
oversight.
recommendations for appropriations committee: recap
Suspend funding for all removals pending outcome of the NAS review
of the WHB Program. At minimum, the Congress should prohibit funding
for removals in excess of adoption demand.
Mandate that no less than 20 percent of the BLM WHB budget be used
for fertility control application to wild horses on the range.
Require that contracts with private companies for roundup services
be amended to eliminate the per-animal compensation scheme.
Deny the BLM request to extend maximum length of multi-year
contracts to 10 years.
Require and authorize funding for transparency measures including:
--Live-streaming cameras with GPS on all helicopters, trap sites, and
processing areas; and
--Meaningful public access to all short- and long-term holding
facilities.
Thank you for your consideration of these requests.
______
Prepared Statement of the Animal Welfare Institute
The Animal Welfare Institute (AWI) thanks you for your
consideration of this testimony, and respectfully requests that the
Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on the Interior, Environment, and
Related Agencies appropriate a total of $84.5 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 (OLE),
$26.2 million for special agents, $3.1 million for ports of entry, and
$5 million for the Clark R. Bavin National Fish and Wildlife Forensics
Laboratory, and $5.2 million to explore the potentially devastating
effects of White Nose Syndrome (WNS) on bats. Other funds for the WNS
are also requested. The administration's fiscal year 2012 proposed
budget falls far short of providing the agencies within the Department
of the Interior sufficient funding to protect, preserve, recover, and
manage America's wildlife, including threatened and endangered species,
as required by law and by their public trust obligations. The AWI also
asks the Congress to maintain language preserving and protecting wild
horses and wildlife.
Office of Law Enforcement (OLE).--The administration's fiscal year
2012 budget proposes a decrease in funding to one of the most important
lines of defense for America's wildlife, the FWS OLE. Even those who
may not concern themselves with wildlife are reaping benefits as the
OLE protects against smuggling illegal substances from invasive species
to contraband and even helps to thwart potentially devastating human
health threats. Still, each year, the OLE is increasingly underfunded
and understaffed, placing the public at greater danger unnecessarily.
The AWI requests an additional $45 million be allocated to the FWS to
increase and expand the activities of the OLE in its critical role
combating wildlife crime. Currently, the OLE is tasked with enforcing
and implementing more than a dozen Federal wildlife and conservation
laws that frequently impact both domestic and global security.
It is disheartening that the new budget proposals have chosen to
decrease funding to such an imperative office and its programs in the
wake of success. Year after year, the OLE protects the public against
the illegal trade in wildlife and wildlife products, which 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 Congress
must act rapidly to make available those funds that are crucial to the
OLE and to public safety.
FWS Special Agents.--Staff tasked with enforcement of U.S. wildlife
laws risk their lives in an effort to protect our Nation's wildlife. In
fiscal year 2010, the FWS agents pursued more than 13,490
investigations resulting in more than $3.4 million in fines, 76.7 years
of jail time for the perpetrators, and 299.6 years of probation.\1\ The
FWS cases documented illegal trafficking in U.S. leopard sharks, coral
reef organisms, live reptiles, and paddlefish. On the global front, the
FWS agents, together with the Royal Thai Police, broke up an illegal
ivory trading ring, spanning three continents. The case, to date, has
secured the U.S. indictment of two individuals and four criminal
arrests in Thailand, as well as seizures of elephant tusks and carved
ivory in both countries. This case produced 23-plus indictments and had
the potential of prison terms for both defendants totaling 78 years.
This impressive record merits advancement and proper funding. The FWS
Special Agents have proven time and time again their work deserves
funding levels beyond the administration's fiscal year 2012 budget
proposal, to aid in the reduction of illegal trade in wildlife and
wildlife products, which continues to imperil wildlife species in the
United States and around the world.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Law Enforcement at a Glance. Office of Law Enforcement. U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service. February 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Currently, there are only 202 FWS agents responsible for the
enforcement of Federal wildlife laws throughout the entire United
States. This number is only 7 more than in fiscal year 2010, which was
6 fewer than existed in fiscal year 2009. There are 52 agent vacancies.
The AWI respectfully requests an additional $14.2 million to fill these
52 agent vacancies and an additional $12 million to ensure sufficient
operational funds for existing agents and for those hired in the
future.
Port Inspectors.--Keeping our ports and boarders secure remains
America's single best opportunity to prevent potential attacks. Whether
intercepting bioterrorism agents or uncovering security threats, the
FWS Port Security, along with the U.S. Coast Guard, Department of
Homeland Security, and other agencies involved, holds the daunting task
of keeping our Nation safe. The noble individuals employed by these
agencies are charged with precluding a wide variety of potentially
disastrous threats, including: minimizing illegal contraband shipments,
often transported in body cavities of vicious species; uncovering
smuggled goods and illegal trade rings at the border, which include
products of severely endangered species; and thwarting national and
global health risks by shielding the American public from the disease
and safety risks associated with importing non-native species (e.g.,
avian flu, and foot and mouth disease).
The current lack of sufficient operational funds for the FWS port
inspection program weakens the FWS efforts to promote the conservation
of species of international concern, to protect all natural resources,
and to sustain biological processes. Recently, the FWS port agents,
together with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,
Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and U.S. Customs and Border
Protection, uncovered shipments originating from the Virgin Islands
containing protected black coral (Convention for International Trade in
Endangered Species (CITES Appendix II)). Black coral when removed,
threatens the marine ecosystem and damages the habitats of several
species. This case resulted in the arrest and conviction of two
Taiwanese nationals on nine counts of conspiracy, including conspiracy,
false statements, and violations of both the Endangered Species Act and
the Lacey Act. It is critical that these programs remain fully funded
to protect domestic and international wildlife, and to ensure our
Nation's safety through hiring and training staff at each designated
U.S. ports of entry. The AWI requests an additional $3.1 million for
the ports of entry.
The Clark R. Bavin National Fish and Wildlife Forensics
Laboratory.--The successful outcomes stated previously would not have
been possible without the essential work of the FWS forensic
laboratory, used by the FWS agents and inspectors to gather hard
evidence in wildlife crime cases. The lab uses state-of-the-art
science, along with years of institutional knowledge, to identify
wildlife products by species, determine the 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. In 2009, the lab and its
personnel cleared a nearly 7-month computer case backlog but remain
challenged in tackling the 1- to 5-month hard case backlog. The Bavin
Laboratory desperately needs to hire and train staff to alleviate some
of the backlog, which has delayed investigations and potential
prosecutions by the FWS investigators, inspectors, and Federal
prosecutors.
All 50 States and the 175 CITES member countries depend on this
facility to prosecute their wildlife crimes; however, this partnership
is jeopardized by the lab's inability to churn out timely results. To
reduce both staffing shortages and existing analytical workload and
backlog, $5 million is requested for the lab, including $1 million to
fill the eight essential vacancies. A timely hire is crucial to train
second-generation forensic morphologists prior to the departure of
current staff. Such funds would also allow for the construction of a
new building to house the lab's comparison standards collection ($3.5
million).
Wild Free-roaming Horses and Burros Act.--The wild horse is as much
a symbol of American heritage as the image of Uncle Sam and baseball.
Currently, America's wild horses are subject to mistreatment by the
Bureau of Land Management (BLM), which misuses most of its budget to
round up and warehouse wild horses and burros without credible evidence
supporting the need for such removals. Furthermore, the BLM has failed
to consider wild horses and burros ``comparably'' with domestic
livestock as required by law when making management decisions
reflecting a bias within the BLM in favor of privately owned cattle.
Wild horses have been removed from more than 20 million of the 52
million acres allocated to them by the Congress. Since 2004, wild
horses have been at risk of being sold to killer-buyers who make a
profit by sending horses to slaughter for human consumption. Forty
years ago this year, the Congress acted on behalf of these wild animals
to protect their natural habitat and lifestyle. It is now time for the
Congress to act again to ensure these animals are neither sent into
long-term holding facilities nor sentenced to slaughter. The AWI
requests that
--``no-kill'' language be maintained to ensure the BLM does not kill
healthy wild horses and burros; and
--the Congress not provide any increase to the BLM budget and defund
all but emergency round ups until a comprehensive review of the
wild horse program is completed by the National Academy of
Science.
White Nose Syndrome (WNS) in Bats.--Since the discovery of WNS in
bats in a cave in Albany, New York, in 2006, more than 1 million
hibernating bats throughout the Eastern United States have died--with
some hibernacula (caves and mines where bats hibernate) experiencing
95-100 percent mortality--and the disease has been moving quickly
across the country. With its spread to Ohio, Indiana, Kentucky, and
North Carolina just this year, WNS or the fungus believed to cause it,
Geomyces destructans, has been documented in 18 States and 4 Canadian
provinces, and is appearing at new sites in States previously hit.
Twenty-five of the 46 bat species in the United States hibernate, and
scientists believe that because the WNS has so far affected every
hibernating bat species in its path, any such bat species is at risk.
Thus, States not yet affected are bracing for its arrival.
The WNS induces hibernating bats to wake more often, thus using up
fat reserves needed to survive the winter. They go out in search of
insect food sources that are not yet available, and freeze or starve to
death. It also appears the fungus may disrupt critical physiological
and chemical processes in the animals.
This die-off is unprecedented animal welfare and an environmental
and economic disaster. Bats play a crucial role in the ecosystem,
including pollinating crops and consuming insects that pose a threat to
human health and agriculture. The million-plus bats already lost could
have consumed nearly 700 tons of insects each year. The loss of bats as
natural crop pest predators will necessitate more pesticide use, at
greater cost to farmers, consumers, and the environment. A recent study
estimates agricultural losses at between $3.7 billion and $53
billion.\2\ A May 2009 consensus statement issued by a group of
scientists and wildlife managers working on this problem calls WNS
``the most precipitous decline of North American wildlife in recorded
history.'' They fear it could wipe out some endangered bat species and
cause others to be listed, a development that could have serious
economic consequences for such industries as mining, energy
development, and tourism.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ http://www.sciencemag.org/content/332/6025/41.full.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal agencies are playing a central role in WNS response. As
noted in the Green Budget, the FWS is the lead agency, providing funds
to State wildlife agencies to assist with their WNS response and
coordinating the nationwide effort to combat the disease. The FWS co-
chairs an interagency committee whose task is to ``provide oversight
across participating State and Federal agencies and tribal governments
to ensure consistency and coordination in management action, policy
interpretation, communication, and collection of scientific information
related to the WNS.'' Just this month it released its WNS National
Plan. The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), among other things, conducts
research vital to understanding this previously unknown disease. For
example, two scientists at USGS's National Wildlife Health Center
recently published a breakthrough paper on the WNS, finding that
``damage to bat wings from the fungus . . . may cause catastrophic
imbalance in life-support processes. . . . Physiological problems
caused by the novel fungus may, in fact, represent a completely new
disease paradigm for mammals . . .'' (USGS press release 12/15/10). The
National Park Service (NPS), BLM, U.S. Forest Service (USFS), and
Department of Defense (DOD) are monitoring and surveying bat
populations on their lands, managing and closing caves, implementing
decontamination measures with visitors, improving bat habitat, and
educating the public about WNS, among other activities.
We recognize this is a difficult budget year. However, the urgency
of the need to get this disease under control and avert an even bigger
ecological and financial catastrophe later cannot be overstated. We
respectfully ask the Congress to provide the following funding: FWS--
$5.2 million; USGS--$2.4 million; DOD--$300,000; NPS--$200,000; USFS--
$2 million; and BLM--$1 million, which should be redirected from the
BLM's wild horse round-ups.
NPS Lethal Management of Native Wildlife.--In the past 5 years, the
NPS has significantly expanded its lethal control of native ungulates
in contravention of its own legal mandates. During this time, the NPS
has initiated lethal control of ungulates in a number of national parks
(e.g., Valley Forge, Catoctin) and is considering similar efforts in
other parks (e.g., Indiana Dunes, Rock Creek). In each case, the NPS
has misapplied its own statutes and policies and has failed to provide
any credible site-specific data to justify its heavy-handed strategies.
Though even the NPS concedes that ungulates are keystone herbivores, it
is unwilling to allow ungulates to naturally influence ecosystem
structure and function as its own statutes and policies require.
Therefore, the AWI requests that the following language, which, if
accepted, would save taxpayer dollars, into the Senate Interior,
environment, and related agencies appropriations bill:
``No funds appropriated under this legislation shall be expended by
the National Park Service to lethally control or kill native ungulates
nor shall the National Park Service permit any entity, public or
private, to kill said ungulates in Valley Forge National Historical
Park in Pennsylvania and Catoctin Mountain Park in Maryland.''
______
Prepared Statement of Bat Conservation International
Chairman Reed, Ranking Member Murkowski, and members of the
subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to submit testimony. The
Bat Conservation International (BCI) is a nonprofit organization that
conducts and supports science-based research, education, and
conservation to ensure that bats will still be helping to maintain
healthy environments and human economies far into the future. We are
based in Austin, Texas, with a membership of more than 10,000 from all
50 of the United States. We respectfully request $11.1 million from the
Congress in fiscal year 2012 to address White-nose Syndrome (WNS), a
disease decimating North American bats. Numerous Federal agencies
(most, but not all, in the Department of the Interior) are involved in
WNS response:
--the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS);
--the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS);
--the National Park Service (NPS);
--the Bureau of Land Management (BLM);
--the U.S. Forest Service (USFS); and
--the Department of Defense (DOD).
The WNS poses the gravest threat ever faced by U.S. bats. Since its
discovery in 2006, the disease has killed well more than 1 million
bats. It is named for the previously unknown, cold-loving white fungus
found on faces and wings of infected bats that is believed to cause the
disease. The WNS-infected bats awaken frequently during hibernation,
burning the fat reserves they need to survive the winter. They often
emerge early from hibernation, before the return of warm weather and
insects, only to freeze or starve to death. The disease or its
associated fungus has spread to 18 States and four Canadian provinces
in the 5 years since the WNS was first observed in a cave near Albany,
New York. The Northeast has borne the brunt of the WNS so far, but the
disease or its fungus has spread as far south as North Carolina and
Tennessee, and as far west as Oklahoma.
Biologists consider the WNS die-off to be North America's most
precipitous wildlife decline in the past century. The disease strikes
hibernating bats--those that sleep through the winter in caves and
mines--and has affected every hibernating bat species in its geographic
path. Of the Nation's 47 bat species, 25 hibernate, and all of these
hibernating species are considered at risk of the disease. The WNS or
the fungus currently affects nine species, including endangered Indiana
and gray bats, which could well be even closer to extinction as a
result. Some WNS-infected sites experience mortality rates of almost
100 percent. Losses are so severe that researchers are predicting
regional extinctions of the little brown bat--previously one of
America's most common mammals--in northeastern States within 16 years.
Bats provide many benefits to humankind. As primary predators of
night-flying insects, bats are critical to maintaining the balance of
nature. A bat can eat half to all of its body weight in insects per
night, consuming pests that damage crops such as corn, cotton,
soybeans, and potatoes. A recent article in the journal Science
estimates the value of bats to U.S. agriculture ranges from $3.7
billion to $53 billion per year. Bats also eat insects that damage
forests and spread disease. Some bat species pollinate crops and
disperse seeds. Research of bat biology has yielded important chemical
products, including a medication to prevent strokes. Bat droppings in
caves support unique ecosystems, including microorganisms that could
provide resources for detoxifying industrial wastes and producing
pesticides and antibiotics.
The loss of bats would have serious ecological and economic
consequences. The 1 million-plus bats killed by the WNS would have
eaten about 700 tons of insects each year. With the bats gone, these
insects are surviving to attack crops and forests. The authors of the
``Science'' article argue that, as a result of the WNS, North American
agriculture will begin noting economic losses within 4 to 5 years, with
especially severe impacts to the Midwest and Great Plains regions. In
addition to crop losses, farmers will need to use more pesticides,
increasing the financial strain on farming families, raising the price
of food for consumers, and releasing more chemicals into our
environment. Bats are important predators, so their disappearance could
have broad, ripple effects on the environment that we cannot yet
assess.
The population declines from the WNS could well lead to listing
more bat species under the Federal Endangered Species Act, as well as
State-level statutes, which would cause far-ranging economic costs. The
Center for Biological Diversity has petitioned the FWS for listing of
the northern long-eared bat and eastern small-footed bat because of the
WNS and other factors, while BCI and other organizations have requested
the FWS to review the status of the little brown bat and to file an
emergency listing of the species in the interim. At the State level,
Ohio has designated four bat species as species of concern; Wisconsin
is in the process of listing three bat species as threatened; and other
States, including New York and New Hampshire, are considering
designations. According to the Government Accountability Office (GAO-
06-463R), the average cost for recovery of an endangered species is
$15.9 million. The highest estimate on record is $125 million to
recover the whooping crane. Bat species affected by the WNS have broad
geographic distributions and complex ecological patterns, which would
likely require very high recovery costs. Finally, regulations stemming
from listing more bat species would have economic impacts on industries
such as mining, defense, energy, forestry, construction,
transportation, tourism, and outdoor recreation.
The Federal Government recognizes how much is at stake from the WNS
and, in conjunction with State, local, and tribal agencies, academic
institutions, and nonprofits, has mounted an admirable response to the
disease. WNS and its associated fungus were unknown to science until
discovered in New York, but since then, Federal dollars have enabled
researchers at the USGS and elsewhere to isolate, identify, and develop
a test for the WNS fungus, to map its genome, and answer some basic
questions about the nature, transmission, and diagnosis of the disease.
FWS, the lead agency for the WNS response, coordinates government and
other entities in order to maximize efficient use of resources, prevent
redundancy, and facilitate an effective national response. In this
role, FWS has funded scientific research and on-the-ground disease
surveillance and management, developed recommendations to help prevent
disease spread, and created the National Plan for Assisting States,
Federal agencies, and tribes in Managing White Nose Syndrome in Bats in
collaboration with all involved Federal agencies, as well as State and
other entities. Land-management agencies have been at the forefront in
developing disease-monitoring techniques, gathering bat-survey data,
managing resources to increase bat survival, and producing materials to
educate the public about the WNS. NPS's Mammoth Cave National Park has
developed a site-based response plan that is being used as a model for
public lands throughout the country; USFS is testing ways to improve
bat habitat to boost postdisease survival rates; and DOD is refining
acoustical bat-monitoring methods. All of these agencies provide
technical support to, and collaborate and pool resources with, State,
local, and tribal agencies as well as academic institutions and
nonprofits.
Despite this progress, the need for the WNS-response funding
continues and, in fact, is increasing. As the disease spreads, the
number of entities involved and the scale of the response grows. While
scientists have learned much about the disease, they cannot yet stop
its spread. Critical research topics aimed at finding solutions include
the susceptibility of different bat species to the WNS, possible
biological-control agents, and the disease-producing interface of the
fungus, bats, and the cave environment. In fiscal year 2010, the FWS
awarded $1.6 million for the WNS research through a granting process
for which the agency received $10.5 million in proposals. On-the-ground
monitoring and management is required in both previously and newly
infected areas. Overall coordination and communication is needed to
ensure efficiency and the sharing of information and resources. The
westward spread of the WNS is sharply increasing the need for a Federal
response. Western States have a higher proportion of public land than
those in the East. Beyond that, much less is known about western bat
populations than eastern ones, and the rugged western terrain makes
data-gathering more difficult. To this point, fiscal year 2012 is the
first year for which the BLM anticipates significant WNS expenses, many
of which will go toward surveying approximately 400 western caves and
abandoned mines for baseline data on bats.
Concluding from analysis of past WNS spending and disease-spread
trends, we urge the subcommittee to ensure that Federal agencies
engaged in the WNS response receive $11.1 million to address the WNS in
fiscal year 2012. The cross-agency need is broken down as follows:
FISCAL YEAR 2012 WNS NEEDS
[Dollars in thousands]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FWS............................................ 5,200
USGS........................................... 2,400
NPS............................................ 200
BLM............................................ 1,000
USFS........................................... 2,000
DOD............................................ 300
------------------------
Total.................................... 11,100
------------------------------------------------------------------------
One can compare this to the WNS spending from fiscal years 2007-
2010 (we do not have reliable expenditure figures for fiscal year
2011):
ESTIMATED EXPENDITURES ON WHITE-NOSE SYNDROME
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FWS USGS NPS USFS DOD Amount
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2010........................ $3,690,000 $345,500 $207,000 $1,815,000 $206,300 $6,263,800
Fiscal year 2009........................ 1,790,000 334,000 162,500 890,000 5,000 3,181,500
Fiscal year 2007-2008................... 3,200,000 575,000 162,500 N/A N/A 3,937,500
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Total............................. 8,680,000 1,254,500 532,000 2,705,000 211,300 13,382,800
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: BLM did not report the WNS expenditures in past years.
The increase for fiscal year 2012 more than fiscal year 2010
expenses is $4,836,200, or 77 percent. We believe this ask is
conservative and in fact will barely keep pace with the disease's
spread. From 2007-2010, the disease moved from one State to 14, and
from five sites to at least 157. From 2009-2010 alone, the number of
affected States increased by 56 percent, and the number of infected
sites by 78 percent. Overall, the number of affected States and sites
increased by 50-100+ percent each year. Already this year, the WNS has
been confirmed in three new States, and confirmed or suspected in 15
new counties. A 77 percent increase in the WNS spending from fiscal
year 2010-2012 is therefore clearly proportionate to the disease's
expected expansion by the start of fiscal year 2012.
Congressional support is critical for addressing the WNS. Other
funding sources are extremely limited. State budgets have been
drastically reduced and, especially given the spread of the disease,
Federal agencies' existing resources are not sufficient to meet the
need. According to the President's fiscal year 2012 budget, there is
WNS funding in the FWS's Preventing Extinction Initiative and in the
USGS's Ecosystems Program. The budget does not specify the amount of
money in these accounts. We are grateful for these funds, and we urge
the Congress to supplement them such that the cross-agency total
designated for the WNS in fiscal year 2012 is $11.1 million.
The Congress is facing a difficult financial climate, so we
underscore the fact that money spent on the WNS is a wise investment.
First, preventing the spread of the WNS will spare businesses the
regulatory and other impacts of bat die-offs. In 2008 and 2009, the
threat of the WNS caused officials to cancel the yearly Crawlathon
caving event in and around Carter Caves State Resort Park in eastern
Kentucky. Normally held during the off-tourist season in a rural area
with limited economic opportunities, the event's cancellation cost the
park and local businesses revenue losses each year. After the WNS
fungus was reported in Missouri in early 2010, officials decided to
close the caves at Iowa's Maquoketa Caves State Park in order to
protect the caves' bats. Park attendance, which in previous years had
averaged around 250,000 visitors per year, dropped in 2010 to
approximately 60,000. The loss in park revenues has hurt the Iowa
Department of Natural Resources, which had already been suffering from
the national economic downturn. Show caves--small businesses that
provide jobs and contribute to local economies--could also be hurt by
the WNS. States with many show caves include Missouri, Pennsylvania,
Tennessee, and South Dakota. In addition, implementing the WNS response
generates jobs. USFS management of forests for bat conservation
includes thinning stands of trees. USFS contracts with local businesses
to harvest, haul, and process the trees for timber. Finally, conducting
the WNS research, management, and prevention now will reduce future
expenses to the U.S. economy resulting from pest impacts to agriculture
and forestry, businesses affected by additional bat listings, and the
cost of listed-species recovery. In this case, an ounce of prevention
truly is worth a pound of cure.
Unless additional funding is provided in fiscal year 2012, the WNS
will continue to spread across the country unchecked, killing even more
bats than have already died. The consequent ecological and economic
impacts will affect all of us as consumers, taxpayers, and residents of
a planet further impoverished of biological diversity. We desperately
need designated support for the WNS response. BCI urges the Congress to
ensure the FWS, USGS, NPS, BLM, USFS, and DOD receive a total of $11.1
million for the WNS in fiscal year 2012.
Thank you again for the opportunity to share BCI's position on this
serious matter, and we respectfully ask you to consider our urgent
request.
______
Prepared Statement of the Botanical Society of America
Federal and State publicly held lands make invaluable contributions
to our national and individual welfare--flood prevention, soil
formation, recreational opportunities, water purification, climate
modulation, and many others. All of these contributions depend on
healthy communities of native plants. The Botanical Society of America
feels strongly that funding for programs focused on research,
education, and management of rare plants and native plant communities
is insufficient to meet national needs. Adequate funding for programs
focused on research, education, and management of plants not only
ensures that our ecosystems remain healthy and that local communities
whose livelihoods depend on public lands continue to thrive, but also
provides good jobs and supports economic development.
Meeting the grand challenges of economic development, climate
change, and environmental protection require continuing investments in
scientific research and scientifically based management of public
lands.
department of the interior
Bureau of Land Management (BLM).--BLM manages land that is home to
more than 1,300 imperiled species, and its Plant Conservation Program
plays a vital role in conserving our Nation's plant biodiversity. Its
Native Plant Materials Development Program is a unique, interagency
program devoted to expanding the variety and quantity of native plant
materials available for land restoration and rehabilitation, and its
programs on invasive species eradication and native plant restoration
are valuable components of a comprehensive national conservation
strategy. We recommend that the subcommittee include language in its
report expressing its strong support for these programs. Recommended
report language:
``The Committee strongly supports the Bureau's existing plant
conservation and native plant materials program activities and the
Committee expects the Bureau to continue to support a robust program
through resources provided under land management, renewable energy, and
the landscape conservation initiative.''
Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS).--Since it was enacted in the Nixon
administration, the Endangered Species Act has been the primary Federal
mechanism used to prevent the extinction of species in the United
States. Only 9 of the 1,900 plant and animals species currently
protected by the act have gone extinct. FWS, along with the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, is responsible for
administration of the act, but it has faced severe and chronic funding
shortfalls, leading to recent court challenges to its listing
procedures. We recommend that the committee return funding for the
Endangered Species program of the FWS to fiscal year 2010 levels (ca.
$180 million).
U.S. Geological Survey.--Until 2010, the core scientific expertise
regarding fish, wildlife, and plants within the Department of the
Interior was found in the Biological Resources Division of the Survey
(BRD). As part of a new, integrated, multidisciplinary re-alignment
within the survey, most BRD activities are now found within the new
ecosystems activity, but several are found under other
multidisciplinary budget activities. Demands on BRD scientists
increased dramatically over the last decade while the number of
Research Grade Scientists declined. We are especially concerned that
the number of plant scientists may be inadequate to meet the national
need. We recommend that the subcommittee include language in its report
expressing its strong support for biological research at USGS and
emphasize that expertise in plant science may be especially critical.
Recommended report language:
``The Committee strongly supports the survey's existing scientific
activities and expects the survey to continue to support a robust
program of biological research and to ensure adequate representation of
expertise in both plant and animal science through resources provided
under its Ecosystems activity and other appropriate budget
activities.''
department of agriculture
Forest Service (USFS).--USFS is responsible for managing more than
230 million acres of forestlands in the United States. Proper
management of that land requires that trained scientists inventory the
plants and animals found on that land and monitor changes in their
distribution and abundance. Without such information, forest managers
can neither make well-informed plans nor determine whether their plans
are working, thus wasting taxpayer dollars. To avoid such waste and to
sustain wildlife and water resources in our national forests and
grasslands, it is important that the Inventory and Monitoring program
provide robust support to the Watershed, Fish, Wildlife, Air, and Rare
Plants program for the purposes of assessing and monitoring the
condition of fish and wildlife populations and their habitats, yet the
fiscal year 2010 allocation to this program was $3.7 million less than
in fiscal year 2003, or more than $30 million less when adjusted for
inflation. In addition, nearly 3,700 imperiled species are found on
USFS lands, and the lands themselves encompass an astonishing array of
habitats--from arctic tundra to tropical rainforest, from deciduous and
evergreen forests to grasslands, lakes, and rivers. Nonetheless,
funding for the Wildlife and Fisheries Habitat Management program has
declined over the last decade. We recommend that the subcommittee
increase funding for the Watershed, Fish, Wildlife, Air, and Rare
Plants program and the Wildlife and Fisheries Habitat Management
program from fiscal year 2010 levels, eventually restoring them to the
equivalent of fiscal year 2003 levels or higher.
______
Prepared Statement of the Cooperative Alliance for Refuge Enhancement
Chairman Reed, Ranking Member Murkowski, and members of the
subcommittee: Thank you for the opportunity to offer comments on the
fiscal year 2012 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 NWRS 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, and forests. We respectfully request a funding level of $511
million for the operations and maintenance accounts of the NWRS for
fiscal year 2012.
This testimony is submitted on behalf of CARE's 21 member
organizations, which represent approximately 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 Wilderness Society
The Wildlife Society
Trout Unlimited
U.S. Sportsmen's Alliance
Wildlife Forever
Wildlife Management Institute
Although CARE strives to make steady progress toward funding the
NWRS at $900 million annually, a budget that more accurately reflects
demands on the ground, our request of $511 million for fiscal year 2012
essentially maintains the NWRS at a flat funding level from fiscal year
2010. The final fiscal year 2011 appropriation, an $11 million cut, is
essentially a $19 million decrease when factoring in the costs
associated with keeping fuel in the trucks, paying for rising utilities
and building rent, and covering other fixed costs. The NWRS generally
requires an annual increase of at least $15 million to offset these
rising costs, but with the current salary freeze for Federal employees,
this number is approximately $8 million.
An appropriation of $511 million in fiscal year 2012 would
stabilize the workforce by keeping workforce downsizing plans securely
on the shelf, thereby reducing pressure on the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (FWS) to cut refuge staff below already insufficient levels. It
would enable the FWS staff to continue making progress toward
protecting and restoring America's wildlife and habitat, and providing
a positive experience for approximately 45 million annual visitors who
use refuges for hunting, fishing, watching wildlife, and educational
programs.
This funding would also allow the NWRS to continue its recently
initiated inventory and monitoring program. The need for this program
was made clear by the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, which forced the FWS
staff to hastily survey gulf coast refuges in order to measure and
recoup the cost of damaged resources owed to American taxpayers.
Without adequate baseline data, most refuges are ill-prepared to assess
or respond to such impacts, and a standardized inventory and monitoring
program is needed to fill these widespread information gaps across the
United States. Continuing the NWRS recently initiated inventory and
monitoring program will require at least $20 million annually.
Many years of inadequate budgets have left the NWRS's operations
and maintenance backlog at more than $3.3 billion. While budget
increases in fiscal year 2008 through fiscal year 2010 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.
Today, more than 35 percent of America's wildlife refuges have no
on-site staff, leaving no one there to unlock gates, teach
schoolchildren, administer hunting programs, or carry out restoration
projects. Refuges with only one or two staff lack the capacity to
partner with interested stakeholders, and opportunities for volunteer
involvement and leveraging of additional dollars are lost. Non-native,
invasive plants have infested approximately 2.5 million acres (only 13
percent of this acreage was treated in 2010). Further, a crippling
shortage of law enforcement officers has left refuges sorely
underprotected from illegal activities such as drug production and
trafficking, wildlife poaching, illegal border activity, assaults, and
many types of natural resource violations. Currently, only 213 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.
National wildlife refuges are critically important on local and
regional scales. Visitors in 2006 generated approximately $1.7 billion
in sales to local economies, creating nearly 27,000 U.S. jobs and $543
million in employment income, and adding more than $185 million in tax
revenue. Refuges also provide important environmental and health
benefits, such as filtering storm water before it runs downstream to
municipal water supplies and, in many areas, reducing flooding by
capturing excess rainwater and attenuating coastal storm surges. While
these benefits are undeniably significant, the NWRS's potential remains
largely untapped and unquantified.
Funding increases in fiscal year 2008 through fiscal year 2010
allowed for meaningful progress toward properly patrolling and
enforcing laws on 150 million acres, maintaining recreation and
education programs for the public, sustaining high-quality water,
completing habitat restoration projects, and more. Cutting operations
and maintenance funding back to fiscal year 2008 levels would result in
the elimination of several hundred staff positions and loss of
important wildlife management, education, and hunting and fishing
programs. The way to keep from reversing recent progress is to fund the
NWRS at $511 million in fiscal year 2012.
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 2012 Interior, environment, and related agencies
appropriations bill, and we further urge the subcommittee to read our
2011 report, ``Restoring America's Wildlife Refuges: Assets for All
Americans'', where we have much more detailed information.
______
Prepared Statement of the Citizens Committee to Complete the Refuge
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, the Citizens
Committee to Complete the Refuge is grateful for the opportunity to
submit comments on fiscal year 2012 appropriations for National
Wildlife Refuges.
Our organization, the first Friends group in the Nation, was formed
in 1967 to work with Congressman Don Edwards to bring about the
establishment of the San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge. That
was 1972, and with the Congressman's help once more, in 1988 the
authorized size of the Refuge was doubled to 43,000 acres and was named
the Don Edwards San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge.
Our Refuge is the pride of the Bay Area, for it has prevented what
would have been certain destruction of tens of thousands of acres of
tidal marsh and surrounding habitats to development. These very marshes
counter climate change through their extraordinary capacity for carbon
exchange while providing flood protection from sea level rise.
It is our pleasure to echo the testimony of the National Wildlife
Refuge Association because in the decades we have been in existence we
have developed a great affinity to the entire Refuge System. Worldwide,
our Refuges have become models to peoples intent on preserving their
native wildlife and wild places. As chair of a Friends group, I have
entertained a myriad of travelers, national and international, who hope
to duplicate our splendid system.
Yet we know that loss of adequate funding is devastating many of
our key Refuge lands. Precious and endangered species cannot be
protected and nourished. Some Refuges are not staffed at all, hence
they are left to fend for themselves against predation and vandalism
and other illegal activities. Our Refuge has been the model for
environmental protection and enhancement of refuges for 39 years.
Effective advocacy by the public, and the very presence of the Refuge,
have enabled the largest wetland restoration project on the west coast
to be undertaken on retired salt ponds.
Maximum funding for Refuges is important now to the San Francisco
Bay National Wildlife Refuge Complex, if it is to continue to fulfill
its mission as climate change advances. It is critical to protect
existing conditions and adjacent inboard communities, requiring $1
million of levee maintenance annually over and above general O&M
expenses. The massive salt pond restoration, now well into phase 1, is
dependent for its continuation on another $1 million to produce
essential scientific data through applied studies. Phase 2 will require
$500,000 to convert the science findings and knowledge acquired in
phase 1 into a continuing implementation plan.
Elsewhere in the Complex and also on the San Francisco Bay, 3,000
wetland acres on newly acquired Skaggs Island await restoration,
actions that must begin in upcoming years and will require total
appropriations of as much as $10 million.
Economic realities and a strong public influence for preservation
are likely to bring forth willing sellers of low-lying former tidal
marshes. Our Refuge, still far short of its authorized acreage, is one
that might benefit. That is why we urge the subcommittee to fully fund
the Land and Water Conservation Fund. For decades, it has been the
expectation of the American people that $900 million annually would be
used to acquire America's natural lands, but they have not been used as
designated.
The success of our Refuge is a striking demonstration of what can
happen when many agencies work together. In our case, the California
State Coastal Conservancy, the California Department of Fish and Game,
the Santa Clara Valley Water District, and several foundations joined
to bring to fruition a National Wildlife Refuge along the shores of San
Francisco Bay, to the benefit of all people and particularly those 7-8
million residing locally.
Our National Wildlife Refuge is the jewel in the crown of lands we
gift to the generations ahead--wonderful wildlife sanctuaries,
nurseries for fish and waterfowl, and wonderful places for fishing,
hunting, and nature study. We ask that the subcommittee help us assure
the great promise of that heritage.
______
Prepared Statement of the Central Council of the Tlingit and Haida
Indian Tribes
Greetings from Alaska. My name is Edward K. Thomas. I am the
elected president of the Central Council of the Tlingit and Haida
Indian Tribes of Alaska (Tlingit Haida), a federally recognized Indian
tribe of 27,000 tribal citizens. Southeast Alaska is the ancestral
homeland of the Tlingit and Haida people. I am honored to provide this
testimony on this very important matter of contract support cost (CSC)
funding within the fiscal year 2012 Federal appropriations legislation.
Let me begin by commending the Congress, and especially this
subcommittee, for showing special interest in this very important issue
and for holding this hearing. One of the most important legal
principles in defining the relationship between Federal Government and
the Indian and Alaska Native tribes is that of the fiduciary
responsibility the United States has to tribal governments. This
important trust relationship is seriously compromised by the year after
year underfunding of CSC and setting CSC caps in some very important
programs available to tribal governments.
csc funding shortfalls choke our operations
For the period between 2006 through 2009, the CSC shortfalls and
underfunding have cost my tribe a total of $2,651,088; or an average of
$662,772 per year. While our people are grateful for the programs
designed to help our needy tribal citizens, we simply cannot afford to
continue to pay this amount of money to manage these important
contracts. My tribal government provided $84,689,247 (an average of
$21,172,300 per year) in contractual services to our needy tribal
citizens over that period of time.
Simply put, the way indirect costs are calculated and paid by the
United States creates an ever-tightening chokehold on my tribe's
ability to administer programs. If we follow the law and spend what we
must, we receive less money to meet these expenditures. The more we
spend, the less we get. The less we spend, the less we get. As I set
out in greater detail below, both the Congress and the Federal agencies
have caused this crisis. Together we can solve it.
tlingit haida funds pay for federal responsibility
Federal law specifically states that a tribe that contracts for the
management of a Federal contract is entitled to the same administrative
support as the Federal Government itself would have were it to retain
the management of that contract. Appropriations legislation that
underfunds CSC violate this provision of Federal law and severely
undermines the concept of tribal self-determination.
Tlingit Haida tries desperately to abide by Federal laws that set
our indirect cost rates and live within other Federal appropriations
laws that provide us much less than their own audits say we should
collect from each agency to manage contracts for them. We were forced
to pull the $2,651,088 shortfall in CSC over the past 4 years out of
our modest trust fund earnings in order to meet the costs we were stuck
with by the United States. We cannot continue to afford to pay for
these Federal responsibility costs going into the future. There are no
gaming tribes in Alaska; the economy in rural Alaska is weak to
nonexistent; and unemployment rates in some of our villages often
exceed 50 percent.
Our trust fund is what remains of a judgment fund provided to us in
exchange for land taken by the United States from our tribe. Tlingit
Haida tribal government has a fiduciary responsibility to preserve the
principal of this trust fund for future generations and earnings of
this fund it critical to maintaining essential governmental function
for our tribe. It is not the purpose of the trust fund to use the
interest it has earned to make up for sudden losses created by the
United States. The choice we face each and every year is to either
shutdown all of the vital services we provide our membership, shutter
our offices, layoff employees, and pay for early termination of
contracts, or dip deeper and deeper into our trust fund earnings to
maintain operations. We have chosen to continue but we need your help
in order for us to continue in providing essential services to our
needy tribal citizens.
In addition to the diversion of our trust fund earnings, the
shortfall in the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) CSC funding has been
felt throughout Tlingit Haida. As an immediate result of this shortfall
and CSC caps place on so many programs our tribe is eligible to apply
for, we have had to abstain from applying for some very important
programs that could be of tremendous help to mitigate the serious
economic challenges facing our tribal communities. While businesses,
other governments and government agencies saw benefit from the American
Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA), my Tlingit Haida had to abstain
from fully participating in available programs because of the 15
percent cap of administrative costs place on those programs. We
accepted a $1.5 million award for childcare assistance to supplement
our ``welfare to work'' initiatives and this cost Tlingit Haida
$330,000 of our own money to manage that program.
indirect costs are fixed-cost requirements
If indirect costs were not primarily ``fixed'' costs, the recurring
problem of a shortfall in the BIA CSC funding would, perhaps, be
survivable. But most of our actual indirect costs are ``fixed''. For
example, typically the most cost-effective way to acquire facility
space or equipment is through a long-term lease with locked-in costs.
Similarly, package deals for telephone and some forms of transportation
offer significant cost savings over time. And obviously, the salary and
benefit costs of accounting, administrative, and management staff must
be treated as ``fixed'' or else we cannot hire or keep employees. When
Federal agencies do not send us 100 percent of the funds required by
our rate, we have a shortfall associated with our operation of BIA
programs and something has to give.
We refer to tribal indirect cost funding as a ``requirement'', not
a ``need''. They are requirements because they are derived from audits
conducted by the National Business Center (NBC) on behalf of the
Federal Government who sets rates that are used uniformly to all
Federal agencies with whom Tlingit Haida manages a contract or grant
with. The rates use actual expenditures from prior years to project
costs in the future year. Once set, the rates must be applied uniformly
to all our programs.
Another problem is that the Single Audit Act requires a tribal
contractor's cognizant agency (e.g., Department of the Interior) to
audit the indirect costs of the tribal contractor and establish an
indirect cost rate that must be applied to all programs the tribal
contractor administers. If that rate is 25 percent, and a program like
Head Start caps administrative cost recovery from its funding at 15
percent, the law requires the tribal contractor to pay the difference
from non-Federal funds or through a rate increase the following year
that will obtain a higher recovery from BIA's contract support cost
fund in future years.
Let me be clear about something. We would spiral into bankruptcy if
we chose to not spend at the budgeted amounts. Failing to pay certain
fixed costs would actually increase our costs (breaking leases,
terminating employees, breaching contracts, etc.). Deferring certain
costs to the following year aggravates the hardship of the shortfalls
that cripple that year. Public Law 93-638 language supposedly
protections tribal contractors against theoretical under-recovery do
work with respect to BIA funds, historical underfunding of CSC has
caused our tribe very serious difficulties of dealing with shortfalls
in non-BIA programs for which we must, by law, use the same indirect
cost rate. If in year one we don't spend uniformly on all programs, BIA
and non-BIA alike, this will increase the approved rate for the
following year because the amounts not collected from the agencies are
available to add onto the CSC for the subsequent year. Tlingit Haida,
in our efforts in keeping our CSC lower have chosen not to carry all of
those costs forward and have, then, had to pay the shortfalls out of
non-Federal sources.
proposed amendment language
``Notwithstanding any other provision of law, including any
otherwise applicable administrative cost limitations, any Federal funds
made available under this or any other appropriations act for fiscal
year 2012 to an Indian tribe may, at the option of the Indian tribe, be
applied to pay for up to all of the approved indirect costs associated
with the administration by the Indian tribe of those funds, provided
that such costs are calculated in conformity with the federally-
established indirect cost rate agreement of that Indian tribe and the
relevant OMB circulars.''
intent
The amendments are intended to apply a tribal contractor's uniform
indirect cost rate established under the Single Audit Act to recover
costs required by that uniform indirect cost rate from each federally
funded award or agreement without regard to any otherwise applicable
administrative cost cap limitations.
effect of amendment
The proposed amendment would expand existing authority to permit a
tribal contractor an additional option--use any federally funded award
to meet up to all of its approved indirect costs that are calculated in
conformity with its federally established indirect cost rate agreement
and the relevant OMB circulars without regard to any otherwise
applicable administrative cost cap limitations.
Once again Mr. Chairman, I thank you for the opportunity to share
my views with you on CSC for tribal contractors. I wish you well in
your deliberations and I trust you will make the right decisions on the
issues of grave concern to our people.
Gunalcheesh! Howa! Thank you!
______
Prepared Statement of the Children's Environmental Health Network
On behalf of the Children's Environmental Health Network (CEHN), a
national multidisciplinary organization whose mission is to protect the
fetus and the child from environmental health hazards and promote a
healthy environment, I thank you for the opportunity to present this
written testimony in support of fiscal year 2012 appropriations for the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Investments in programs that protect and promote children's health
will be repaid by healthier children with brighter futures. Thus, to
safeguard the health and the future of millions of children, the CEHN
urges the subcommittee to provide full funding for the following EPA
activities:
--Office of Children's Health Protection (OCHP);
--Children's Environmental Health Research Centers of Excellence;
--Office of Research & Development (ORD);
--School and Child Care Environmental Health;
--The Pediatric Environmental Health Specialty Units (PEHSUs); and
--The National Children's Study (NCS).
The CEHN also urges full funding of all activities that advance
healthy school and child care environments for all children, such as
the relevant components of the Healthy Communities initiative,
including but not limited to the Clean, Green and Healthy Schools
Initiative. And, the CEHN urges the subcommittee to support chemical
policy reform by providing adequate resources for EPA oversight and
regulation of these chemicals.
As a pediatric neonatologist, and the current Mary Gray Cobey
Professor and Division Chief of Neonatology at the University of
Maryland, I see first-hand how children have unique vulnerabilities and
susceptibilities to toxic chemicals. In some cases, an exposure which
may cause little or no harm to an adult may lead to irreparable damage
to a child. Exposure to neurotoxicants in utero or early childhood can
result in life-long learning and developmental delays.
The world in which today's children live has changed tremendously
from that of previous generations, including a phenomenal increase in
the substances to which children are exposed. 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
through skin, or via food, toys, and other children's products. Many of
these chemicals are also ingested in food and water or through the
lungs.
In order to best protect America's children from environmental
health risks and hazards, the CEHN requests full funding of several
critical EPA programs. These include:
OCHP.--The EPA's efforts to protect children from environmental
hazards have been led by the OCHP since 1997. Despite an
effective track record, funding for the OCHP has been level, at
approximately $6 million, since its creation, while its
responsibilities have been expanded to include new and
unrelated missions. The CEHN strongly supports an increase in
funding for the OCHP, as well as the restoration of the
office's focus on children. We are especially supportive of the
Clean, Green, and Healthy Schools Initiative, including the
interagency effort to integrate existing school programs such
as asthma, indoor air quality, chemical cleanout, green
practices, and enhanced use of integrated pest management. The
OCHP's program addressing the issue of PCB-laden caulk in
schools is also a priority. The CEHN urges the subcommittee to
provide funds above the proposed level for the OCHP so that the
office can continue these vital programs.
Children's Environmental Health Research Centers of Excellence.--
The Children's Environmental Health Research Centers, jointly
funded by the EPA and the National Institute of Environmental
Health Sciences, play a key role in providing the scientific
basis for protecting children from environmental hazards. With
their modest budgets, which have been unchanged over more than
10 years, these centers generate 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. The scientific
output of these centers has been outstanding. For example,
findings from four Centers clearly showed that prenatal
exposure to a widely used pesticide affected developmental
outcomes at birth and early childhood. This was important
information to the EPA's decisionmakers in their regulation of
this pesticide.
Several centers have established longitudinal cohorts which have
resulted in valuable research results. The CEHN is concerned
that as a Center's multi-year grant ends and the Center is
shuttered, these cohorts and the invaluable information they
can provide are being lost. The CEHN urges the subcommittee to
assure that the EPA has the funding and the direction to
support centers in continuing these cohorts. The work of these
centers has also shown us that, in addition to research
regarding a specific pollutant or health outcome, research is
desperately needed in understanding the totality of the child's
environment--for example, all of the exposures the child
experiences in the home, school, and child care environment--
and how to evaluate those multiple factors. The CEHN urges you
to support these Centers, to assure they receive full funding
and are extended and expanded as described above.
ORD.--This office is critical in efforts to understand
environmental impacts on children's health, both in the amount
and type of research conducted as well as how the protection of
children is given priority throughout the ORD.
Children's environmental health is a priority of the CEHN's
strategic plan, yet the funding and research dedicated to this
area is not specifically listed or identified. Children's
environmental health is an issue that will cut across all of
the ORD's programs. It is unclear how the ORD will measure and
track its efforts in children's environmental health under this
new structure. Experience has shown that if priorities--such as
the hortatory language in the EPA's strategic plan stating that
children's environmental health is a priority--are not
accompanied by measurable goals that are tracked and reported--
they are not really priorities and they are meaningless. We ask
that your subcommittee direct the office to track and report on
the funding and research across the office dedicated to
children's environmental health.
This reorganization, and the decrease in the ORD funding for
human health research, re-emphasizes the importance of the
children's research centers described above. The work of these
centers will assist in keeping a focus on children's health at
the ORD.
While the Clean, Green, and Healthy Schools Initiative, led by
the OCHP, was designed as an inter- and intra-agency effort,
resources were not proposed for the ORD involvement. The CEHN
urges the subcommittee to strengthen Clean, Green, and Healthy
Schools Initiative by providing additional resources to the ORD
so that the office can fund additional research to fulfill its
role in this initiative. The CEHN also urges the subcommittee
to fund additional research to better understand how the school
and child care environments (both physical factors and
potential exposures) impact children.
School and Child Care Environmental Health.--In America today,
millions of infants, toddlers and preschoolers, often as young
as 6 weeks to 4 years of age, spend 40-50 hours a week in child
care. Yet, little is known about the environmental health
status of the Nation's child care centers or how to assure that
they are protecting this highly vulnerable group of children.
Environmental health is rarely if ever considered in licensing
centers or training child care professionals. At the same time,
about 54 million children and nearly 7 million adults--20
percent of the total U.S. population--spend up to 40 hours per
week inside school facilities every week. Unfortunately, many
of these facilities contain unsafe environmental conditions
that harm children's health and undermine attendance,
achievement, and productivity. Thus, it is vital that the EPA's
key programs in these areas be maintained and expanded:
-- the Indoor Air Quality Tools for Schools Program;
-- the Clean, Green and Healthy Schools Initiative (which should
also be expanded to include the child care environment);
and
-- the healthy schools provisions of the High Performance Green
Buildings Act.
PEHSUs.--Funded jointly by the EPA and the Agency for Toxic
Substances and Disease Registry, the PEHSUs form a valuable
resource network, with a center in each of the U.S. Federal
regions. PEHSU professionals provide medical consultation to
healthcare professionals on a wide range of environmental
health issues, from individual cases of exposure to advice
regarding large-scale community issues. PEHSUs also provide
information and resources to school, child care, health and
medical, and community groups to help increase the public's
understanding of children's environmental health, and help
inform policymakers by providing data and background on local
or regional environmental health issues and implications for
specific populations or areas. For example, following the gulf
oil spill in 2010, the PEHSUs quickly produced and released a
series of factsheets and advisories in multiple languages for
local patients and health professionals. We urge the
subcommittee to fully fund the EPA's portion of this program in
fiscal year 2012.
NCS.--The NCS 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. The year of 2012 will be a critical year
for this study. While a study of this scope calls for the
participation of multiple agencies, the EPA's involvement has
been limited by the lack of dedicated resources. The CEHN urges
the subcommittee to provide dedicated funds of $1 million or
more in fiscal year 2012 to ensure that the EPA has sustained
funding for the necessary infrastructure for data access and
the ability to collaborate with its partners on the NCS. The
EPA has specific expertise to offer and the NCS will benefit if
the CEHN has the ability to contribute.
In addition to providing the necessary financial resources for
the EPA programs and activities that help to protect children
from environmental hazards, the CEHN urges the subcommittee to
direct the EPA to assure that all of its activities and
programs--including regulations, guidelines, assessments, and
research--specifically consider children. Historically, the EPA
has too often relied on a one-size-fits-all template when
assessing environmental health risks and developing prevention
and response plans. Unfortunately for children, that template
typically represents a healthy adult male, meaning that
children's smaller sizes and unique exposures routes are not
considered. 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.
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 the CEHN asks you
to give priority to these programs.
______
Letter From the Coalition For Healthier Schools and Partners
May 11, 2011.
Hon. Jack Reed,
Chairman, Subcommittee on the Interior, Environment, and Related
Agencies, Washington, DC.
Hon. Lisa Murkowski,
Ranking Member, Subcommittee on the Interior, Environment, and Related
Agencies, Washington, DC.
support epa's healthy schools initiative: boost attendance,
achievement; reduce costs
Dear Chairman Reed and Senator Murkowski: As you consider the
Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) budget and its programs that
positively affect the health of the most vulnerable Americans, the
undersigned members of the national Coalition for Healthier Schools and
partners, wish to highlight the work at the EPA to advance healthy
learning places for children and to urge you to support the EPA-led
interagency Healthy Schools Initiative at the President's budget fiscal
year 2011 levels through fiscal year 2012. We also urge you to support
EPA's voluntary, cost-effective Indoor Air Quality Tools for Schools
program and ensure that it is not eliminated. As asthma is the leading
cause of school absenteeism, we must do more, not less, to promote
healthy indoor environments in schools.
Clear and convincing research \1\ shows that improving specific
school indoor environmental quality factors can improve health,
attendance, and achievement, and reduce healthcare costs and district
operating costs. Helping schools prevent environmental problems is a
tough job, but one that results in savings for schools and tax payers,
as well as many benefits for children and their educational outcomes--
especially for children with disabilities who may be even more
vulnerable\2\. This is a win for children, for families, for schools,
and for taxpayers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Green Schools: Attributes for Health and Learning, National
Research Council of the National Academy of Science, 2006. http://
books.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11756. Also see Greening America's
Schools: Costs and Benefits, Gregory Kats, Capital E, October 2006.
http://www.cape.com/ewebeditpro/items/O59F9819.pdf.
\2\ Children's Environmental Health: The School Environment,
Trousdale, et al, Intellectual and Development Disabilities, vol. 48,
No. 7, 135-144, April 2010, American Association on Intellectual and
Development Disabilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As you know, children are more vulnerable than adults to
environmental hazards because they're smaller, have developing organs,
and breathe more air per pound of body weight. They cannot identify
hazards. Adverse exposures and injuries during childhood can result in
lifetime of disability \3\.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ U.S. EPA Office of Children's Health Protection www.epa.gov/
children. Also Federal Executive Order 13045--Protection of Children
From Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks, Federal Register:
April 23, 1997 (Volume 62, Number 78), http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/eo/
eo13045.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
However, each school day, 56 million children and 7 million
adults--that's 20 percent of the total U.S. population and 98 percent
of all children--spend their workdays inside some 130,000 schools, too
many of which are ``unhealthy'' buildings that erode health and
learning. States have little capacity to deal with these problems and
local schools even less. A 2010 survey of school nurses\4\ revealed:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ National Association of School Nurses survey: http://
www.nasn.org/portals/0/releases/2011_01_11_NASN_HSN.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
--40 percent know children and staff adversely affected by pollution
in schools;
--only 17 percent say schools have cleaned up indoor asthma-triggers;
--more than 75 percent say their schools have no indoor air quality
programs; and
--only 6 percent say an outside agency helped with environmental
issues.
EPA, with a more than 10-year track record of success with States
and school districts, is mandated by the Congress under the Energy
Independence and Security Act of 2007 signed by President Bush to
provide voluntary grants to State agencies and to help State agencies
and school districts nationwide on how to advance children's health,
attendance, and learning.
We urge that you fully support the EPA's Federal and State
leadership on its Healthy Schools Initiative at PB fiscal year 2011
levels through fiscal year 2012; fully fund EPA's IAQ Tools for Schools
program that has successfully worked with States and districts a dozen
years; and restore resources to EPA's Office of Children's Health
Protection.
Sincerely,
Alaska Community Action on Toxics; Alliance for
Leadership & Interconnection (OH); American
Federation of State, County and Municipal
Employees; American School Health
Association; Association of School Business
Officials; Asthma and Allergy Foundation of
America; Campaign for Environmental
Literacy.
Capital Region Action Against Breast Cancer (NY);
Children's Environmental Protection
Alliance (AL); Clean Air Council (PA);
Clean New York; Coalition for
Environmentally Safe Schools (WA);
Community Asthma Network, West Allis-West
Milwaukee Asthma Coalition (WI);
Connecticut Foundation for Environmentally
Safe Schools.
Council of Educational Facility Planners
International; Earth Day Network; Empire
State Consumer Project (NY); Environmental
Health and Safety Department of Charlotte-
Mecklenburg Schools (NC); Green Schools
(MA); Healthy Child Healthy World (CA);
Healthy Schools Network; hellmuth +
bicknese architects (MO).
Huntington Breast Cancer Action Coalition, Inc.
(NY); Improving Kids' Environment (IN);
Institute for Health and the Environment at
University at Albany (NY); Kids for Saving
the Earth (MN); LocalMotionGreen (MI);
Maine PTA; Maryland Children's
Environmental Health Coalition.
Massachusetts Committee on Occupational Safety and
Health; Massachusetts Healthy Schools
Network; National Association of Pediatric
Nurse Practitioners; National Association
of School Nurses; National Center for
Environmental Health Strategies; National
Clearinghouse for Educational Facilities at
the National Institute of Building
Sciences; National Education Association--
Healthy Schools Caucus.
Natural Resources Defense Council; New York
Committee for Occupational Safety and
Health; Occupational Health Clinical
Centers of Central New York, North Country,
and Southern Tier (NY); Oregon
Environmental Council; PCBs in Schools;
Preventing Harm Minnesota; Prevention Is
The Cure, Inc. (NY).
Safer Living Space (CA); Sonoma County Asthma
Coalition (CA); Toxics Information Project
(RI); West Harlem Environmental Action
(NY); Women's Voices for the Earth.
______
Prepared Statement of the Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma
On behalf of Chief Gregory E. Pyle, of the Great Choctaw Nation of
Oklahoma, I bring greetings to the distinguished members of the
subcommittee. I am Mickey Peercy, the Executive Director of Health
Services for the Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma. I appreciate this
opportunity to provide written and verbal testimony to the subcommittee
on our top budget priorities for fiscal year 2012 highlighting:
Tribal-specific priority
Support for the Jones Academy.
National priorities
Provide $50 million increase to the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA)
contract support costs (CSC).
A $153 million increase for Indian Health Service (IHS) CSC.
Provide $200 million increase for the IHS contract health services.
jones academy
First, I am here to express our sincere appreciation to the
Committee, this subcommittee, and all of the Members and staff--past
and present--who supported us in our efforts to re-establish the
Federal trust relationship for Jones Academy education through the
Bureau of Indian Education (BIE). We worked together on this correction
for decades, since the Federal Government unilaterally closed the
academic programs at Jones Academy and Wheelock Academy and created the
Jones Academy Boarding facility which required students to go to the
local public school. The statutory language to rectify this wrong is
included in the President's fiscal year 2012 budget request. It was
also in the fiscal year 2011 House Committee passed Interior,
Environment, and Related Agencies appropriations bill written by this
subcommittee. If enacted, it finally brings Jones Academy into
compliance with the self-determination policy of the last three
decades, strongly supported by this subcommittee. Most importantly to
all of us, it enhances future educational opportunities for our
students.
There are so many to thank for their efforts that no list here
would be sufficient. Chairman Simpson and Ranking Member Moran provided
seamless continuation for the work begun by former subcommittee
Chairman Norm Dicks and Representative Tom Cole, of our own Oklahoma
delegation. I must also warmly thank our Congressman, Representative
Dan Boren. Though not a member of the subcommittee, he provided
extensive guidance and support. Finally, I want to thank the
representatives of the administration, particularly Assistant Secretary
of Indian Affairs Larry Echo-Hawk. He considered our situation with an
open mind and an open heart; looked at the results of the subcommittee
directed report on the history of Jones Academy; and recommended the
budget neutral language under consideration in this bill.
This is a prime example of the ancient Choctaw philosophy that
issues should be resolved openly and fairly by people of good will
working together. With a new Jones Academy, built with tribal funds,
and the dedication of our staff, the Choctaw Nation will work
tirelessly to affirm your faith in us and especially in our students.
With your support, we look forward to continuing the unprecedented
achievement record of our extraordinary students at Jones Academy.
full funding of the bia and the ihs csc
The Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (ISDEAA)
has made it possible for tribes to administer large portions of the BIA
and the IHS budgets, including operating programs previously provided
by the Federal Government functions in healthcare, education, law
enforcement, and land and natural resource protection. Today, under the
ISDEAA, tribes collectively administer more than $2.82 billion in
essential Federal Government functions, and support a workforce of
approximately 35,000 people. The ISDEAA carries out its goal of
transferring essential Government functions from Federal administration
to tribal administration through a contracting mechanism. To meet these
contract requirements, the act requires that both the IHS and the BIA
fully reimburse every tribal contractor for the ``contract support
costs'' that are necessary to carry out the contracted Federal
functions. When the CSC are not funded, off-setting reductions must be
made in direct health program funding, job vacancies go unfilled, and
services are reduced, effectively making a program cut to desperately
needed health services.
The IHS projects a shortfall in the CSC of $153 million for fiscal
year 2012. This means a $153 million cut in tribally contracted
programs--not IHS-administered programs, but tribally administered
health programs alone. The BIA reports its own shortfall exceeded $62
million in 2010, indicating that total CSC requirements totaled $228
million. Yet, the fiscal year 2012 proposed President's budget request
only $195.5 million, resulting in a required cut in tribally operated
BIA programs of another $33 million next year.
And, as the CSC needs continue to escalate in this uncertain fiscal
climate, for fiscal year 2013, the National Contract Support Cost
Coalition project recommendations that the IHS contract support cost
line will be increased to $615 million and the BIA contract support
cost line will be increased to $228 million.
The current status quo is just not acceptable. Without the
requested increases, the CSC shortfall for both agencies will exceed
$186 million in fiscal year 2012. That means a $186 million cut in
tribal health, education, law enforcement and other contracted
programs, and could affect as many as 3,600 jobs.
Tribes are being penalized for their self-determination
contracting. Because of the CSC shortfall, tribal facilities have
substantially less dollars to provide services to their communities
than does an IHS-operated facility. Nor can the Congress's Policy of
Self-Determination move forward--new contracting activities have slowed
drastically, and both the IHS and the BIA are stuck at no more than 60
percent of their budget operated by tribes.
Finally, fully paying the CSC is legally required. The United
States Supreme Court so held in the 2005 Cherokee Nation case. It is
not necessary to write a better law; just honor the law that the
Congress has already written. The United States Government honors, to
the penny, all Government contracts even when doing so requires
supplemental appropriations, with the exception of contracts with
tribes. This standard should apply to all Indian tribes as well. Law,
policy, fairness, and honor require this.
provide increased funding for contract health service (chs)
The CHS is the most complex and dysfunctional service provided by
the IHS, tribally operated healthcare delivery program. The CHS is
designed to refer patients and reimburse providers outside of the IT
system for medical services provided to American Indian/Alaska Native
patients. The CHS supplements services that are not provided by the IHS
hospitals and clinics. The Congress is aware of what the CHS is
designed to do. However, the underlying issue to be addressed is how
the CHS can be improved.
The most logical way to fix the contract health problem is to
provide adequate funding for the IT system. The Congress is also aware
of the marginal funding level for IT overall, and specifically in this
line item. The fiscal year 2010 appropriations level for the CHS was a
positive step and needs to be continued, with similar increases for the
next 5 years. At this point, we know that some tribal health programs
receive assistance in their health programs budget, specific to CHS,
from their tribal governments. Not all tribes have the economic
development base that allows this support. Also, in most cases, these
tribal funds are not recurring and cannot be counted on long term.
Significant Federal funding over the next several years is critical.
It is difficult to define the unmet need for the CHS throughout
Indian country. However, IHS Director, Dr. Roubideaux, has implemented
a CHS workgroup in an effort to define the parameters of unmet need and
to arrive at an approximate cost. This again, is a critical area that
we must define so our requests to the Congress are valid.
In closing, on behalf of the Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma, and Chief
Gregory E. Pyle, we are honored to provide our tribe's views on these
priorities and respectfully urge your consideration and support of
these program funding requests in the fiscal year 2012 budgets for the
BIA and IHS.
______
Letter From the City of Farmington
April 7, 2011.
Hon. Jack Reed,
Chairman, Subcommittee on the Interior, Environment, and Related
Agencies, Washington, DC.
Hon. Lisa Murkowski,
Ranking Member, Subcommittee on the Interior, Environment, and Related
Agencies, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Reed and Senator Murkowski: I am writing to request
your support for continued funding in fiscal year 2012 for the Upper
Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program and the San Juan River
Basin Recovery Implementation Program as authorized by Public Law 106-
392. These two successful ongoing cooperative partnership programs
involve the States of Colorado, New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming, Indian
tribes, Federal agencies and water, power, and environmental interests.
I request your support for an appropriation for fiscal year 2012 of
$6,248,000 to the Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) within the budget line
item entitled ``Endangered Species Recovery Implementation Program''
for the Upper Colorado Region, consistent with the President's
recommended budget. Substantial non-Federal cost-sharing funding is
occurring pursuant to Public Law 106-392, as amended.
The requested Federal appropriations are critically important to
these efforts moving forward. The past support of your subcommittee has
greatly facilitated the success of these multi-State, multi-agency
programs. I thank you for the subcommittee's past support and request
the subcommittee's assistance for fiscal year 2012 funding to ensure
the BOR's continuing financial participation in these vitally important
programs.
Sincerely,
Robert G. Campbell,
Assistant City Manager.
______
Prepared Statement of the Center for Plant Conservation
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 to prevent their extinction. 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.
We work diligently with the private sector and Federal partners.
Public lands are instrumental in maintaining healthy environmental
systems and serve as a primary source of plant diversity for the
Nation. We work cooperatively with the Bureau of Land Management, U.S.
Forest Service (USFS), Department of Defense, U.S. Department of
Agriculture ARS, and National Park Service in plant recovery research
and restoration work with a total annual value of about $14 million.
These species are not only invaluable for ecological reasons,
supporting healthy air and water, mediating global climate change, and
providing wildlife habitat. Our wild plants are priceless natural
resources for emerging biotechnology and traditional economic benefits
which are vital for our economic future. We have shown that 87 percent
of federally listed plant species are very closely related to
agronomically important species. They are the raw material for plant
breeding in support of sustainable agriculture, and potential medical
and other economically significant products. The long-standing
imbalance in recovery funding for plants risks the tragic loss of
resources important to the future economic well-being of our Nation.
Natural resource management activities provide good stable jobs across
the Nation in the public and private sector, often in our less
populated areas with less resilient economies. Providing adequate
funding for biodiversity management not only maintains good jobs, these
natural resources provide an economic multiplier in communities
supported by ecotourism, and provide affordable outdoor activities for
families in economically challenging times while reconnecting youth to
outdoor activity, volunteerism, and science literacy.
Public private partnerships are key strategies to provide for long-
term security of these species across our landscapes. Federal
partnerships and leadership are critical. More botanists and funding
for recovery action are needed. Plant conservation activities have
suffered disproportionately in agency funding in the past 20 years. As
a result, considerable restoration work has become critical to prevent
the near-term loss of species.
While we recognize the need for good fiscal management and support
the goals of deficit reduction, this should be implemented in a
reasonable manner, balanced across agency programs. Fee structure
revision for products from our taxpayer owned public lands should also
be examined to meet fiscal targets while providing for essential
activities.
The large-scale challenges of climate change require continued
progress developing scientific information and strategies to combat
potential devastation of our forests and native vegetation. Funding for
partnership and cost-sharing programs such as the State Wildlife Grant
Program and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) section 6 program
is the most cost effective way to make progress for many species. The
disproportionate cuts to these programs in the continuing resolution
for 2011 funding must not be allowed to stand in the 2012 budget, as
hard won progress would be set back, productive partnerships would be
impaired or lost, and costs of addressing critical problems later will
rise.
Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF).--A critical strategy in
meeting the challenges of climate change is to build resilience within
our wild species populations. This will ensure habitat connections to
provide avenues for responses in species and community ranges over the
landscape. LWCF is a critical resource for the Nation to maintain
habitat continuity and address fragmentation obstacles. We request an
allocation of $600 million for this year. This funding is needed
quickly, given the timeframe needed to complete transactions and
implement landscape activities in time to be available as needed.
FWS Endangered Species Program.--FWS Endangered Species program is
seriously understaffed and underfunded, denying assistance to the
Nation's species that can least afford to wait. We request the above
appropriation in the FWS listing budget to help clear the listing
backlog of candidate species in the next few years, and provide interim
funding in the Candidate Conservation program for proactive recovery
work which often reduces costs overall.
The backlog of work needed to properly respond to recovery needs
for all federally listed species has been estimated to be more than
$300 million. The situation is especially precarious for our listed
plant species. While more than 50 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 surviving in the majority of remaining
sites, and are at a high risk of extinction unless intervention is
initiated.
An increase in the FWS Recovery Program budget is needed to begin
to address the most critically imperiled plant and animal species. We
are requesting an appropriation of at least $95 million for the FWS
Recovery Program budget. Further, we believe that within the recovery
program $5 million in additional funding should be dedicated to
priority listed plant species for implementation of long-neglected
recovery activities, including funding designated for Hawaiian plant
species. Hawaii is our national hotspot for plant biodiversity.
BLM Plant Conservation Program.--Energy projects will disturb large
areas of BLM lands. Other activities also aggravate invasive species,
and threaten imperiled species, increasing restoration needs. Emerging
climate change also presents increased threats and management
challenges to our largest agency landholder. BLM has more than 1,300
imperiled species, and is a significant agency in conserving plant
biodiversity. BLM has exhibited great leadership in establishing a
Plant Conservation program taking an integrated approach to significant
issues. The program is extremely effective and deserving of
establishing a discrete subactivity, with $5 million of dedicated
funding. Within the existing BLM programs, to support effective cross-
program work for imperiled species, we request the funding outlined
above for threatened and endangered species management, wildlife and
fisheries management, adapting to climate change, challenge cost share,
resource management planning, and landscape-scale habitat conservation
programs.
BLM Native Plant Materials Development Program.--The interagency
Native Plant Materials Development Program (NPMD) is one of the most
significant public works projects of our time, and CPC has been an
active partner since its inception. Expanding the variety and quantity
of native plant materials will be critical in a reasoned response to
climate change, more native plant materials will be needed to address
landscape restoration needs. The program supports rural jobs and
economic growth by creating new business opportunities for the private
sector, and reducing cost for Federal land restoration. Consistent
funding is vital to collect, increase, and distribute native plant seed
to public and agency partners and private industry for use in
restoration efforts. Award winning 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. The next few years of funding are critical to realizing the
potential benefits of funds invested to date. We request $21 million
for the BLM Native Plant Materials Program appropriation, including $6
million for seed storage facilities.
USGS.--The Biological Research Division has a vital role in
supporting information needs for adaptation to climate change and
landscape conservation efforts, yet has almost no botanical staff.
Providing sufficient funding as noted above will help them address this
deficiency.
USFS.--Chronically underfunded for plant diversity monitoring and
management, USFS has been losing botanical positions for years, just
when they are needed most. Forests are among the first habitats showing
climate change impacts in increased disease, invasive species, fire,
etc. These impacts cost millions of dollars to address, threatening
timber values and biodiversity values. An investment now is needed to
avoid further loss of economic and natural resource values. Funding
requested for wildlife and fisheries management, range inventory and
monitoring, forest and rangeland research, forest inventory and
analysis, and land management planning programs, will help support
action to address this critical deficiency.
The National Park Service (NPS).--NPS has 175 federally listed
plant species and scores of plants of conservation concern. We work
cooperatively, investing considerable in-kind match funds to help
address imperiled plant needs, and have seen first hand the
overstretched staff and lack of resources. We request an additional $5
million for the Endangered Species program of the Biological Resources
Management Division to address urgent needs. In addition, NPS is on the
forefront of Federal leadership in developing public/private
partnerships, and we request $50 million to maintain that cost-
effective model for progress and engaging the public.
The State Wildlife Grant Program.--The State Wildlife Grant Program
is a proactive effort to address biodiversity needs at the State level
while conservation actions are most cost effective, initiating action
earlier to preclude the need to list new species under ESA. It is truly
a landmark program, and we support full funding.
Unfortunately, the current definition of wildlife included in the
authorizing legislation in the appropriations language does not include
plants. Current guidance does not allow State Wildlife Grant program
funds to be used for projects whose primary objective is declining
plants. Please relieve this restriction in a permissive manner by
adding ESA to the authorizing legislation in appropriations language
for the State Wildlife Grant program. This will permit, not require,
funding projects to benefit imperiled plant species.
Thank you for the opportunity to present testimony regarding
proposed Department of the Interior, environment, and related agencies
appropriations. Thank you for your service for national natural
resources.
______
Letter From the Center for Plant Conservation; American Public Gardens
Association; Botanic Gardens Conservation International; Chicago
Botanic Garden; Lyon Arboretum; National Tropical Botanical Garden;
North Carolina Botanical Garden; and Santa Barbara Botanic Garden
May 20, 2011.
Hon. Jack Reed,
Chairman, Subcommittee on the Interior, Environment, and Related
Agencies, Washington, DC.
Hon. Lisa Murkowski,
Ranking Member, Subcommittee on the Interior, Environment, and Related
Agencies, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Reed and Senator Murkowski: Our public lands are
instrumental in maintaining healthy environmental systems and serve as
a primary repository of priceless plant diversity for the Nation. These
species and the plant communities of which they are a part support
critical ecological functions, including clean air and water, mediating
global climate change, and providing wildlife habitat. The U.S. Forest
Service (USFS) has estimated that for every plant species lost from a
community; as many as 30 other species may be adversely impacted.
The long-standing imbalance in funding for plant conservation risks
the tragic loss of resources important to the future economic well-
being of our Nation. Our wild plants are priceless natural resources
for emerging biotechnology and traditional economic benefits for
agriculture, forestry, industrial products, fuels, fibers, oils,
flavors, fragrances, horticulture, potential pharmaceutical compounds,
and countless other uses. The Center for Plant Conservation has shown
that 87 percent of federally listed plant species are very closely
related to agronomically important species. They are the raw material
for plant breeding in support of sustainable agriculture. Natural
resource research and management activities provide good stable jobs
across the Nation in the public and private sector, often in our less-
populated areas with less-resilient economies. Providing adequate
funding for biodiversity management not only maintains good jobs, these
natural resources provide an economic multiplier in communities
supported by ecotourism, and provide affordable outdoor activities for
families in economically challenging times while reconnecting youth to
outdoor activity, volunteerism, and science literacy.
Public/private partnerships are key strategies to provide for long-
term security of these species across our landscapes. Federal
partnerships and leadership are critical. More botanists and funding
for restoration action are needed. Plant conservation activities have
suffered disproportionately in agency funding in the past 20 years. As
a result, considerable restoration work has become critical to prevent
the near-term loss of species.
While we recognize the need for good fiscal management and support
the goals of deficit reduction, this should be implemented in a
reasonable manner, balanced across USFS programs. Fee structure
revision for products from our taxpayer-owned public lands should also
be examined to meet fiscal targets while providing for essential
resource management activities.
The large-scale challenges of climate change require continued
progress developing scientific information and strategies to combat
potential devastation of our forests and native vegetation. Funding for
partnership and cost-sharing programs such as the State Wildlife Grant
Program and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) section 6 program
is the most cost effective way to make progress for many species. The
disproportionate cuts to these programs in the continuing resolution
for 2011 funding must not be allowed to stand in the 2012 budget, as
hard won progress would be set back, productive partnerships would be
impaired or lost, and costs of addressing critical problems later will
rise.
Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF).--A critical strategy in
meeting the challenges of climate change is to build resilience and
connectivity for our wild species populations. This will ensure habitat
connections to provide avenues for responses in species and community
ranges over the landscape. The LWCF is a critical resource for the
Nation to maintain habitat continuity and address fragmentation
obstacles. We request an allocation of $600 million for this year. This
funding is needed quickly, given the timeframe needed to complete
transactions and implement landscape activities in time to be available
as needed.
FWS Endangered Species Program.--The FWS Endangered Species Program
is seriously understaffed and underfunded, denying assistance to the
Nation's species that can least afford to wait. We request the above
appropriation in the FWS listing budget to help clear the listing
backlog of candidate species in the next few years, and provide interim
funding in the Candidate Conservation Program for proactive recovery
work which often reduces costs overall.
The backlog of work needed to properly respond to recovery needs
for all federally listed species has been estimated to be more than
$300 million. The situation is especially precarious for our listed
plant species. While more than 50 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. The Center for Plant Conservation has
demonstrated that nearly 70 percent of our federally listed plant
species have fewer than 100 individuals surviving in the majority of
remaining sites, and are at a high risk of extinction unless
intervention is initiated.
An increase in the FWS Recovery Program budget is needed to begin
to address the most critically imperiled plant and animal species. We
are requesting an appropriation of at least $95 million for the FWS
Recovery Program budget. Further, we believe that within the recovery
program $5 million in funding should be dedicated to priority listed
plant species for implementation of long-neglected recovery activities,
including funding for Hawaiian plant species. Hawaii is our national
hotspot for plant biodiversity.
Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Plant Conservation Program.--
Priority Energy projects will disturb large areas of the BLM lands.
Other activities also aggravate invasive species, and threaten
imperiled species, increasing restoration needs. Emerging climate
change presents significant increased threats and management challenges
to our largest agency landholder. The BLM has more than 1,300 imperiled
species, and has a vital role in conserving the Nation's plant
biodiversity. The BLM has exhibited great leadership in establishing a
plant conservation program taking an integrated approach to significant
issues. The program is extremely effective and deserving of an
established discrete subactivity, with $5 million of dedicated funding.
Within the existing BLM programs, to support effective cross-program
work for imperiled species, we request the funding outlined above for
threatened and endangered species management, wildlife and fisheries
management, adapting to climate change, challenge cost share, resource
management planning and landscape-scale habitat conservation programs.
The BLM Native Plant Materials Development (NPMD) Program.--The
interagency NPMD is a program of national significance for land
managers both public and private. Expanding the variety and quantity of
native plant materials will be critical in a reasoned response to
climate change, and more native plant materials will be needed to
address landscape restoration needs. The program supports rural jobs
and economic growth by creating new business opportunities for the
private sector, and reducing cost for Federal land restoration.
Consistent funding is vital to collect, increase and distribute native
plant seed to public and agency partners and private industry for use
in restoration efforts. Award winning collaborative partnerships for
public lands have been fostered nationwide, and partners have invested
millions of dollars in non-Federal match, making the program cost
effective. The next few years of funding are critical to realizing the
potential benefits of funds invested to date. We request $21 million
for the BLM NPMD Program appropriation, including $6 million for seed
storage facilities.
United States Geological Survey (USGS).--The Biological Research
Division has a vital role in supporting information needs for
adaptation to climate change and landscape conservation efforts, yet
has almost no botanical staff. Providing sufficient funding as noted
above will help them address this deficiency.
USFS.--Chronically underfunded for plant diversity monitoring and
management, the USFS has been losing botanical positions for years,
just when they are needed most. Forests are among the first habitats
showing climate change impacts in increased disease, invasive species,
fire, etc. These impacts cost millions of dollars to address,
threatening timber values and biodiversity values. An investment now is
needed to avoid further loss of economic and natural resource values.
Funding requested for wildlife and fisheries management, range
inventory and monitoring, forest and rangeland research, forest
inventory and analysis, and land management planning programs, will
help support action to address this critical deficiency.
The National Park Service (NPS).--The NPS has 175 federally listed
plant species and scores of plants of conservation concern, and has a
need for more conservation and botanical staff and expertise. We
request an additional $5 million for the Endangered Species Program of
the Biological Resources Management Division to address urgent needs.
In addition, the NPS is on the forefront of Federal leadership in
developing public/private partnerships, and we request $50 million to
maintain that cost-effective model for progress and engaging the
public.
The State Wildlife Grant Program.--The State Wildlife Grant Program
is a proactive effort to address biodiversity needs at the State level
while conservation actions are most cost effective, initiating action
earlier to preclude the need to list new species under the Endangered
Species Act (ESA). It is truly a landmark program, and we support full
funding.
Unfortunately, the current definition of wildlife included in the
authorizing legislation in the appropriations language does not include
plants, even though more than 50 percent of imperiled species in the
United States are plants. Current guidance does not allow State
Wildlife Grant Program funds to be used for projects whose primary
objective is declining plants. Please relieve this restriction in a
permissive manner by adding the ESA to the authorizing legislation in
appropriations language for the State Wildlife Grant Program. This will
permit, not require, funding projects to benefit imperiled plant
species.
Thank you for the opportunity to present testimony regarding
proposed Subcommittee on the Interior, Environment, and Related
Agencies appropriations. Thank you for your service for national
natural resources.
Sincerely,
Kathryn L. Kennedy,
President and Executive Director,
Center for Plant Conservation.
Daniel J. Stark,
Executive Director,
American Public Gardens Association.
Andrea T. Kramer, Ph.D.,
Executive Director,
Botanic Gardens Conservation International.
Sophia Siskel,
President and CEO,
Chicago Botanic Garden.
Christopher P. Dunn, Ph.D.,
Director,
Lyon Arboretum.
Chipper Wichman,
Director and CEO,
National Tropical Botanical Garden.
Peter White,
Department of Biology,
North Carolina Botanical Garden.
Steve Windhager, Ph.D.,
Executive Director,
Santa Barbara Botanic Garden.
______
Prepared Statement of the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum
In support of $5,200,000 to assist in Colorado River Salinity
Control, title II from the soil, water and air management effort, and
with support for the President's request for that activity. Also a
request that $1,500,000 be spent on identified salinity control related
projects and studies.
This testimony is in support of funding for the Bureau of Land
Management (BLM) for the subactivity that assists the Colorado River
Basin Salinity Control program authorized by the Congress. The BLM
budget, as proposed by the administration in the BLM budget
justification document, calls for five principal program priorities
within the Soil, Water, and Air Management program. One of these
priorities is reducing saline runoff to meet the interstate, Federal,
and international agreements to control salinity of the Colorado River.
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 (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 2012 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 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 BLM has selected a
salinity control coordinator for this basinwide effort. This person now
serves with the two full-time coordinators in place for USBR and 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.
This document requests $26 million for the soil, water, and air
management subactivity. The Forum supports the funding request by the
administration. As one of the five principal soil, water, and air
program priorities, the Forum believes that the BLM needs to
specifically target $5,200,000 to activities that help control salt
contributions from BLM managed lands in the Colorado River Basin. In
the past, BLM has used $800,000 of the soil, water and air program
funding for proposals submitted by BLM staff to 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 2012 could use $1.5
million. For years, BLM has dedicated $800,000 on the effort and now
the Forum believes $1.5 million should be so designated.
The success of 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 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 USDA and to 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 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.
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; and
--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
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 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 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
USBR and by 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 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 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
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, the Columbia River
Inter-Tribal Fish Commission (CRITFC) is pleased to share its view on
the Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs' (BIA) fiscal
year 2012 budget and has specifically identified two funding needs:
--$7,712,000, an increase of $3,139,000 more than the President's
request, for Columbia River Fisheries Management under other
recurring programs, wildlife and parks, and rights protection
implementation to meet the base program funding needs of the
Commission and the fisheries programs of its member tribes,
specifically, to implement Federal court-ordered management
obligations, including efforts for species listed under the
Endangered Species Act (ESA); and
--$4.8 million, an increase of $694,000 more than the President's
request, for U.S./Canada Pacific Salmon Treaty under the other
recurring programs, wildlife and parks, rights protection
implementation areas to achieve base program funding adequacy
and to implement new obligations under the recent agreement
adopted by the United States and Canada under the treaty.
The 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.
The CRITFC provides coordination and technical assistance to these
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 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 fisheries restoration and
management working with State, Federal, and private entities. The
CRITFC's member tribes are principals 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
``gravel-to-gravel'' management including 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.
columbia river fisheries management program needs under the other
recurring programs, wildlife and parks, rights protection
implementation
We are succeeding. The salmon, returning in greater numbers, tell
us so. But along with success, management issues increase in
complexity, requiring greater data collection and more sophisticated
analyses. Funding shortfalls prohibit the achievement of tribal self-
determination goals for fisheries management, the ESA recovery efforts,
protecting nonlisted species, conservation enforcement, and treaty
fishing access site maintenance. Since fiscal year 2003, our purchasing
power has decreased under the weight of inflation and rising operation
costs. We are seeking an increase of $3,232,000 more than fiscal year
2011 for a new program base of $7,712,000 for Columbia River Fisheries
Management explained below:
Enhance Tribal Base Programs 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 the 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. The increase will be directed to support the core functions of
the fisheries management programs of the Commission's member tribes.
In 2008, the CRITFC and its member tribes successfully concluded
lengthy negotiations resulting in three landmark agreements:
--the Columbia Basin Fish Accords \2\ with Federal action agencies
overseeing the Federal hydro system in the Columbia Basin;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The Nez Perce Tribe is not a Columbia Basin Fish Accord
signatory.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
--a Ten-Year Fisheries Management Plan with Federal, tribal, and
State parties under United States v. Oregon; and
--a new Chinook Chapter of the Pacific Salmon Treaty.\3\ 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 through these agreements the tribes
have committed to substantial on-the-ground projects with some
additional resources from the Bonneville Power Administration,
the overall management responsibilities of the tribal programs
have grown exponentially without commensurate increases in the
BIA base funding capacity. For example, the tribes' leadership
in addressing Pacific Lamprey declines is this species' best
hope for survival and recovery. The tribes are taking the lead
in developing needed lamprey management plans. The tribes are
also addressing unmet mitigation obligations, such as fish
losses associated with the construction of the John Day and The
Dalles dams.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See ``Salmon Win A Triple Crown'' at http://www.critfc.org/
text/wana_w09.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Public safety continues to be a high priority for the CRITFC and
the four tribes. Tribal law enforcement infrastructure is a necessary
component of fisheries management. Tribal infrastructure needs include
additional conservation officers, tribal code improvements, courts and
prosecutorial capacity increases, and modern detention facilities. The
CRITFC conservation officers are also 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 the 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 two more sites
slated for completion in 2011 thereby fulfilling 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.
Compounding the challenges in implementing tribal fish management
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. The CRITFC and its member
tribes currently have insufficient funds to do the technical work and
allow policy-level participation in the co-management arena.
The funding provided through the BIA to support tribal fishery
programs is crucial to the tribes' and the CRITFC's ability to
successfully carry out tribal rights protection, including these
agreements, by providing sound technical, scientific, and policy
products to diverse public and private forums. Lost purchasing power
through rising costs, inflation, and lack of pay-cost adjustments to
tribal funding has further challenged us to deliver these essential
services.
U.S./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 $4.8 million for 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. The Congress increased funding
in 2000 in order to implement the 1999 Agreement, but funding has
significantly eroded since then. In 2008, the United States and Canada
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 $4.8 million provides for direct tribal participation with the
PSC, panels and technical committees. The funding enables the tribes to
assist in treaty implementation and facilitates management protecting
trust resources. This funding maintains tribal resource assessment and
research programs structured to fulfill required treaty implementation
activities. The fiscal year 2012 recommended level for this program is
an increase of $680,000 more than the fiscal year 2011 enacted level.
The recommendation follows the U.S. section's recommendation, includes
pay-cost adjustments and brings the program back in line with previous
levels of participation.
The tribal management programs provide needed beneficial and
technical support to the U.S. section. The PSC 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.
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 Copper River Native Association, Inc.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony towards the
development of the Indian Health Service's (IHS) and Bureau of Indian
Affairs' (BIA) fiscal year 2012 budget. I am submitting this testimony
to address two specific issues relating to the fiscal year 2012 budget:
--Contract Support Costs (CSC); and
--staffing for joint venture (JV) facilities.
As I explain in my testimony, the Copper River Native Association,
Inc. (CRNA) believes that CSC funding to the IHS should be increased to
$615 million, and to the BIA should be increased to $228 million, in
order to meet the two agencies' legal obligations under their contracts
and compacts with the tribes. CRNA also applauds IHS for fully
supporting the JV initiative in its fiscal year 2012 budget request,
although here, too, CRNA is concerned that IHS has not requested CSC
associated with operating those facilities.
CSC funds are a necessity and a legally required funding component
which has been consistently underfunded. CSC shortfalls should be paid
in full because they severely impact our ability to operate our
contracts under which we provide Federal health and social service
programs for the Government. While it may be the general belief that a
shortfall in this contract funding impacts only administrative-type
operations, the opposite is true: the CSC shortfall actually only
reduces health services and education, child welfare, and other
services. This is because all of our CSC are fixed costs that come off
the top. If the Government underpays the contracts, we are forced to
take the shortfall out of the program budgets in the contracts in order
to make up for the difference. We simply have no choice.
The ``indirect costs'' that make up CSC are audited annually. They
are also negotiated annually with a cost allocation department within
the Federal Government. These costs are for absolute ``must'' items,
not fluff, and they include the same costs incurred by the Federal
Government when running the same facilities and programs--plus
additional costs from which the Government is exempt such as the cost
of annual audits, workers' compensation insurance, and other insurance
costs. When agency funding for these fixed contract costs falls short,
we have no choice but to divert program funds to ``fill the gap.''
This, of course, reduces our ability to provide health and social
services to an already greatly underfunded and underserved population.
Our tribes and their members are the ultimate victims of the shortfall.
As you can see, funding the Government's CSC obligation does not
inflate or add to the administration or infrastructure of an
organization. What it does is restore funding that has been cut from
our healthcare and other governmental services. If the shortfall is
paid, we restore the pre-cut program funding levels, primarily through
increased employment. That, of course, not only returns services levels
back to what they should be, but it also expands and improves our local
economy with new jobs; in other words, the result is a double bang for
the dollar in two areas where the need is extreme.
Since most of these funds result in employment growth, there is
also a mitigating benefit to the Federal Government in the form of
income taxes. When this is combined with the other benefits of
increased employment and the expanded and improved healthcare, housing
and other services we provide, the benefits far outweigh the costs.
Moreoever, it bears repeating that ultimately it is not a matter of
cost and benefit; it's a matter of a contract obligation that must by
law be paid.
IHS' Joint Venture Construction Project (JVCP) is a critically
important initiative, because it provides a mechanism, through a
tribal-Federal partnership, to build IHS facilities that would
otherwise take years to get built though the ordinary construction
appropriations cycle. We at the CRNA are very pleased to have received
a JVCP award during this past year to build a desperately needed
facility here in the Copper River Valley. The award recognizes our deep
unmet needs and allows us and IHS to join hands on the project: us by
constructing a new facility, IHS by funding the staffing package and
facility operating costs. The process of negotiating the details is
nearing completion and we are already moving forward with design and
construction. Our doors should be open in mid-fiscal year 2013.
The success of our JVCP project depends upon IHS honoring the JVCP
agreement by providing the necessary staffing package funds and
associated CSCs in fiscal year 2013. We are taking on significant debt
in reliance on the commitments in our contract with IHS that the agency
will do just that. If IHS were to breach that agreement, the CRNA would
be burdened with major debt service payments the CRNA would have no
means of paying back, at least not without diverting a large proportion
of our existing healthcare budget. This would be a disaster.
All that said, CRNA is very encouraged that in fiscal year 2012 IHS
budget justification states that IHS is requesting all of the funds
necessary to fully meet its commitments to staff other JV facilities
coming on line in fiscal year 2012. We support that appropriations
request for other tribal JV projects and expect IHS to honor the same
commitments made to us in its fiscal year 2013 budget. That said, we do
remain concerned that in fiscal year 2012 IHS does not appear to have
requested the CSC required to operate these new facilities. Without
those funds, a facility that, to begin with under the IHS policy, will
be staffed at only 85 percent of staffing capacity will be rolled back
to little more than 60 percent of capacity, just to absorb the unpaid
but fixed CSC that a given tribe will on average incur.
We respectfully plead and request that you set these two areas (CSC
shortfall and JVCP funding) as top priorities for the IHS
appropriation.
Thank you again for the opportunity to testify before this
subcommittee.
______
Prepared Statement of the Chugach Regional Resources Commission
As Executive Director of the Chugach Regional Resources Commission
(CRRC), located in Alaska, I am pleased to submit this testimony
reflecting the needs, concerns, and requests of the CRRC regarding the
proposed fiscal year 2012 budget. As is everyone, we are aware of the
ongoing economic problems in the United States, and the growing concern
over the Federal deficit. We are also aware that the budget for fiscal
year 2012 will necessarily reflect these concerns by cutting funding
for many programs and by disallowing directed spending for individual
programs. However, while the Government is trimming its spending, the
Federal Government must still fulfill its legal and contractual
spending obligations. The Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) not only has a
legal and contractual obligation to provide funding for the CRRC, but
the CRRC is able to translate this funding into real economic
opportunity for those living in the Prince William Sound region.
In this vein, the CRRC respectfully requests that the subcommittee
restore $500,000 in recurring base funding in the BIA's trust-natural
resources budget. Year after year, I request that the funding be
returned to the BIA's base budget, due to the difficulties the CRRC
continues to have receiving its legally and contractually bound funding
from the BIA. Despite entering into a legally binding Self-
Determination contract with the CRRC in 1993, a contract that was
subsequently renewed, the BIA has, in recent years, failed to request
funding for the CRRC in its budget. In 2008, we brought suit against
the BIA, which resulted in the BIA agreeing to a contract and funding
amount for the CRRC. Unfortunately, the BIA continues to fail to
provide this funding, and we again had to threaten to sue to receive
the funds due to us for fiscal year 2011.
CRRC History.--The CRRC is a nonprofit coalition of Alaska Native
Villages, organized in 1987 by the seven Native Villages:
--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.
CRRC was created to address environmental and natural resources
issues and to develop culturally sensitive economic projects at the
community level to support the sustainable development of the region's
natural resources. The Native Villages' action to create a separate
entity demonstrates the level of concern and importance they held for
environmental and natural resource management and protection--the
creation of the CRRC ensured that natural resource and environmental
issues received sufficient attention and focused funding.
In recognition of the level of concern the Villages of the Chugach
region had, and the importance of the CRRC's work, the BIA awarded the
CRRC a self-determination contract with the Department of the Interior
through the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act,
Public Law 93-638, in 1993, and received $350,000 as part of the BIA's
base budget from fiscal year 1994 through fiscal year 2002. CRRC has
been able to leverage this funding into almost $2 million annually to
support its several community-based programs. While the base funding of
$350,000 allowed the CRRC to maintain core administrative operations,
specific projects have received funding from sources such as ANA
Grants, the EVOS Trustee Council, the State of Alaska, the BIA, and the
Forest Service. With these funds, the CRRC has managed to develop and
operate several important programs that provide vital services,
valuable products, and necessary employment and commercial
opportunities.
Employment.--Through its many important programs, the CRRC has
provided employment for 35 Native people in the Chugach region--an area
that faces high levels of unemployment--through programs that conserve
and restore our natural resources.
An investment in the CRRC has been translated into real economic
opportunities, savings, and community investments that have a great
impact on the Chugach region. Our employees are able to earn a living
to support their families, thereby removing them from the rolls of
people needing State and Federal support. In turn, they are able to
reinvest in the community, supporting the employment and opportunities
of other families. Our programs, as well, support future economic and
commercial opportunities for the region--protecting and developing our
shellfish and other natural resources.
Programs.--CRRC has a history of successfully increasing its base
funding by almost 20 percent and using those funds to operate several
programs that invest in the future environmental and natural resource
health as well as the economic viability of the region. These programs
include:
Alutiiq Pride Shellfish Hatchery.--The Alutiiq Pride Shellfish
Hatchery is the only shellfish hatchery in the State of Alaska.
The 20,000 square foot shellfish hatchery is located in Seward,
Alaska, and houses shellfish seed, brood stock, and algae
production facilities. Alutiiq Pride is undertaking a hatchery
nursery operation, as well as grow-out operation research to
adapt mariculture techniques for the Alaskan shellfish
industry. The Hatchery is also conducting scientific research
on blue and red king crab as part of a larger federally
sponsored program. Alutiiq Pride has already been successful in
culturing geoduck, oyster, littleneck clam, and razor clam
species. This research has the potential to dramatically
increase commercial opportunities for the region in the future.
The activities of Alutiiq Pride are especially important for
this region considering it is the only shellfish hatchery in
the State, and therefore 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. This curriculum integrates traditional
knowledge with Western science. The goal of the program is to
encourage more Native students to pursue careers in the
sciences. In addition, we are working with the Native American
Fish and Wildlife Society and tribes across the country
(including Alaska) to develop a university level textbook to
accompany these courses.
Alaska Migratory Bird Co-Management Council.--The CRRC is a
member of the Council responsible for setting regulations
governing the spring harvest of migratory birds for Alaska
Natives.
Statewide Subsistence Halibut Working Group.--The CRRC
participates in this working group, ensuring the halibut
resources are secured for subsistence purposes, and to conduct
harvest surveys in the Chugach region.
We appreciate the opportunity to submit this important testimony.
______
Prepared Statement of the Council of Western State Foresters
Please accept this testimony on behalf of the Council of Western
State Foresters (CWSF). CWSF is comprised of the 17 State foresters and
six territorial foresters in the Western United States. The mission of
the CWSF is to promote science-based forest management that serves the
values of society and ensures the health and sustainability of western
forests.
introduction
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, CWSF appreciates the
opportunity to submit written public testimony on the proposed fiscal
year 2012 USDA Forest Service (USFS) budget related to funding for the
State Fire Assistance (SFA) program and on the Department of the
Interior (DOI) budget related to funding for the Rural Fire Assistance
(RFA) program. Additionally, CWSF appreciates this opportunity to
provide testimony in support of the Wildfire Suppression Reserve Funds
established under the Federal Land Assistance, Management and
Enhancement (FLAME) Act within the USFS and DOI budgets in fiscal year
2012. CWSF recommends that the fiscal year 2012 budget fund these
priority programs as follows:
SFA.--$110 million ($39 million within the State and private
forestry appropriation and $71 million within the Wildland Fire
Management appropriation).
Rural Fire Assistance.--$7 million.
USFS FLAME Account.--$413 million.
DOI FLAME Account.--$92 million.
CWSF supports the National Association of State Forester's fiscal
year 2012 appropriations recommendation testimony that has been
submitted to the Senate Committee on Appropriations Subcommittee on the
Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies. Ensuring appropriate
funding for the SFA, RFA, and the FLAME accounts is a priority in the
West. These programs provide critically important resources needed to
equip first responders and to address the growing threat of wildland
fire in response to the heavy accumulation of fuels in many western
forests and the large number of fire-prone communities and homes at
high risk within the wildland-urban interface. Funding these programs
provides necessary resources to equip local agencies to protect human
life and property, enables local communities to better prepare for
wildland fires and also ensures that other Federal, nonfire programs
will not be negatively impacted by the cost of suppressing emergency
wildland fires.
background
Because of the impact of wildland fire in the West to communities,
forest resources and budgets, the CWSF has been an active participant
in the Partner Caucus on Fire Suppression Spending Solutions (Partner
Caucus). The Partner Caucus is comprised of a unique group of
organizations, including leading industry, environmental, outdoor
recreation, and forestry organizations that worked to find new and
improved mechanisms to fund emergency fire suppression within the USFS
and the DOI. This group was instrumental in building support for
changing the way we fund fire suppression, which ultimately led to the
passage of the FLAME Act by the Congress in 2009. The FLAME Act
established two funds, one each for USFS and DOI, to cover emergency
wildland fire suppression costs. The Congress was clear that the intent
of the FLAME Act was to eliminate the need to transfer funds from
nonfire accounts to fund emergency wildland fires, and further, that
FLAME funding should not come at the expense of other DOI programs.
Programs like RFA within DOI and SFA within USFS provide critical
resources to local communities to equip and train first responders and
engage in wildland fire mitigation activities. For example, the SFA
program supports the preparation of Community Wildfire Protection
Plans, which serve as a guide to fuels mitigation work and help fire-
prone communities protect life and property. These programs leverage
Federal dollars to enhance the critically important wildland fire
protection capabilities of communities and fire districts throughout
the West. By assisting first responders with training, purchasing
necessary suppression, communications and safety equipment, and
conducting prevention activities, these programs help ensure a safe,
quick and efficient response to wildland fires, which in turn helps
reduce suppression costs by reducing the number of large wildland
fires.
summary
We are grateful for the efforts and support of the Congress to
address the many issues surrounding the increasing cost of suppressing
wildland fires. For the reasons outlined above, CWSF supports whole and
healthy FLAME accounts within DOI and USFS along with funding for SFA
and RFA programs. These programs are all critically necessary
components of a solution to our Nation's wildland fire suppression
funding problem.
______
Prepared Statement of the Civil War 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 Trust. I am writing to
respectfully request that the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on the
Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies fund the Civil War
Battlefield Preservation Program (CWBPP), financed through the Land and
Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) in the Department of the Interior (DOI),
at its authorized amount of $10 million.
I would like to start by providing a little information about our
organization. The Civil War Trust 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, the
Trust has permanently protected more than 30,000 acres of hallowed
ground in 20 States, most of it outside National Park Service (NPS)
boundaries.
I write to you today regarding the highly effective Federal land
conservation program that has made much of our success possible: the
CWBPP. This authorized competitive matching grants program, operated
through the NPS American Battlefield Protection Program (ABPP) office,
requires a 1 to 1 Federal/non-Federal match, although on many occasions
the Federal dollars are leveraged much more than 1 to 1. The Program
has successfully promoted cooperative partnerships between State and
local governments and the private sector to preserve targeted, high-
priority Civil War battlegrounds outside the NPS boundaries. Since it
was first funded in fiscal year 1999, the program has been used to
protect more than 16,500 acres of our Nation's hallowed ground.
the opportune time
This year marks the beginning of the sesquicentennial commemoration
of the Civil War. It is an opportune time to recommit our energies to
the protection of these hallowed grounds. Few commemorations are
expected to generate more excitement and interest among Americans than
this anniversary. Millions are expected to learn about our Nation's
unique history by visiting Civil War sites around the country in the
next 4 years. This anniversary provides the perfect opportunity to
promote preservation of Civil War battlefields. In late March,
Secretary Salazar attended an event in Gettysburg to celebrate the
preservation of some of the most blood-soaked ground still unprotected
at Gettysburg. At that event, Secretary Salazar affirmed the DOI's
commitment to promoting the 150th anniversary of the Civil War and the
need to protect these hallowed grounds as legacies for future
generations of Americans.
battlefield lands are our shared american heritage
These battlefield lands are an irreplaceable part of our shared
national heritage. These lands are consecrated with the blood of brave
Americans who fought and died to create the country we are today. The
private sector organizations engaged in battlefield preservation are
competing with developers to acquire this land. Once these hallowed
grounds are lost, they are lost forever.
We estimate that 30 acres of battlefield lands are lost every day.
These lands, when preserved, serve as outdoor classrooms to educate
current and future generations of Americans about this defining moment
in our Nation's history. In addition, preserved battlefields are
economic drivers for communities, bringing in tourism dollars that are
extremely important to State and local economies.
origins of the program
In 1990, the 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, the 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. Eighteen years later, this landmark
report and a recent update conducted by the NPS remain our guide for
targeting only the most historically significant remaining Civil War
battlefields.
In addition to creating a prioritized list of battlefield
preservation targets, the CWSAC also recommended that the Congress
establish a Federal matching grant program to help the nonprofit sector
save high-priority Civil War battlefields. CWSAC's proposal 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, the Congress acted upon the CWSAC's
recommendation by setting aside $8 million from the LWCF 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 ABPP, an
arm of the NPS. Funding was solely for acquisition of properties
outside the 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. The Civil War Trust 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, the Congress
appropriated an additional $11 million for the program in fiscal year
2002, this time with a 1 to 1 non-Federal/Federal match requirement.
authorization of the program
After approval of the fiscal year 2002 appropriation, authorization
of the CWBPP was the next logical step. Supporters on Capitol Hill felt
that authorization of the program would convey to the DOI congressional
intent regarding the CWBPP'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 the 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).
cwbpp's continued successes and reauthorization
Since CWBPP was first funded in fiscal year 1999, CWBPP grants have
been used to protect 16,500 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.
The CWBPP was reauthorized as part of the Omnibus Public Land
Management Act of 2009 (H.R. 146), which President Obama signed into
law on March 30, 2009 (Public Law 111-11).
urgent need for funding
The CWBPP's entire fiscal year 2010 allocation has been obligated
and spent to preserve more than 1,500 acres of sacred battlefield land.
We thank the subcommittee and the full Appropriations Committee for the
fiscal year 2011 allocation for the battlefield program as included in
the final full-year continuing resolution. This allocation comes at a
critical time, ensuring that highly significant Civil War battlefield
lands will continue to be preserved in this the first year of the
sesquicentennial anniversary of the Civil War.
However, much work remains to be done. We recognize that these are
difficult economic times and appreciate the constraints on this
subcommittee as you work to draft an appropriation bill that meets the
needs of the agencies and programs under your jurisdiction. However, we
believe that now is the opportune time to provide funding at the $10
million level for the CWBPP. Funding at this level will allow for the
continued success of the program and the preservation of key
battlefield lands that will serve as lasting, tangible legacies for the
sesquicentennial anniversary. In addition, with time rapidly running
out to forever protect these hallowed grounds, funding for this program
will soon no longer be necessary. We estimate that in the next 5 to 10
years the remaining Civil War battlefield lands will be either paved
over or protected. That is why we must act now in order to preserve as
much key battlefield land as possible before time runs out.
For these reasons, we respectfully ask the Senate Appropriations
Subcommittee on the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies to fund
the CWBPP at its authorized amount of $10 million. Recognizing the
opportunity presented by the sesquicentennial, President Obama included
a $10 million request for the program as part of his fiscal year 2012
budget.
conclusion
Mr. Chairman, 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 came at a terrific
price.
Mr. Chairman, I sincerely hope you and your subcommittee will
consider our request to provide funding of the CWBPP at its authorized
level of $10 million. As noted, this is especially important as the
Nation begins the sesquicentennial commemoration of the Civil War. We
look forward to working with you and other subcommittee members on
battlefield protection and other historic preservation issues. Thank
you for the opportunity to address the subcommittee.
______
Prepared Statement of the Dzilth-Na-O-Dith-Hle Community Grant School
request summary
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee: My name is Faye
BlueEyes, and I serve as the program director for the Dzilth-Na-O-Dith-
Hle Community School (DCGS) on the Navajo Reservation in Bloomfield,
New Mexico. My testimony is submitted on behalf of the DCGS School
Board and Mr. Ervin Chavez, president, and will focus on three areas of
particular concern to our school in the fiscal year 2012 funding
requests for the Bureau of Indian Education (BIE). Specifically, DCGS
is requesting the following:
--For the BIE, funding for Tribal Grant Support Costs (TGSC) in the
amount of $72.3 million to fully meet the indirect costs
incurred by all tribally operated schools.
--For the BIE, to restore $60.9 million in reductions to the
facilities construction and repair account.
--For the BIE, provide $109.8 million in facilities operations and
$76 million in facilities maintenance as recommended by the
National Congress of American Indians (NCAI) in its budget
requests.
background
The DCGS is located in Bloomfield, New Mexico, approximately 170
miles northwest of Albuquerque within the boundaries of the Navajo
Indian Reservation. Bloomfield has an estimated population of 7,210,
with a per capita income of $14,420, and a median family income of
$34,760. The DCGS is a tribally controlled grant school primarily
funded through appropriations received from the BIE, and pass-through
funding from the Department of Education. Our school, which has been in
continuous service since 1968, operates a K-8 educational program, and
a dormitory program for students in grades 1-12. Residential students
in grades 9-12 attend the local public school. Currently, 200 students
are enrolled in our academic program, and 51 students are housed in
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 the DCGS is to make a difference in the educational progress
of our students and we believe that all of our students are capable of
achieving academic success. The DCGS, however, has struggled with
chronic underfunding of virtually each and every one of its educational
and related programs: in the Indian School Equalization Formula (ISEF)
which is the key budget account for the academic program; in our
student transportation funding; in the administrative grants given to
fund the expenses needed to operate our program, now known as TGSC; and
in our facilities operation and maintenance accounts. In addition, our
school facilities' conditions have consistently been rated as ``poor''
by the BIE. Though we operate with authorization from the Navajo
Nation, we are a separate ``tribal organization.'' Thus, when we do not
receive adequate funding, we have nowhere to turn to make up the
difference and our academic mission is jeopardized.
Quite illogically, spending for Indian education programs is
considered a ``discretionary'' part of the Federal budget. To the
contrary, adequate funding for these programs is absolutely critical,
and must be considered a bipartisan priority. While we all recognize
that the fiscal year 2012 budget is being considered in a time of great
economic and fiscal challenges, please do not forget that the Indian
school system has been historically underfunded, the facilities within
which it operates have long been neglected, and we simply cannot
continue to absorb more and more draconian budget cuts. With all of
these factors in mind, we address our funding priorities below.
specific requests
Request No. 1: Funding for the TGSC in the amount of $72.3 million,
in contrast to the $46.3 million in the fiscal year 2012 budget
requests. This is the amount calculated by the NCAI and others as
necessary to fully fund the indirect cost requirements of current
tribally controlled schools plus provide $2 million in start-up funds
for newly converting schools. The fiscal year 2012 budget requests no
funding dedicated to costs incurred by new schools.
The TGSC, formerly known as Administrative Costs Grants, are funds
provided to tribally operated schools by the Federal Government to
cover the administrative or indirect costs associated with the
operation of a school. This funding is applied to the costs of payroll,
accounting, insurance, background checks, and other legal, reporting
and record-keeping requirements, including the preparation of required
annual audits. The TGSC are appropriated in a lump sum and then awarded
to individual schools after application of a complex statutory formula
that divides the available funding among eligible recipients.
Currently, 124 of the 183 BIE-funded schools are operated by tribes or
tribal school boards. In fiscal year 2010, the funding available for
the TGSC met only 61 percent of the need of the schools, the lowest
rate to date. The BIE estimates that the $3 million increase requested
for the TGSC for fiscal year 2012 will fund 65 percent of need, but
with the ever increasing number of reporting and other requirements
placed on tribally operated schools, the ever-rising costs of
personnel, and the likelihood that the pool of schools among which the
funding is divided will increase in fiscal year 2012 by several
schools, we believe that the 65 percent projection is highly
optimistic.
The consequence of insufficient TGSC means that we constantly
absorb more and more administrative expenses and scale back on prudent
management activities. We have had to reduce our management staff to
the point that our ability to maintain prudent internal controls and
checks and balances is compromised, and money has to be diverted from
important academic programs. In contrast to the grossly inadequate
funding for the administrative costs incurred by school contractors,
nonschool BIA and Indian Health Service contractors have been the
recipients of significant increases in contract support funding.
Tribally controlled schools have received no increases in funding since
fiscal year 2004, yet the fiscal year 2012 budget requests an increase
of $25.5 million to fund Contract Support Costs (CSC) for the BIA
nonschool contractors (with an additional $2 million for new
contractors) and a $50 million increase for the IHS contractors, in
addition to generous increases received in the fiscal year 2010 enacted
budget. This disparity in funding is unexplained and indefensible.
Request No. 2.--Restore $60.9 million to the education construction
account. The fiscal year 2012 budget request would place a freeze on
``new construction'' and would defer replacement facilities
construction to place more emphasis on repairing critical building
deficiencies. This reduction in funding has been justified by the
Department of the Interior (DOI) in light of the ``substantial
investment'' made in Indian schools and detention centers under the
Recovery Act, funding for which will be phased out in fiscal year 2012.
Despite this so-called ``substantial investment, the reality remains
that 66 of the 181 schools for which the BIE is responsible are rated
in ``poor'' condition on the Bureau's ``Education Facility Condition
Index for fiscal year 2011'', an increase of two schools from December
2009, when the last listing was published. The NCAI, in its fiscal year
2012 budget requests estimated that it would take $263.4 million just
to keep pace with the growing need for facility construction and
repair, and yet the budget requests no funds for construction, and only
$13.8 million to address critical repair needs. The DCGS's facilities
are rated as ``poor'' by the BIE with an estimated $19,141,580 in
estimated replacement cost, with a deferred maintenance backlog of $7.7
million. Our buildings are more than 40 years old, with serious
deficiencies in our aging electrical, heating and cooling, and plumbing
systems. We have to continually cope with major problems such as
leaking sewer lines under the school; and in November 2009 we
discovered a major leak in an underground gas line which threatened to
cause an explosion at the school, which then had to be closed for 2
weeks so the gas company could perform the extensive excavation work
needed to do repairs. Just recently, the electrical panel in our
gymnasium caught fire and had to be disconnected. Because the gymnasium
does not have a sprinkler system, we were fortunate to catch the fire
as early as we did and avoid serious damage to the building.
The BIE has a process for evaluating school construction projects
and placing them on a priority list for funding. No new projects,
however, have been added to the list since 2004, and the DCGS has not
had the opportunity to make its case for a replacement school. For
these reasons, we urge the Congress to direct the BIE to reopen the
process by which the BIE-funded schools can submit applications for
replacement school construction projects. We also urge the Congress to
restore the $60.9 million to the school construction account. While
this is a far cry from the amount needed to fully address the needs of
tribally operated schools, it will permit some progress in addressing
the often dire conditions in which our students attend school. To be
frank, no other parents across America would accept the conditions
under which Indian children attend school every day.
Request No. 3.--Funding for facilities maintenance in the amount of
$76 million and facilities operations in the amount of $109.8 million.
As reported by the Government Accountability Office, more than 50
percent of the BIE school buildings are more than 30 years old, and 20
percent are more than 50 years old. It stands to reason that in order
to extend the useful life of the BIE's education buildings adequate
funding for ongoing and effective maintenance must be provided. This
funding is needed to provide preventative, routine, and unscheduled
maintenance for all school buildings, equipment, utility systems, and
ground structures. The deferred maintenance backlog for the BIE's
school buildings, as reported by the BIE for fiscal year 2011, however,
is well more than $250 million; yet the BIE has requested only $50.7
million for facilities maintenance in the fiscal year 2012 budget, a
mere fraction of what is required to make a significant dent in the
maintenance backlog.
Facilities operation funding covers ongoing operational expenses
such as payment for electricity, heating fuels, communications, ground
maintenance, vehicle rental, refuse collection, water and sewer
service, fire and intrusion monitoring, among other functions. The NCAI
has calculated that facilities operation expenses are currently funded
at only 46 percent of need. Yet, the BIE has requested only $58.7
million for fiscal year 2012, a decrease of $751,000 from the fiscal
year 2010 enacted amount, despite the fact, as we are all aware, the
cost of these essential services, particularly the cost of electricity
and heating costs continues to escalate.
The decision to eliminate all funding for new or replacement school
construction, while failing to otherwise address the very real health
and safety risks that can be reduced by adequate facilities maintenance
funding seems shortsighted to say the least. Further, the Congress must
recognize that when the BIE fails to fund facilities operation costs at
a realistic level, small, preventable problems become bigger and more
expensive to address, and in emergency situations, school funding must
be diverted from other programs to meet these needs. In light of these
realities, the NCAI's proposal of $76 million for facilities
maintenance and $109.8 million in facilities operation funding, is but
a modest first step in addressing these long-neglected needs.
conclusion
Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle have endorsed the education of
our children as one of our highest national priorities, through the
provision of better teachers, better instructional materials,
appropriate facilities, and more innovative opportunities. Good
education costs money, and it is our hope and expectation that the
Congress will recognize the tremendous needs that exist in our BIE-
funded schools, the potentially disastrous impact of budget reductions,
and the need to address the historic underfunding of our school system.
Please join us in supporting a quality educational program for all our
students. We are grateful for any assistance you can provide.
______
Prepared Statement of the Defenders of Wildlife
Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member and members of the subcommittee, thank
you for the opportunity to submit testimony for the record. Founded in
1947, Defenders has more than 1 million members and supporters and is
dedicated to the conservation of wild animals and plants in their
natural communities.
Even in the face of dire fiscal realities, Defenders continues to
believe that investments in the protection of wildlife and habitat are
a wise choice for our Nation. To protect wildlife, its habitat must be
protected, in turn, conserving healthy natural systems that provide
clean air and water, food, medicines, and other products we need to
live healthy lives. Federal programs that protect imperiled species,
migratory birds, wildlife refuges, forests, parks, wilderness, and
other lands essential to wildlife all are helping to ultimately ensure
the health and well-being of the American people. The devastating
Deepwater Horizon spill offered an unfortunate but valuable lesson in
the importance of a healthy and thriving gulf coast system for the
people and communities dependent upon it.
Several damaging policy riders were included in the final fiscal
year 2011 continuing resolution, including one that legislatively
delisted most wolves in the Northern Rockies, a dangerous and damaging
precedent for the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Defenders urges the
subcommittee to keep the fiscal year 2012 appropriations bill free of
any further such anti-environmental provisions.
We are pleased with several high-priority initiatives in the
President's fiscal year 2012 budget, including:
--the continued emphasis on landscape level conservation and
management efforts intended to build resilience to broad-scale
ecological stressors that are harming wildlife and habitat,
such as invasive species, wildfire, drought, and climate
change--the most daunting conservation challenge of our time;
and
--the proposal to fully fund the Land and Water Conservation Fund
(LWCF) that includes a new joint effort by the Departments of
the Interior and Agriculture to identify inter-departmental
priorities for land acquisition.
We also are very supportive of the administration's effort to
prioritize the development of renewable energy as part of a strategy to
address climate change, produce jobs, and transition to a clean energy
economy. The President's budget states that various initiatives to
conduct scientific assessments, plan, and manage at the landscape level
across agencies will be coordinated under Cooperative Landscape
Conservation (CLC) and will help to support mission critical operating
programs of the various agencies, something we believe is of the utmost
importance if these initiatives are to realize their full potential.
Moreover, the impacts of significant undertakings, such as the
expansion of renewable energy development on Federal lands, must be
adequately considered in the context of landscape level conservation
with proper siting, management, and mitigation of these projects to
avoid significant impacts on wildlife and other sensitive resources.
We urge the subcommittee to do as much as possible to protect the
accounts of the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), our Nation's premier
wildlife conservation agency. We strongly support the following modest
increases:
--To continue progress in building resilience to landscape level
ecological stressors, the administration's request for a total
of $37.5 million for CLC and adaptive science capacity that
will complete establishment of the 18 Landscape Conservation
Cooperatives that will be led by FWS out of a total of 21.
These funds also will be used to meet additional scientific
information needs such as inventory and monitoring and species
risk, vulnerability, population, and habitat assessments. In
continuing this initiative, effective coordination of landscape
level and scientific efforts across agencies and departments
and with partners and stakeholders is absolutely crucial.
--To address the needs of our Nation's most vulnerable plants and
animals, a total of $195.8 million for endangered species
operating accounts, $13.2 million more than the request,
allocated as follows: $12.6 million for candidate conservation,
the fiscal year 2010 level, $1.2 million more than the request;
$24.6 million for listing, equal to the request; $90.3 million
for recovery, $6.6 million more than the request; and $68.3
million for consultation, $5.4 million more than the request.
In particular, increases are needed in the recovery and
consultation programs to implement conservation actions on the
ground and to address more than 1,000 consultations related to
renewable energy development, and a backlog of more than 1,100
pesticide re-registration and other water quality criteria
consultations. We are extremely disappointed that funding was
eliminated for the Wolf Livestock Loss Demonstration Program
that assists livestock producers coexisting with wolves and for
White Nose Syndrome that has decimated more than 1 million bats
in the last several years, and we ask that both be restored. We
support the request for a legislative sub-cap on petitions
conditional on the FWS making progress with listing priority
species.
--To maintain the National Wildlife Refuge System, a total of $511
million, a modest increase of approximately $8 million more
than the request, as recommended by the diverse coalition of 21
organizations in the Cooperative Alliance for Refuge
Enhancement. The increase is focused only on maintaining
current management capability--such as keeping fuel in trucks
and paying for rising utilities, building rent and other
costs--normally at least $15 million, but reduced for fiscal
year 2012 consistent with the Federal employee salary freeze.
Flat budgets or cuts in fiscal year 2012 and the coming years
would trigger a return to a massive downsizing plan that would
lead to elimination of biological, education, hunting and
fishing programs, and to other devastating impacts.
--To minimize harm to the mission critical Office of Law Enforcement,
a total of $67.8 million, $5.2 million more than the request
but only $2 million more than the fiscal year 2010 level,
focused on additional special agents and port inspectors. We
are strongly opposed to the decrease in the request for funding
that had specifically been added by the Congress in the fiscal
year 2010 bill to boost numbers of special agents--the special
agent force is still 23 percent below the authorized number of
261 and even 16 percent below its previous high water mark.
--To support the Migratory Bird Management Program, a total of $56.5
million, $2 million more than the request to address crucial
needs including development of information on golden eagle
populations which recently have been discovered to be
vulnerable to impacts from wind turbines. Defenders also
supports the $2 million increase in conservation planning
assistance under habitat conservation that the request says
will be used to coordinate and expedite renewable energy
project review and development while minimizing impacts on fish
and wildlife.
--To support the Environmental Contaminants Program, $16 million,
$2.2 million more than the request. The program's budget has
been basically flat since 2001, yet resources are needed to
assist the ESA Consultation Program in its backlogged pesticide
and water quality consultations and also to support readiness
and response capabilities for oil spills or the release of
other hazardous substances.
--To sustain the International Affairs Program, a total of $16.9
million, $3.9 million more than the request. Defenders is
disappointed that the request included a nearly 10 percent
decrease in this very modest program. Funding is needed to
support at-risk wildlife in crucial regions through Wildlife
Without Borders regional programs; for the Critically
Endangered Animals Conservation Fund and Amphibians in Decline
Program; for the growing permitting, research and monitoring
workload for species subject to trade, and for other crucial
priorities.
--For critical grant programs, $95 million for State and Tribal
Wildlife Grants, same as the request; $100 million for the
Cooperative Endangered Species Fund, same as the request; $6.5
million for the Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Fund,
$1.5 million more than the request; and $13.5 million for the
Multinational Species Conservation Fund, $3.75 million more
than the request.
The multiple-use lands of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and
the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) are increasingly crucial to the
conservation of wildlife and habitat in the United States, yet their
resources are not adequate to meet significant challenges. A top
priority for Defenders is ensuring that any renewable energy
development on our multiple-use lands proceeds in a balanced way that
ensures no net loss to wildlife populations and a net benefit to the
status of threatened and endangered species. We are extremely
disappointed that the comprehensive review on siting and coordination
of renewable energy projects by the Department of the Interior (DOI)
and the USFS that was directed by the fiscal year 2010 conference
report has yet to be submitted. We urge continued strong oversight to
ensure that any energy development is done in an environmentally
sensitive fashion. And given the large land ownerships of the two
agencies, it is imperative that both participate fully in landscape
level conservation and management efforts underway.
For the USFS, the budget proposes two new consolidated budget line
items, Integrated Resource Restoration (IRR), as was proposed for
fiscal year 2011, and land management planning, assessments, and
monitoring. While Defenders supports the stated goals of these
consolidations to move to a restoration and resiliency based approach
to forest management and to better link planning, assessment and
monitoring to advance adaptive management, we remain highly concerned
about the adequacy of science-based management objectives and clear
standards for conservation, in particular, given previous USFS
accountability issues, the merging of wildlife and fisheries habitat
management into IRR, and the proposed new National Forest Management
Act planning regulations that eliminate longstanding wildlife viability
standards. Defenders and other organizations have proposed that, rather
than a complete consolidation, a responsible first step would be a
program that uses portions of various program budgets until results and
accountability can be demonstrated.
We recommend the following funding for the BLM and USFS programs:
--For crosscutting BLM cooperative landscape conservation, $29.5
million, $2.2 million more than the request. The increase is
needed to help support the continued development of rapid
ecoregional assessments that examine ecological conditions
within large landscapes to ensure that initiated assessments
are completed, that new ones are launched in priority
landscapes, and that information contained in assessments is
transferred into useful management direction.
--For BLM wildlife and fisheries management, a total of $53.3
million, $3 million more than the request and for BLM
threatened and endangered species management, a total of $24.6
million, $2.9 million more than the request. Investments in
inventory and monitoring are needed to help avoid and mitigate
harmful impacts to golden eagles, bats, and other wildlife
species from renewable energy development and to ascertain bat
presence or absence in approximately 400 caves so that BLM can
begin to address any occurrence of White-Nose Syndrome. We also
are concerned by reports that plant conservation will be moved
from the wildlife subactivity to rangeland management, which we
fear will undermine the broader conservation focus of the
program.
--For BLM challenge cost share, $9.5 million, same as the request.
This program provides crucial resources for proactive wildlife
and habitat conservation projects on the ground and the budget
states that concerns raised in a 2009 Inspector General report
have been addressed.
--For BLM resource management planning, $55 million, same as the
fiscal year 2010 level and $9.4 million more than the request.
We are quite concerned about the requested decrease which we
believe will hinder needed plan revisions.
--For BLM's new renewable energy subactivity, $19.7 million, same as
the request. Given the major effort to develop renewable energy
on BLM lands, the establishment of this new subactivity to
better focus resources is a responsible step and we applaud the
requested $3 million increase that will support environmental
reviews.
--For USFS land management planning, $50.9 million and for USFS
inventory and monitoring, $172.5 million. The proposal to
consolidate these two line items cuts the total by $10.8
million even though the fiscal year 2010 levels for both
programs are far below the 2003 inflation-adjusted level.
Robust funding for planning, supported by inventory and
monitoring are crucial to move toward a restoration and
sustainability agenda.
--Given the IRR proposal, it is not clear if the separate wildlife
and fisheries habitat management line item will still exist,
however regardless of whether there is a separate or combined
line item, Defenders supports a total of at least $148 million
for wildlife and fish output measures, just $5 million more
than fiscal year 2010 that is still nearly $16 million below
the fiscal year 2001 inflation-adjusted level. With 19 percent
fewer botanists and fisheries and wildlife biologists than in
1995, Defenders is greatly troubled about the loss of
biological capability in the agency.
--For USFS wildlife and fish R&D in forest and rangeland research,
$32.5 million, $4.7 million more than the request allocated to
the Climate Change and Water Management and Restoration
Emerging Research Areas. Given the need for science-based
management on National Forest System lands and the importance
of wildlife as indicators of forest health, Defenders is
extremely disappointed in the 9 percent decrease in the request
for Wildlife and Fish R&D.
The U.S. Geological Survey supports the basic science necessary for
conservation of fish, wildlife, and habitat. To provide adequate
science support, we urge the following increases:
--For the National Climate Change and Wildlife Science Center, $25.6
million, same as the request. We thank the subcommittee for its
past strong support and are pleased with progress being made to
establish the regional science centers that will be expanded to
include northeast, south central and Pacific Island Centers
with the increase.
--For ecosystems, $171.3 million, $4.9 million more than the request,
that will help to continue filling scientist vacancies in the
all-important Cooperative Research Units; for science support
for the DOI bureaus now in the Climate and Land-Use Change
activity, $9 million, same as the request, that will assist the
agencies in making scientifically based resource management
decisions; and for Alternative Energy Studies on Wildlife now
under the Energy and Minerals and Environmental Health
activity, $3 million, same as the request, to assess impacts to
wildlife from wind energy projects and to help inform siting to
ensure minimal harm.
Finally, each day, 6,000 acres of open space in the United States
is lost to habitat fragmentation and destruction. Once there lands are
lost, they can never be recovered. We urge the subcommittee to fulfill
the President's request for full-funding of the LWCF. Thank you for the
opportunity to provide testimony.
______
Prepared Statement of the Enewetak/Ujelang Local Government
Mr. 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 (EFAP). 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 2012
be increased by the amount of $500,000, the same amount of increase as
provided by the Congress in fiscal year 2011. 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, Mr. 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 2011 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 United States 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 EFAP 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 EFAP was funded at a level of approximately $1.9
million in fiscal year 2011 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 2012 so that the components of the
program will be funded in the total amount of $1.9 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 EFAP 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 EFAP: 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 2012 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 2011. 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.
We also 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.
Finally, we need to mention our just compensation claims which have
yet to be addressed by the United States. As you can imagine, Enewetak
was devastated by the 43 nuclear explosions. More than half the atoll
requires radiological remediation. The entire atoll requires
restoration. The Enjebi people need to be resettled on their home
islands in the northern part of the atoll. The United States accepted
responsibility for the damages it caused at Enewetak, and it agreed
that the Nuclear Claims Tribunal was to determine just compensation for
our people. That Tribunal has done so. Now the just compensation award
must be addressed so that we have the resources to remediate our atoll
and to provide our people with the compensation to which they are
entitled for the loss of use of their land. We believe that the best
way for the Congress to address the claims of the Enewetak people is to
have the matter referred to the United States Court of Federal Claims
pursuant to the congressional referral process. That process will
enable a body familiar with the type of claims examined and addressed
by the Tribunal to again examine those claims, and the resulting
awards, and provide a recommendation to the Congress regarding
disposition of the claims.
Again, Mr. Chairman, we thank you and members of this subcommittee
for your support which makes life possible for us on our home atoll of
Enewetak, and we thank you for your kind consideration of the requests
made in this statement.
______
Prepared Statement of the Forest County Potawatomi Community
My name is Harold Gus Frank, the tribal chairman of the Forest
County Potawatomi Community. The Forest County Potawatomi Community is
proud of its state-of-the-art health and wellness center located in the
rural northwoods of Wisconsin. This testimony is offered on behalf \1\
of the tribe to discuss the legal obligation and urgent need to fully
fund the contract support costs (CSC) that are owed to the Forest
County Potawatomi Community and other tribes performing contracts and
compacts on behalf of the United States pursuant to the Indian Self-
Determination Act (ISDA)--specifically $615 million for the Indian
Health Service (IHS) CSC requirements and $228 million for the Bureau
of Indian Affairs (BIA) CSC requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The Forest County Potawatomi Community (WI) is a member of the
National Tribal Contract Support Cost Coalition, comprised of 19 tribes
and tribal organizations situated in 10 States and collectively
operating contracts to administer more than $400 million in the IHS and
the BIA facilities and services on behalf of more than 250 Native
American tribes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
No single enactment has had a more profound effect on more tribal
communities than has ISDA. In just three decades tribes and inter-
tribal organizations have taken over control of vast portions of BIA
and IHS, including Federal Government functions in the areas of
healthcare, education, law enforcement, and land and natural resource
protection. Today, not a single tribe in the United States is without
at least one self-determination contract with each agency, and
collectively the tribes administer more than $2.82 billion in essential
Federal Government functions, employing an estimated 35,000 people.
In the IHS Aberdeen area, more than 20 percent of the IHS budget is
under contract to the tribes. The Forest County Potawatomi Community
has demanded their self-determination rights and secured control over
IHS and BIA programs. ISDA has been a success unprecedented in the
history of America's relations with its tribes. As tribes exercise the
primary role of controlling and administering essential governmental
services, ISDA has been a useful means for them to address specific
needs in key governmental areas and to engage in meaningful economic
and resource development to improve the quality of life for members.
ISDA employs a contracting mechanism to carry out its goal of
transferring essential governmental functions from Federal agency
administration to tribal government administration. To carry out that
goal and meet contract requirements, the act requires that IHS and BIA
fully reimburse every tribal contractor for the CSCs that are necessary
to carry out the contracted Federal activities. (Cost-reimbursable
Government contracts similarly require reimbursement of ``general and
administrative'' costs.) Full payment of fixed CSCs is essential:
without it, offsetting program reductions must be made, vacancies
cannot be filled, and services are reduced, all to make up for the
shortfall. In short, a CSC shortfall is equivalent to a program cut.
For years the administration failed to request full funding for its
CSC obligations, and the resulting shortfalls grew. This has had the
cascading effect of negatively impacting tribes. The shortfalls attack
first those tribes with the smallest voice, tribes whose leadership has
tribal constitutional obligations to fulfill.
The first major effort to address this deficiency in the past 10
years occurred in fiscal year 2010, when the Congress and the President
supported a $116 million increase to reduce the IHS CSC shortfall by
about one-half, and a $21 million increase to address BIA CSC
shortfalls. The IHS increase, alone, will eventually restore 2,820
health sector jobs in Indian country. Even still, in fiscal year 2010
these increases left a severe CSC shortfall well in excess of $100
million.
Today, IHS projects an fiscal year 2012 shortfall in CSC payments
of $153 million. That means a $153 million cut in tribally contracted
programs next year--not IHS--administered programs, but tribally
administered health programs alone--to cover the shortfall.
BIA reports that its CSC shortfall exceeded $62 million in fiscal
year 2010, meaning full CSC requirements that year totaled $228
million. Yet, the fiscal year 2012 budget requests only $195.5 million,
resulting in a required cut in tribally operated BIA programs of $33
million next year.
It is not acceptable for the administration to seek deficit
reduction by singling out tribally administered health and law
enforcement programs for such grave cuts in essential governmental
services. Indeed, the Congress 23 years ago directed that the agencies
``must cease the practice of requiring tribal contractors to take
indirect costs from the direct program costs, which results in
decreased amounts of funds for services,'' S. Rept. 100-274, p. 9
(1987), yet the practice continues.
Funding CSCs in full will permit the restoration of Indian country
jobs that have been cut while the shortfalls continue. The recent
fiscal year 2010 reduction in the CSC shortfall produced a stunning
increase in Indian country jobs. Last year the Forest County Potawatomi
Community received about $400,000 and added 13 positions. Fellow tribal
leaders were also able to utilize the funds to create jobs or to
restore vital positions.
The Forest County Potawatomi Community urges that for fiscal year
2012:
--IHS CSC line be increased to $615 million; and
--BIA CSC line be increased to $228 million.
The status quo is not acceptable. First, absent these increases the
combined projected CSC shortfall in fiscal year 2012 for both agencies
will exceed $186 million. That means a $186 million cut in tribal
health, education, law enforcement and other contracted programs,
representing more than 3,600 jobs.
Second, the status quo penalizes tribes for their self-
determination contracting activities. Today, a $1 million IHS-operated
clinic has $1 million to provide services. But a $1 million tribally
operated clinic on average has only $800,000 to serve the same
community. That is a cruel and unfair burden to impose on the very
Tribes that seek greater tribal self-determination.
Third, the continuing shortfalls have all but brought to a halt
forward progress under ISDA. For years, new contracting activities have
slowed to a trickle, and each agency is stuck at no more than 60
percent of its budget operated by tribes. The Congress' Policy of
Tribal Self-Determination will not move forward until the CSC
shortfalls are addressed
Fourth, investing funds here is wise. No part of the IHS or BIA
budgets is more highly scrutinized than are the funds awarded under
these contracts. There is a transparency and accountability here that
is unrivaled in other government contracting work.
Fifth, fully paying CSCs is legally required. The United States
Supreme Court so held in the 2005 Cherokee Nation case. It is not a
matter of writing a better law, but of honoring the law that the
Congress has already written.
Finally, it is a stain on America when the Nation honors to the
penny all other Government contracts, even when honoring those
contracts demands supplemental appropriations, but does not live up to
those legal responsibilities when it comes to contracts with Indian
tribes. The Forest County Potawatomi Community and all tribes have
wrongfully been in the untenable position of performing contractual
obligations despite the shortfall. As much as law, policy, fairness and
good sense, the Nation's honor demands that these contracts be paid in
full for services duly rendered to the United States.
In addition to these recommended funding levels, it is recommended
that the subcommittee require both agencies to consistently project and
budget the additional CSC requirements associated with new contracts
and program expansions (on average, 13.5 cents for each new IHS program
dollar, and 10.4 cents for each new BIA program dollar). IHS did this
in its fiscal year 2012 budget, but the BIA did not. Further, the
subcommittee should reconcile the different language used in IHS and
BIA portions of the bill, eliminate the old section 314'' language (a
useless vestige after the Cherokee case), and assure that each agency
has an Indian Self-Determination Fund inside the overall CSC
appropriation to address new contracting initiatives.
Thank you for the opportunity to offer these recommendations.
______
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. We appreciate having the opportunity to provide you
with testimony on fiscal year 2012 appropriations for the Indian
programs funded through the Department of the Interior and Indian
Health Service (IHS). The Fond du Lac Band provides health, education,
social, and other governmental services to approximately 6,700 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.
Bureau of Indian Education (BIE): Education.--We urge the Congress
to increase funding for the BIE Elementary/Secondary School Programs.
The Fond du Lac Band relies on BIE funding for the operation of the
Band's pre-K through grade 12 Ojibwe School. The Ojibwe School serves
approximately 320 students most of whom are tribal members or
descendants of tribal members. Most of our students come from very-low-
income households, illustrated by the fact that more than 90 percent of
our students qualify for free or reduced-rate lunches. But although
American Indian students are the most at-risk group of students in our
Nation, the BIE Elementary/Secondary School Programs have been
historically under-funded. We ask that the BIE Elementary/Secondary
School Program funding be increased as follows:
Indian School Equalization Program (ISEP) Funding.--We do support
the President's proposal to increase by $3.9 million the BIE
funding for the ISEP Adjustments to assist tribal schools in
implementing safety and security programs. However, we urge the
Congress to also increase the ISEP Formula Funds above that
requested in the President's budget. The ISEP Formula Funds are
the primary means by which we pay the costs of school
operations and education programs, but these funds have
consistently fallen very far short of our need.
Tribal Grant Support Costs (TGSC).--We also support the
President's proposal to increase by $3 million the BIE funding
for the TGSC. These help tribal schools, like the Fond du Lac
Ojibwe School, cover administrative costs without using program
funds. However, because these funds have seen no increase for
many years even though costs have risen, we urge that these
funds be increased above the amount requested by the President.
School Facility Operations and School Facility Maintenance.--We
support the President's proposal not to reduce the funding for
school facility maintenance, but urge the Congress do more by
increasing funding for school facility operations and school
facility maintenance from prior year's funding levels. This is
important as past funding has not kept pace with the cost of
school operations or the growing backlog of Indian schools and
facilities needing repair.
Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA): Public Safety and Justice.--We urge
the Congress to increase BIA funding for law enforcement above the
level proposed in the President's budget. While we support the
President's proposal to increase law enforcement funding (through the
Department of Justice) to increase the number of the Federal Bureau of
Investigation (FBI) agents working in Indian country, because the FBI's
work will be limited to targeting specific major crimes, this increased
funding will not address the growing day-to-day law enforcement needs
on our reservation. We also ask that the 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--a
facility that is completely inadequate for that purpose.
We continue to face massive unmet needs for law enforcement on
matters that are not addressed by the FBI. 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). Over the years, we have done this using a combination of
tribal and Federal funds (made available through the Community Oriented
Policing Services (COPS) program and the BIA), and by cooperative
agreements with local law enforcement agencies. Currently, however, the
Band receives no financial support for operations for its police
department. At the same time, 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. We also respond to a
wide range of other matters, including, for example, reports involving
domestic disputes, disturbances, disorderly conduct, property damage,
theft, medical emergencies, fire, neglected children, runaways, suicide
threats, as well as numerous traffic-related matters. In 2010 alone,
our law enforcement department responded to 5,057 incidents and
requests for assistance. This is an average of 14 calls each day, and
is an 8 percent increase more than the number of calls our law
enforcement department received in 2009.
To address these problems, we need to increase our law enforcement
staff and ensure effective law enforcement coverage 24/7. But we do not
have sufficient funds to hire the number of officers we need. We
currently employ 13 patrolmen, 1 investigator, 1 school resource
officer (assigned to the Ojibwe School), a chief of police, and 3
administrative staff. To the extent possible we schedule three officers
per shift, but we do not have sufficient funds to do this around the
clock. In fact, to effectively patrol the reservation we should have 4
officers working each shift and a second investigator, for a total of
20 officers. Fewer officers on duty means serious safety issues for
both officers and the people we need to protect. The increasing number
of calls for police assistance also means that we need more than one
investigator and, with our limited staff we cannot implement proactive
measures, such as education and outreach programs.
Federal funding is also vital for law enforcement equipment. We
have, in the past, depended on funding through the COPS program, but
COPS funds are limited and not sufficient to meet our needs. Because
our officers patrol a 170-square-mile area, squad cars regularly need
to be updated and replaced. We also need to upgrade our communications
equipment. We have mutual aid agreements and coordinate law enforcement
with St. Louis and Cloquet Counties which are updating their
communications systems to digital systems. We will need to do the same
to ensure that our systems are integrated with the counties' system.
This means replacing the portable radio equipment for each of our
officers at an estimated cost of $40,000 ($2,500 per unit for each of
16 officers) and for each patrol car at an additional cost of $30,000-
$40,000 ($3,000-$4,000 per unit for each of 10 vehicles).
Finally, we need a new facility for our law enforcement department.
The department is still housed in a six-room building which we share
with the Band's housing program. It 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 and, with the increased number
of calls we are receiving, is becoming more inadequate each day. A new
building with a garage, along with a larger evidence room, storage room
for record keeping, and a training room for officers, is essential.
BIA: Natural Resources.--We very much appreciate the funding for
the BIA Natural Resource Programs that the Congress has provided in
past years and support the President's proposal to increase (by $5
million) the funding for these programs. We also support the
President's proposal to include $1 million (with funding for BIA Public
Safety and Justice) for Tribal Conservation Law Enforcement Officers.
Natural resources are vitally important to our tribal members as they
provide the foundation for our culture, meet subsistence needs, and
provide employment. The Fond du Lac Band's right to access natural
resources within and outside our reservation was reserved by treaties
with the United States in 1837 and 1854, and reaffirmed by the courts.
In connection with these treaty rights, the Band is responsible for
managing natural resources and for enforcing Band conservation laws
that protect those natural resources by regulating tribal members who
hunt, fish, and gather those resources both within and outside the
reservation. Funding is essential for that work. Fond du Lac routinely
partners with State, Federal, and tribal organizations to conduct
research and management activities. We request that $2 million be added
to our base budget for Resource Management Programs, as funds for these
programs have not been increased since 1991.
We are aware that the Congress intends to reduce spending in many
areas of the current budget, but urge the Congress to at least maintain
current funding levels for all Federal programs that support the
conservation and restoration of natural resources. Specifically, we
request that the Congress fund the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service State
and Tribal Wildlife Grant Program, the Environmental Protection Agency
Great Lakes Restoration Initiative, Tribal Historic Preservation
Offices, and all the BIA programs related to natural resource and land
management at the levels indicated in the President's budget request.
BIA: Human Services.--We support the President's proposed increase
in funding for Human Services Programs, but urge the Congress to
increase funding by more than the $831,000 proposed. A larger increase
is 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 Indian Child Welfare Act Programs are essential if tribes
are to have any realistic hope of protecting Indian children,
preventing domestic violence, and fostering Indian families.
IHS.--We fully support the President's proposed increase in funding
for the IHS and appreciate the commitment that the administration and
the Congress have made to address the funding needs for healthcare in
Indian country. The President's proposed 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 the IHS has never had comparable increases,
and, as a result, the IHS programs have consistently fallen short of
meeting the actual needs. All Indian tribes should receive 100 percent
of the Level of Need Formula, which is absolutely critical for tribes
to address the serious and persistent health issues that confront our
communities. The Band serves approximately 6,700 Indian people at our
clinics, but the current funding level meets only 38 percent of our
healthcare funding needs.
As the epidemic of prescription drug abuse grows across the
country, the IHS needs resources to expand its treatment and community
education capacity. Additional funding for the Methamphetamine, Suicide
Prevention Initiative should be made available to tribes and the IHS so
that this ``new sickness'' can be addressed. Best practices in pharmacy
inventory and prescription monitoring need to be modeled and replicated
throughout Indian country. Related to this is the fact that more and
more Government agencies are expecting local units of governments,
including tribes, to address these problems and the increasing number
of individuals who become homeless as a result of them, through the
operation of supportive housing. But Fond du Lac, like most tribes,
does not have the financial resources to establish new program
initiatives, like supportive housing, without assistance from the
Federal Government. We urge the Congress to support programs through
the IHS or the BIA that would fund supportive housing for tribes in
every area of the country.
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
Honorable 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 2012 appropriations for the National Wildlife Refuge
System (NWRS). The Alaska Friends is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization
with 341 members who reside throughout the State of Alaska and the
other 49 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. We urge adoption
of a funding level of $511 million for fiscal year 2012 for the NWRS.
The NWRS actually needs $900 million annually to adequately manage the
150 million acres in the NWRS, and $511 million is needed to merely
maintain the status quo. Any reduction below this level will severely
impair the ability of the FWS to manage and maintain the wildlife and
habitats in this largest conservation system in the world. This is
especially critical in light of the changes and challenges posed by
global warming, rising sea levels, receding glaciers, invasive species,
and oil spills such as the recent one in the Gulf of Mexico.
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, and global warming. 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 and clean up and repair
damages from oil spills and other accidents; curtailment of
environmental education programs; and reductions in law enforcement. An
appropriation of $511 million is needed for fiscal year 2012 to prevent
slipping into an undesirable future for our refuges, wildlife, and the
people who enjoy and depend these recourses for their livelihoods.
The NWRS has substantial backlogs in two major areas:
Deferred Maintenance.--The deferred maintenance backlog has
hovered around $2.5 billion for the past few years. These are
needs associated with maintaining constructed assets, such as
administrative and visitor buildings, roads, levees, water
control structures, visitor facilities, underground water
lines. This work is considered ``deferred'' because it is
overdue and funding resources are not currently available to
complete the work.
Operations.--For several years the operations backlog has hovered
around $1 billion. These are needs associated with the annual
operations of refuges in all respects. They include staffing
needed to manage habitat, provide law enforcement, provide
services to visitors, and maintain assets. They also include
contracts or projects, such as controlling invasive species,
monitoring habitat, restoring wetlands, and developing an
environmental education curriculum.
The Alaska National Wildlife Refuges encompass more than 77 million
acres and comprise more than 80 percent of the lands in the NWRS. In
2010, the Friends completed 15 volunteer projects on Alaska's refuges,
but this national program will be jeopardized if adequate funding is
not maintained. Nationally, volunteers perform 20 percent of the work
in the NWRS, more than any other Federal land management agency.
Invasive plant species are advancing northward and threatening the
habitats of Alaska refuges. With 50 percent Challenge Cost-Share (CCS)
funding for 5 years, Alaska Friends volunteers have worked to remove
invasive species affecting seven Alaska refuges. In conjunction with
these activities, we have 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 funds from the CCS Program, these volunteer programs could not
continue this invaluable work to protect our valuable wildlife and
habitats.
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 major contributions of refuges to
local economies are illustrated by the example of the Kenai National
Wildlife Refuge. Every $1 spent by the refuge produces almost $15 in
local recreational expenditures and more than $12 million in local tax
revenues.
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, polar bear and walrus populations, and local
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. The melting of permafrost is
destroying homes, offices, and other structures, 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 increase the costs of refuge
research, management, and maintenance. Given adequate budgetary
support, the Alaska refuges can provide extremely valuable biological
and climatological monitoring and studies to increase our understanding
of these processes and enable us to design and implement mitigation
projects to reduce the impacts of global climate change.
Failure to maintain current levels of funding for the NWRS 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 that assist in understanding
global climate change; and
--overall degradation and decay of the NWRS and public use and
enjoyment of its resources.
We urge you to adopt the recommended $511 million fiscal year 2012
appropriation for the NWRS, which is the minimal amount necessary to
maintain our magnificent NWRS.
We also urge the leveraging of conservation efforts through the
following actions:
State Wildlife Grants (SWG).--The FWS works with States to
maintain common species and restore declining species before
they become endangered. A slight increase for the SWG Program
to $95 million for fiscal year 2012 is essential to fulfill the
shared Federal-State responsibility to keep our Nation's
wildlife from becoming endangered.
North American Wetlands Conservation Act (NAWCA).--NAWCA grants
enable the acquisition and restoration of critical wetlands to
implement the goals and objectives of the North American
Waterfowl Plan, the Waterbird Plan, the U.S. Shorebird Plan,
and Partners in Flight. A congressional allocation of $50
million in fiscal year 2012 will deliver multiple benefits that
include habitat restoration, improved water quality, and carbon
sequestration.
Fully Fund the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) at $900
Million.--Created in 1965 and authorized at $900 million per
year (more than $3 billion today's dollars), the LWCF is our
most important land acquisition tool. More than 8 million acres
are unprotected within existing refuge boundaries, and there is
an increasing need to establish key wildlife corridors and
connections between protected areas. We urge the Congress to
pass legislation to permanently fund the LWCF.
Adoption of the recommended $511 million appropriation for the NWRS
will allow necessary biological and public programs to be maintained in
ways that will benefit habitat, fish and wildlife, and public use and
enjoyment of our magnificent 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.
______
Letter From the Friends of Back Bay
April 1, 2011.
Hon. Jack Reed,
Chairman, Subcommittee on the Interior, Environment, and Related
Agencies, Washington, DC.
Hon. Lisa Murkowski,
Ranking Member, Subcommittee on the Interior, Environment, and Related
Agencies, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Reed and Senator Murkowski: I am Molly Brown from
Virginia Beach, Virginia. I am the president of Friends of Back Bay, a
group of more than 150 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 the Congress for their
continued support of this project. The Director of the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (FWS) approved a Refuge boundary expansion on May 7,
1990. The expansion area includes 6,340 acres of important wildlife
habitat. To date the FWS has been able to acquire 4,996 acres.
In order to continue the Back Bay Refuge expansion project, we
respectfully request $1 million for fiscal year 2012. 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 the Congress in
1990. With only a few remaining parcels to purchase, we hope the
Congress will want to see this Back Bay project completed. Our project
is not in the President's budget and we know there are no earmarks. So,
how do we complete this project and what do we tell the willing sellers
that have been waiting for years to sell their properties?
The enclosed map gives a visual description of the acquisitions
through 2010 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.
fiscal year 2010
Rice: Tract 249--$425,000--8 Acres.--Closing this fiscal year
(2010) with LWCF funds appropriated. This project uses most of the
appropriated funds with the remainder ($120,000) to be ``banked'' in
combination with future funds to complete acquisitions, as listed
below. Project Description--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.
fiscal year 2012
Brown: Tract 193--$216,000--18 Acres.--Project description: Mostly
forested wetlands on the west side of Back Bay with existing valuable
habitat for migratory birds, especially neotropical migrants. This
property is within the original Refuge acquisition boundary and is
adjacent to existing Refuge property on three sides (north, east, and
south). Option to purchase in effect.
Johnson: Tract 173--$402,000--30 Acres.--Project description:
Emergent marsh habitat adjacent to Ashville Bridge Creek with existing
valuable habitat for migratory birds, especially waterbirds. This
property is within the original Refuge acquisition boundary and is
adjacent to existing Refuge property on three sides (north, east, and
west). Option to purchase in effect.
Van Nostrand: Tract 250--$200,000--15 Acres.--Project description:
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 Refuge has done with so many
other parcels, will serve as quality habitat for a variety migratory
birds, especially neotropical migrants. Option to purchase in effect.
Griffith: Tract 100c, d, and e--$250,000--105 Acres.--Project
description: 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. The Refuge is currently partnering with The
Conservation Fund to appraise and acquire this parcel.
Good things continue to happen at Back Bay. The Back Bay National
Wildlife Refuge and its namesake, the Back Bay, harbor a rich array of
aquatic life and vibrant bird populations that draw anglers and birders
year round. The shallow brackish bay, averaging just 4 feet, is ruled
by the wind making it a globally rare ecosystem. The bay is also
designated an Aquatic Resource of National Importance by Federal
agencies, but that doesn't automatically protect it from harm. The
Refuge staff and volunteers continue to educate the public on the
importance of protecting this beautiful resource. The educational
project to enhance the wildlife viewing opportunities to the public is
the ``Windows on Wildlife.'' This one-way glass allows the public to
watch migratory birds without being seen by and thus disturbing the
waterfowl. On a recent January day, the pond featured a visual
smorgasbord of tundra swans, Canada geese, black sucks, snow geese,
mallards, and pied-billed grebes. A red-tail hawk flew close to the
building and landed on the branch of a near by tree. This ``national
treasure'' received 150,000 visitors in 2010.
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. They met their quotas early in
the season. One hunter left a duck on the ice too long and an eagle
swooped down and grabbed it. The hunter had fun telling this story to
his friends. He said it was a ``pretty one''.
I wish to extend my appreciation for the funding that you
appropriated through fiscal year 2009. The $545,000 that was
appropriated in fiscal year 2009 has purchased 8 acres of a key parcel
along Nanney's Creek. To date we have purchased 4,996 acres of the
proposed 6,340-acre expansion. This means that this project is more
than 78 percent completed in 18 years. Thank you for the opportunity to
comment on this important project.
Respectfully submitted,
Molly P. Brown,
President.
______
Letter From the Friends of Balcones Canyonlands National Wildlife
Refuge
May 18, 2011.
Hon. Jack Reed,
Chairman, Subcommittee on the Interior, Environment, and Related
Agencies, Washington, DC.
Hon. Lisa Murkowski,
Ranking Member, Subcommittee on the Interior, Environment, and Related
Agencies, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Reed and Senator Murkowski: On behalf of the Friends
of Balcones Canyonlands National Wildlife Refuge I would like to
express my appreciation for this opportunity to submit our testimony.
The Friends of Balcones urges you to complete the land acquisition for
Balcones Canyonlands National Wildlife Refuge in Central Texas. As a
first step toward that goal, we are requesting $5 million from the Land
and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) for 2012. Completing the Refuge is
anticipated to cost approximately $87 million in today's dollars, so
acting now is especially important for monetary reasons and because of
the intense pressure from urban expansion that is occurring within the
Refuge acquisition boundary.
Given the devastating impacts to wildlife from the Deep Water
Horizon oil spill, it seems very timely for the Congress to pass
legislation to permanently fund the LWCF at $900 million. Created in
1965 with monies from off-shore oil drilling receipts and authorized at
$900 million per year, the LWCF is our most important land acquisition
tool. More than 8 million acres are unprotected within existing refuge
boundaries including approximately 22,000 acres within the Balcones
Canyonlands Refuge acquisition boundary. This makes funding the LWCF
more important than ever. The Friends of Balcones urges you to fully
fund the LWCF and to appropriate $5 million of the $900 million for
land acquisition at Balcones Canyonlands National Wildlife Refuge.
Balcones Canyonlands Refuge, although 19 years old, is only
slightly more than 50 percent complete. It is important to act now as
time is a critical consideration in completing the Refuge. Because of
the proximity of the Refuge to the Austin metropolitan area, urban
expansion is a serious threat to habitat needed by the Refuge. There
are already four real estate developments within the acquisition
boundary of the Refuge and more are expected.
An appropriation of $5 million will allow the Fish and Wildlife
Service to acquire approximately 1,550 acres of prime habitat for
Balcones Canyonlands Refuge. Two of the three tracts to be purchased
are key Golden-cheeked Warbler habitat and the third is potential
Black-capped Vireo habitat. Both of these birds are on the endangered
species list, and habitat protection and management are critical to
their survival. In addition, protection of the third tract will help
preserve the ranching heritage of the Texas Hill country. The $5
million appropriation will fund purchase of the 350-acre 3 Creeks Ranch
(second phase of this acquisition), the Penn property, and 1,000 acres
of the Sunset Ranch, one of the last remaining large tracts of land
with high-quality Golden-cheeked Warbler habitat left within the Refuge
acquisition boundary. The rolling hills and steep canyons on this ranch
provide nesting habitat for the Golden-cheeked Warbler and potential
for Black-capped Vireo habitat management. The purchase of this large
tract will also protect habitat for additional endemic species in the
Hill Country as well as the unusual Karst topography of the Edwards
Plateau. The ranch is situated near other Refuge property which makes
it even more valuable as we attempt to protect large contiguous tracts
of land. The properties have been appraised, and the sellers are
willing. These acquisitions would be a significant step towards the
long range goal of completing the Refuge. As mentioned earlier, acting
now is particularly important, as the window of time is closing rapidly
as a result of urban expansion, and the opportunity for protecting
these species is at risk.
Balcones Canyonlands Refuge is located in the Texas Hill Country
northwest of Austin, Texas and resides in Burnet, Travis, and
Williamson counties. The Refuge was formed in 1992 to conserve habitat
of the endangered Golden-cheeked Warbler as a step towards recovery and
eventual delisting of the species. In addition to the Golden-cheeked
Warbler, the Refuge serves to protect the habitat of the endangered
Black-capped Vireo and numerous other wildlife species.
State-sponsored biological studies show that to stabilize and
sustain these endangered songbirds, Balcones Canyonlands needs a total
of 46,000 acres of habitat. It presently has some 23,000 acres. The
Refuge augments a similarly named Preserve in Austin, comprised of
nearly 30,000 acres and operated by the city and Travis County. The two
parts were established for the same purpose and together are intended
to provide habitat needed to enable recovery of these species.
In addition to the recovery of these endangered species, Balcones
Canyonlands Refuge is a source of eco-tourism for the surrounding area.
Over the longer term, the Balcones Refuge is expected to become a major
draw for birders interested in viewing the endangered Warbler and
Vireo, for which this area provides unique habitat. The Refuge has been
described as one of the Last Great Places by the Nature Conservancy and
as an ``Important Bird Area'' by two national conservation groups based
on its ``global importance'' to the endangered Warbler and Vireo.
Also, Balcones Canyonlands offers Central Texas a variety of
recreational opportunities compatible with wildlife protection. Once
completed, Balcones Canyonlands will be a step towards providing
additional accessible public outdoor areas, identified as a critical
need in a study by Texas Parks and Wildlife.
The Friends of Balcones Canyonlands National Wildlife Refuge is a
nonprofit, volunteer organization. Our mission is to support, complete,
and enhance Balcones Canyonlands Refuge and to promote the Refuge's use
for recreational, educational, and scientific purposes. Our membership
is drawn primarily from Central Texas communities situated near the
Refuge. Our members care passionately about preserving our natural
heritage and fulfilling our organization's mission of completing the
Refuge. Because of all the reasons listed above, we strongly recommend
that you set aside $5 million from the LWCF for Balcones Canyonlands
Refuge for fiscal year 2012.
In closing, thank you for considering our request of $5 million.
Your actions in support of our request will significantly improve our
chances for creating a fully functioning Refuge. We very much
appreciate your attention to this matter and thank you for the
opportunity to present this statement to the subcommittee.
Respectfully submitted,
Dub Lyon,
President.
______
Prepared Statement of the Friends of the Chassahowitzka National
Wildlife
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee: On behalf of Friends
of the Chassahowitzka National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Inc. (Friends)
and its members, I want to thank you for your leadership and strong
support of the National Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS) and the increase
in funding over the past few years for the NWRS. I offer this testimony
not only on behalf of our Friends' group, but also for the more than
191 Affiliate Friends groups nationwide, and thousands of private
citizens across the country that support our Nation's wildlife refuges.
I further thank you for the opportunity to offer comments on the
fiscal year 2012 Interior, environment, and related agencies
appropriations bill. Specifically, we respectfully request that the
subcommittee support the following:
--Maintain status quo funding for the NWRS. Request that the Congress
maintain management capabilities for the NWRS, an $8 million
increase more than fiscal year 2010 levels. The NWRS actually
needs $900 million annually to adequately manage its 150
million acres; a funding allocation of $511 million in fiscal
year 2012 will simply maintain the status quo.
--Leverage Federal Conservation Efforts through Partnerships. The
NWRS works with States to keep common species common and
restore declining species before they become endangered. A
slight increase for the State Wildlife Grants program to $95
million for fiscal year 2012 is essential to fulfilling the
shared Federal-State responsibility for keeping our Nation's
wildlife from becoming endangered.
--Fully fund the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) at $900
million. Created in 1965 and authorized at $900 million per
year (more than $3 billion today), the LWCF is our most
important land acquisition tool. More than 8 million acres are
unprotected within existing refuge boundaries and there is an
increasing need to establish key wildlife corridors and
connections between protected areas making the LWCF more
important than ever. Urge the Congress to pass legislation to
permanently fund the LWCF.
--Allocate $50 million to The North American Wetlands Conservation
Act (NAWCA). NAWCA grants enable the acquisition and
restoration of critical wetlands to implement the goals and
objectives of the North American Waterfowl Plan, the Waterbird
Plan, the U.S. Shorebird Plan and Partners in Flight. A
Congressional allocation of $50 million in fiscal year 2012
will deliver multiple benefits including habitat restoration,
improved water quality and even carbon sequestration.
The Friends, a 501(c)3 organization, were established in September
1998, and is supported by dedicated volunteers with a membership base
of 250 individuals. Our membership is diverse, including sportsmen,
educators, business leaders, conservationists, and concerned citizens
all across the State of Florida as well as the world.
Contributing thousands of hours of support each year, we help
remove invasive plants, provide general maintenance of equipment and
buildings on the refuges, and organize cleanups to ensure wildlife is
safe from debris like monofilament line and plastic bags. We work
closely with our Refuge manager to help meet objectives as outlined in
each refuge's Comprehensive Conservation Plan.
The Cooperative Alliance for Refuge Enhancement (CARE) has
determined that the NWRS needs $900 million annually to protect and
care for the more than 550 wildlife refuges and monuments and thousands
of prairie wetlands totaling approximately 150 million acres. These
lands and waters provide essential habitat for migratory birds and
other wildlife, safe havens for endangered species, and $1.7 billion
annually to local economies in compatible recreational opportunities
for more than 41 million visitors each year. Our request for $511
million in O&M for fiscal year 2012 will maintain status quo and
prevent the NWRS from being subjected to the dramatic 20 percent staff
reductions of prior years. We respectfully urge the Congress to
incrementally increase funding to restore the NWRS by carefully
considering our request for $511 million in the fiscal year 2012
budget.
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.
The Friends encourages the subcommittee to allocate the full $900
million funding to assess and purchase high-priority lands and
conservation easements through the LWCF. The NWRS is mandated to be
strategically grown, but years of inadequate funding for land
acquisition has resulted in the loss of many important habitats. More
than 8 million acres are unprotected within existing refuge boundaries
and there is an increasing need to establish key wildlife corridors and
connections between protected areas. The Obama administration has made
full funding for LWCF by fiscal year 2014 a top priority and we request
the Congress to make this a priority also. We urge the subcommittee to
allocate the full $900 million funding in fiscal year 2012 to allow the
NWRS to acquire lands and easements while they are available and
affordable.
Our refuge has benefited from the funding of both the LWCF and
NAWCA. We received $1.5 million in fiscal year 2009 and another $1.5
million fiscal year 2010 from LWCF and $75,000 and from the NAWCA grant
allowing us to purchase the Three Sisters Springs property in Crystal
River, Florida. The property consists of 57 acres of critical habitat
for the endangered West Indian Manatee--one of the most charismatic
species our country has. We invite the subcommittee and staff to come
for a visit and see first hand the value of funding both the LWCF and
NAWCA and how those funds are being used. See too the challenges we
face to raise funds to support our plans to educate the public about
manatees. In the meantime, please visit www.friendsofchazz.org to learn
more about our wonderful refuges.
In conclusion, the Friends of the Chassahowitzka National Wildlife
Refuges believes the NWRS can meet its important conservation
objectives only with strong and consistent funding leveraged by the
valuable work of refuge staff and volunteers. We extend our
appreciation to the subcommittee for its ongoing commitment to our NWRS
and encourage you to approve $511 million for the fiscal year 12 NWRS
O&M budget managed by FWS and to approve $900 million for fiscal year
2012 for the LWCF land acquisition budget as well as funding the
Department of the Interior's Challenge-Cost Share Program.
______
Prepared Statement of the Friends of the Desert Mountains
Mr. Chairman and honorable members of the subcommittee: I
appreciate the opportunity to present this testimony in support of the
Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) in the fiscal year 2012
Interior, environment, and related agencies appropriations bill. In an
historic embrace of conservation, the President's budget request
includes full funding of the LWCF in fiscal year 2012. The proposed
$900 million is the congressionally authorized amount for the program
and seeks to renew focus on the promise of the LWCF: that it is right
and wise to reinvest proceeds from offshore drilling receipts in the
protection of natural resources and recreational access for all
Americans.
I recognize that this subcommittee will face many demands in this
tight fiscal climate. However, far-sighted investment in the LWCF is
one that will permanently pay dividends to the American people and to
our great natural and historical heritage. As the LWCF is funded from
Outer Continental Shelf revenues, not taxpayer dollars, these funds
should go to their intended and authorized use.
As part of the full commitment to the LWCF in fiscal year 2012, the
U.S. Forest Service (USFS) included $1.5 million for the acquisition of
land in San Bernardino National Forest in California in the President's
budget. I am pleased that this funding was included in the request and
urge the Congress to provide the full President's budget amount for the
LWCF so that this important project can receive this needed funding.
The Friends of the Desert Mountains is a nonprofit conservation
organization based in the Coachella Valley area of southern California.
Our mission is to protect important resource lands in this area and to
provide support for the Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains National
Monument, established by the Congress through a bipartisan effort in
2000, the House legislation authored by Congresswoman Mary Bono Mack
and the Senate legislation by Senator Dianne Feinstein. The Friends has
acquired or facilitated the acquisition of more than 40,000 acres over
the last 20 years. We train and provide volunteers for the National
Monument Visitor Center, sponsor the annual Wildflower Festival,
provided guided hikes in the Monument, and support it in many other
ways. While Fleming Ranch is just outside the National Monument
boundary, it is part of the same ecosystem and part of the same
national forest, a portion of which is in the National Monument. Thus,
we strongly support its permanent conservation through acquisition by
the USFS.
The national forests in southern California protect a vast treasure
of biological diversity as well as critically important water
resources. From the coastline of the Pacific Ocean to the inland
desert, the forested mountains provide wildlife habitat, water quality
protection, and abundant recreational opportunities for burgeoning
population.
The San Bernardino National Forest encompasses the wild lands of
the San Bernardino and San Jacinto mountain ranges in Riverside and San
Bernardino counties. With the discovery of gold in the area in the mid-
19th century, the lands began to suffer from the effects of mining as
well as timbering and overgrazing. The growing population of southern
California relied on water sources that were being steadily degraded by
these activities. The need to protect the watersheds and preserve the
unique natural qualities of this ecosystem became apparent, and the San
Bernardino National Forest was established in 1891 to meet this
challenge.
Maintaining healthy watersheds continues to be a high priority of
forest management, and part of that protection strategy includes land
acquisition. This year, a key inholding of the San Bernardino NF--
Fleming Ranch--is available for purchase by the USFS. This 1,288-acre
property is located within and adjacent to the San Jacinto Wilderness
in Riverside County. The ranch is visible from a 5-mile stretch of the
Pacific Crest Trail (PCT), which lies just a quarter mile away. The
ranch contains the largest unprotected portion of the upper watershed
of Herkey Creek, which flows into Lake Hemet and is a tributary of the
south fork of the San Jacinto River. Lake Hemet is a reservoir
providing water to areas of Riverside County and also provides
recreational opportunities such as fishing, boating, hiking, and
camping.
The landscape of Fleming Ranch includes montane meadows,
grasslands, and mixed riparian, conifer, and oak forests. The property
provides habitat for unique plant species such as the lemon lily (a
State species of special concern), Johnson's rock cress, and California
penstemon, and for animals like the California spotted owl, which nests
on the ranch. These species and others will benefit from the protection
of Fleming Ranch as the impacts of climate change become increasingly
apparent. The wetlands and riparian habitats on Fleming Ranch have
natural resilience to climate change impacts due to the tract's
hydrology, and can offer habitat refugia. These habitats are rare in
the San Jacinto Mountains and will be important to maintain healthy
populations of amphibians, insect-eating birds, reptiles, rodents, and
raptors in a changed climate. Properly managed, the watershed forests
on the tract will also support climate adaptation by regulating water
flows to protecting downstream areas and sustaining aquatic habitats
even as climate change drives greater extremes in precipitation.
The lands of the San Bernardino National Forest provide year-round
outdoor recreation for the heavily populated areas of southern
California, and improving public access to the area of the forest where
Fleming Ranch is located has long been a priority of the San Jacinto
Ranger District. The proximity of the ranch to the PCT, wilderness
areas, and the Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains National Monument
will open up new recreational access for outdoor enthusiasts.
Increased management efficiencies that accrue from inholding
acquisition will reduce costs and improve management for activities
such as wetlands restoration and fuel reduction. Improved forest
health, water quality protection, habitat protection, and better public
access will follow from Federal acquisition of Fleming Ranch. The
President's fiscal year 2012 USFS land acquisition budget includes $1.5
million to begin the acquisition of this stunning property.
The LWCF is our Nation's premier Federal program to acquire and
protect lands at national parks, forests, refuges, and public lands and
at State parks, trails, and recreational facilities. These sites across
the country provide the public with substantial social and economic
benefits including promoting healthier lifestyles through recreation,
protecting drinking water and watersheds, improving wildfire
management, and assisting wildlife and fisheries adaptation.
I want to thank the Chairman and the members of the subcommittee
for this opportunity to testify on behalf of this nationally important
protection effort in California, and I appreciate your consideration of
this funding request.
______
Prepared Statement of the Friends of Maine Seabird Islands
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee: On behalf of the 200
members of the Friends of Maine Seabird Islands (FOMSI), thank you for
the opportunity to submit written testimony on the fiscal year 2012
Interior, environment, and related agencies appropriations bill. Thank
you for your past support of the National Wildlife Refuge System
(NWRS), the world's premier system of public lands and waters set aside
to conserve America's fish, wildlife, and plants.
The FOMSI is an all-volunteer group whose mission is to support the
Maine Coastal Islands National Wildlife Refuge. The refuge manages 55
islands on our 250-mile long coast, and several thousand acres of
mainland wildlife habitat. First, let me emphasize that we are grateful
that we have a National Wildlife Refuge on the coast of Maine. Why? For
many reasons, all of which lead back to the positive economic and
social benefits that are produced by the conservation of wild lands and
wise use of our natural resources. The 2006 National Survey of Hunting,
Fishing and Wildlife-Associated Recreation, found that, in Maine alone,
hunters, anglers, and wildlife watchers generated nearly $1.5 billion
in revenue for Maine. Clearly, wild lands and healthy fish and wildlife
populations are important to this State's economy, and the National
Wildlife Refuges in Maine are a significant part of that.
Although we understand and take very seriously the economic
challenges that our Nation faces, it is important to point out the
positive economic impact that this refuge has on local economies. In
Maine, according to studies conducted by Dr. Charles Colgan from the
University of Southern Maine, 120 companies provide services involving
seabird viewing as a recreational activity. These include small kayak
guides and outfitters all the way to large ships that go on seabird
watching cruises several times each day. An estimated 5,000 to 7,500
trips are made by people annually primarily for seabird viewing and
350,000 to 450,000 trips with seabird viewing as a secondary activity.
The total estimate for seabird-related spending was $5 million to $10
million in 2001. This does not count the number of birders and others
who have their own boats and do not take the organized trips, yet come
to this area specifically to see seabirds; accordingly, they have a
significant, but uncalculated impact on the economy, too. Nor does it
count the revenues from stores that sell merchandise from t-shirts to
binoculars that go along with birding.
Thousands of people come to the Maine coast each year to see the
charismatic Atlantic puffin, a bird that nests in the United States
only in Maine. Currently, more than 90 percent of the Atlantic puffins
nesting in Maine nest on refuge islands, where they are actively
protected by refuge staff and partners, such as the National Audubon
Society and Maine Division of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife. If funding
for this management is not maintained, these nesting birds will
probably abandon their colonies and Maine will return to the pre-refuge
situation in the 1970s and early 1980s when only gulls nested on many
of the islands. Seabird viewing and birder expenditures will fall, and
our already fragile economy will suffer further.
The economic impact described above is only a part of the positive
impact that the refuge has on the State's economy. Others visit the
refuge units to hunt, hike, fish, and learn about conservation. Their
contribution to the economy has never been formally calculated, but it
probably equals that of the seabird watchers above.
That is a brief summary of the economic impacts that one refuge has
in our part of the country. There are five other refuges in Maine that
are also important to Maine's economy. Multiply that by the 553
National Wildlife Refuges in the NWRS, and it is clear that the
Congress' investment in the NWRS pays off many-fold to our Nation's
economy. Our National Wildlife Refuges are often economic powerhouses,
especially in rural areas.
Therefore, we respectfully ask you to:
--Maintain status quo funding for the NWRS. We understand that a real
increase is hard to ask for in these times, but please maintain
management capabilities for the NWRS by approving an $8 million
increase more than fiscal year 2010 levels. The NWRS actually
needs $900 million annually to adequately manage its 150
million acres; a funding allocation of $511 million in fiscal
year 2012 will simply maintain the status quo.
--Fully fund the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) at $900
million. Created in 1965 and authorized at $900 million per
year (more than $3 billion today), the LWCF is refuges' most
important land acquisition tool. More than 8 million acres are
unprotected within existing refuge boundaries and there is an
increasing need to establish key wildlife corridors and
connections between protected areas making the LWCF more
important than ever.
--Help the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service leverage Federal
conservation efforts through partnerships, such as:
State Wildlife Grants.--Funding is requested at $95 million to
partner with States to keep common species common and
restore declining species before they become endangered.
North American Wetlands Conservation Act (NAWCA).--Funding is
requested at $50 million enable the acquisition and
restoration of critical wetlands to deliver multiple
benefits including habitat restoration, improved water
quality, and even carbon sequestration.
We are proud of our National Wildlife Refuges, one of our country's
greatest conservation achievements. We are but one of 230 ``Friends''
groups who support National Wildlife Refuges throughout the country.
Friends groups provide assistance to our National Wildlife Refuges
through monetary and equipment donations and volunteer labor. In fiscal
year 2010, more than 40,000 friends and volunteers provided services
for the NWRS equal to 648 positions, saving taxpayers millions of
dollars. Volunteers throughout the country provide an astonishing 20
percent of the work done of refuges each year. This is a further
indication of how many Americans support the NWRS.
The interest in our NWRS is significant and we are showing our
support with our donated time and funds. However, we need proper
funding of the NWRS so we can leverage our taxpayer dollars to provide
even more economic and social benefits to our country.
Finally, let me also add that with all the negative stories in the
press today about Government appropriations and politics, the NWRS
remains a positive success story since the first refuge was created by
President Theodore Roosevelt more than 100 years ago. It has always
enjoyed support from the Congress and we thank you for that, and for
your continued support.
______
Prepared Statement of the Friends of the National Wildlife Refuges of
RI, Inc.
Mr. Chairman and honorable members of the subcommittee: I am
Melissa Hughes, board member, Friends of the National Wildlife Refuges
of RI, Inc.
I have been a member of the Friends of the National Wildlife
Refuges of RI, Inc. only since fall 2010. However, I have been a
visitor to 4 of the 5 wildlife refuges in Rhode Island and was a member
of a local environmental group for the past 20 years. This group, the
Narrow River Preservation Association, provides stewardship for the
Narrow River watershed within which is located the John H. Chafee
National Wildlife Refuge at Pettaquamscutt Cove. This time of the year
letters go out to the Congress asking for support of the refuges. The
Friends of the National Wildlife Refuges of RI, Inc. is requesting
support for the RI Wildlife Refuge system and of general funding of the
entire National Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS). I thank you for your
consideration.
According to a new report released at by the Cooperative Alliance
for Refuge Enhancement (CARE), Rhode Island's five national wildlife
refuges will be in grave jeopardy if proposed congressional budget cuts
to the NWRS are enacted. Rhode Island's refuges protect diverse
habitats such as salt marshes, uplands, kettle ponds, and maritime
shrublands, and support a variety of wildlife including great egrets,
herons, river otters, red-backed salamanders, and federally threatened
and endangered species such as the piping plover and American burying
beetle. In 2010, more than 426,000 visitors enjoyed wildlife-related
recreation at Rhode Island refuges, including hunting, angling, and
bird and wildlife-watching. At Ninigret National Wildlife Refuge alone,
every $1 appropriated to the refuge budget generated $6.25 for the
local economy.
If budget cuts to the NWRS supported by some Members of Congress
are enacted, national wildlife refuges in Rhode Island may not be able
to continue protecting wildlife, offering world-class recreation, and
ultimately enhancing their local economies. Rhode Island's refuges
already are saddled with a backlog of approximately $2 million in
deferred maintenance and another $2 million in mission-critical
operations needs. The refuges need at least 22 additional staff,
including wildlife management, visitor services and maintenance
positions. Without sufficient funding, Rhode Island refuges will fall
even further behind in their mission to conserve wildlife for the
benefit of the American public.
An overall funding level of $511 million in fiscal year 2012 should
be maintained for the operations and maintenance budget of the NWRS,
managed by the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). This is an $8 million
increase more than fiscal year 2010. All of the refuges are in dire
need of staffing and upkeep. Refuges provide unparalleled opportunities
to hunt, fish, watch wildlife, and educate children about the
environment. Without increased funding for refuges, wildlife
conservation and public recreation opportunities will be jeopardized.
NWRS's ability to leverage Federal conservation efforts through
partnerships should be retained. Two grant programs that need support
are:
--State Wildlife Grants that allow the FWS to work with States to
keep common species common and restore declining species before
they become endangered. A slight increase for the State
Wildlife Grants program to $95 million for fiscal year 2012 is
essential to fulfilling the shared Federal-State responsibility
for keeping our Nation's wildlife from becoming endangered; and
--The North American Wetlands Conservation Act grants enable the
acquisition and restoration of critical wetlands to implement
the goals and objectives of the North American Waterfowl Plan,
the Waterbird Plan, the U.S. Shorebird Plan and Partners in
Flight. A congressional allocation of $50 million in fiscal
year 2012 will deliver multiple benefits including habitat
restoration, improved water quality and even carbon
sequestration.
The Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) is our Nation's premier
Federal program to acquire and protect lands at national parks,
forests, refuges, and public lands and at State parks, trails, and
recreational facilities. These sites across the country provide the
public with substantial social and economic benefits including
promoting healthier lifestyles through recreation, protecting drinking
water and watersheds, improving wildfire management, and assisting the
adaptation of wildlife and fisheries to climate change. For all these
reasons, LWCF needs to be fully funded at the $900 million level, as
authorized by the Congress in 1965. The LWCF is our most important
acquisition tool. The President has included meaningful increases to
the program in his fiscal year 2012 budget, and I support the
administration's commitment to fully funding the program in the near
future. This wise investment in the LWCF is one that will permanently
pay dividends to the American people and to our great natural and
historical heritage.
Funding increases in fiscal year 2008 through fiscal year 2010
allowed for meaningful progress toward properly patrolling and
enforcing laws on 150 million acres, maintaining recreation and
education programs for the public, sustaining high water quality,
completing habitat restoration projects, and more. Cutting operations
and maintenance funding back to fiscal year 2008 levels would result in
the elimination of several hundred staff positions and loss of
important wildlife management, education, and hunting and fishing
programs. The way to keep from reversing recent progress is to fund the
NWRS at $511 million in fiscal year 2012.
I again extend our appreciation to the subcommittee for its ongoing
commitment to our NWRS and respectfully request the Interior,
Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Subcommittee allocate
$511 million for the NWRS's fiscal year 2012 Operations & Maintenance
budget, $95 million for State Wildlife Grants, $50 million for North
American Wetlands Conservation Act grants, and fully fund the LWCF at
the authorized lever of $900 million annually.
______
Letter From the Friends of Rachel Carson National Wildlife Refuge
May 18, 2011.
Hon. Jack Reed,
Chairman, Subcommittee on the Interior, Environment, and Related
Agencies, Washington, DC.
Hon. Lisa Murkowski,
Ranking Member, Subcommittee on the Interior, Environment, and Related
Agencies, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Reed and Senator Murkowski: I am Brendan Stewart, a
student at Cape Elizabeth High School and an intern with the Rachel
Carson National Wildlife Refuge in Maine.
I recently started my internship as a part of a high school project
for graduating seniors. The program's goal was to help graduating
seniors find areas of work that they are interested in. After working
with the refuge, I have realized the importance of the conservation
work that the refuge does. In light of the recent budget crisis and the
proposed cuts in many areas, I am writing out of concern--the refuge
needs to receive funding equal or greater to what it has in the past.
The refuges protect wetland areas, which play a pivotal role in the
public health of the people of Maine. Roughly one-half of Maine's
residents get water from underground water sources (aquifers).
Unfortunately, in the United States as a whole, water is being drawn
from aquifers faster than their rate of recharge. Once an aquifer runs
dry, dependents lose an important water source. Additionally, the
threat of sinkholes increases as aquifers are drained, as there is no
underground water to help suspend dirt particles. Wetland areas help
aid in the process of aquifer recharge, which in turn provides clean
drinking water to the people of Maine. If wetlands remain unprotected
and open to development, this natural service is jeopardized. For
example, homes built over filled-in wetland areas prevent water from
draining back into underground aquifers by providing an impermeable
surface over the previous wetland. In effect, development of housing
over wetlands is like trying to grow a plant under an umbrella--after a
while, the plant will die because of the lack of water it receives. In
addition to that, pesticides, fertilizer, and motor oil runoff from
cars can seep into the few permeable areas and contaminate groundwater
supplies. Surface water supplies are also protected by the refuge.
Freshwater streams and watershed areas are included in some of refuge's
divisions. However, there is the opportunity to expand protection of
surface water supplies and of watershed areas. If these areas are not
protected, runoff chemicals and sediment produced as a result of
construction may contaminate surface water. With water being an
increasingly scarce resource, it is imperative that we protect the
supplies that we have. For the reason of the human health benefits that
the refuges provide, funding should be increased to help protect
greater tracts of land.
Another human benefit that the wetlands provide is flood
protection. Vegetation in the wetland areas help hold floodwaters. In
fact, flood peaks are generally 60 percent lower in areas with dense
wetlands than those without. Cutting funding to the refuge will make
acquisition of additional wetland areas difficult. If those areas are
developed instead, the risk and effects of a potential flood would be
increased. With the Rachel Carson National Wildlife Refuge being the
refuge with the largest number of human neighbors nationwide, this is a
prime concern. Continuation or increase of funding is required to help
continue this positive effect that the wetlands provide for nearby
human residences.
In difficult economic times, the last action we should take is to
shut down important sources of income. However, the development of
wetland areas does just that. If wetlands are not protected, important
breeding grounds for commercially important species, such as striped
bass and various shellfish. According to statistics released by the
Bureau of Land and Water Quality (BLWQ), Maine's wetlands help keep
25,000 residents employed via the fishing industry alone, accounting
for $270 billion in State revenue. On top of that, the BLWQ reports
that $1.5 billion of tourism revenue in Maine is brought in yearly as a
result of wetlands. To cut funding to the refuge makes it difficult to
acquire new pieces of land to protect, potentially opening the wetlands
up to developments, which could be located on other land tracts. It is
imperative to protect wetland areas due to the economic benefits that
they provide to the State.
The wetland areas that the refuge protects also aid in
sequestration of carbon in the atmosphere. The numerous plants within a
wetland area absorb and store carbon. With human-caused climate change
an important current issue, it is important that we protect wetland
areas for this benefit to help offset the carbon put into the
atmosphere by human activities.
The refuge also helps protected threatened and endangered species,
such as the New England Cottontail, a State-listed endangered species,
and the Piping Plover, a federally threatened species. Cutting funding
reduces the amount of protection that the refuge can provide to these
species, and endangers their existence further. Many migratory bird
species, as wells as the New England Cottontail, depend on the wetlands
as early successional species, meaning that they require relatively
young and developing habitats. If left unchecked, the shrub habitats
that these animals depend upon could be overtaken by forest. With much
of the land developed and not open to the natural cycle of habitat
succession, new early successional shrub habitats will not be able to
form. The existing shrub habitats require maintenance every few years
to prevent further succession. If this maintenance does not take place,
the habitats will be lost. The effects will be profound, with the loss
of more Cottontail habitat (the Cottontail's range has already shrunk
significantly since 1960) and loss of feeding grounds for migratory
birds--with the lack of sufficient food--it is difficult for them to
complete their migration. Additional funding will help with the
maintenance of the habitats that the refuge protects as well as the
continuation of habitat restoration. In short, cutting appropriations
to the refuge will endanger various already threatened species and
migratory birds.
The observation of migratory birds in wetland areas also plays
another important role. Maine is a prime location for offshore wind
farms, and one of the major concerns tied to wind farms is the
disruption of migratory bird patterns. The refuges provide an area to
study the course taken and the number of birds in a migration, as well
as their behavior. If an experimental wind farm were to be constructed,
the refuges play a critical role in determining the effect of the wind
farm on migration patterns. However, if the existing wetland areas are
not protected and more wetlands are developed upon and destroyed,
migratory birds may change migration patterns due to the lack of
available habitat--this would affect data regarding wind farms, and may
make the effect of wind farms on migration patterns unclear. If data
like this were to be released, it would be difficult to garner public
trust of wind farms. In a time where we as a Nation are looking to
become energy self-sufficient, it is important to understand the
ecological effects of our decisions and dispel notions that might be
tied to new forms of energy. A lack of funding makes acquisition of new
land difficult, opens up wetlands to development, and in turn, affects
data and destroys a natural laboratory critical in understanding the
effects of wind farms on migratory bird patterns.
The wetlands that the Rachel Carson National Wildlife Refuge
protects provide critical natural services to humans and to wildlife.
Without future funding, the refuge will not be able to maintain
habitat, the aquifer recharge service that the refuge provides will be
affected, and the potential use of the protected wetlands as a natural
laboratory to observe the effects of wind farms on migratory bird
patterns will be lost. In addition to that, the risk and damage of
floods will increase, and biodiversity will be lost.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity for me to present my
testimony. The wetlands provide invaluable services to humans and to
wildlife. I urge you to please increase appropriation of funds to the
Rachel Carson National Wildlife Refuge.
Brendan Stewart,
Intern.
______
Letter From the Friends of Rachel Carson National Wildlife Refuge
May 20, 2011.
Hon. Jack Reed,
Chairman, Subcommittee on the Interior, Environment, and Related
Agencies, Washington, DC.
Hon. Lisa Murkowski,
Ranking Member, Subcommittee on the Interior, Environment, and Related
Agencies, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Reed and Senator Murkowski: Mr. Chairman and
honorable members of the subcommittee: I am Bill Durkin, president of
the Friends of Rachel Carson National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) in Maine.
I have been a member of the Friends of Rachel Carson NWR for the
past 20 years. The group was founded in 1987; we are a small group of
about 200 members. This time of the year all of the letters go out to
the Congress asking for support of the refuge. I have given numerous
written statements over the years and we really appreciate your support
in the past. This year, our refuge is not requesting any appropriations
directly for the Rachel Carson NWR; this is a request for general
funding of the National Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS). I thank you all
for your consideration.
We are requesting an overall funding level of $511 million in
fiscal year 2012 for the operations and maintenance budget of the NWRS,
managed by the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). This is an $8 million
increase more than fiscal year 2010. All of the refuges are in dire
need of staffing and upkeep. Refuges provide unparalleled opportunities
to hunt, fish, watch wildlife, and educate children about the
environment. Without increased funding for refuges, wildlife
conservation, and public recreation opportunities will be jeopardized.
Retain the NWRS's ability to leverage Federal conservation efforts
through partnerships. Two grant programs that need support are:
--State Wildlife Grants that allow the FWS to work with States to
keep common species common and restore declining species before
they become endangered. A slight increase for the State
Wildlife Grants Program to $95 million for fiscal year 2012 is
essential to fulfilling the shared Federal-State responsibility
for keeping our Nation's wildlife from becoming endangered.
--The North American Wetlands Conservation Act grants enable the
acquisition and restoration of critical wetlands to implement
the goals and objectives of the North American Waterfowl Plan,
the Waterbird Plan, the U.S. Shorebird Plan and Partners in
Flight. A congressional allocation of $50 million in fiscal
year 2012 will deliver multiple benefits including habitat
restoration, improved water quality, and even carbon
sequestration.
The Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) is our Nation's premier
Federal program to acquire and protect lands at national parks,
forests, refuges, and public lands and at State parks, trails, and
recreational facilities. These sites across the country provide the
public with substantial social and economic benefits including
promoting healthier lifestyles through recreation, protecting drinking
water and watersheds, improving wildfire management, and assisting the
adaptation of wildlife and fisheries to climate change. For all these
reasons, the LWCF needs to be fully funded at the $900 million level,
as authorized by the Congress in 1965. The LWCF is our most important
acquisition tool. The President has included meaningful increases to
the program in his fiscal year 2012 budget, and I support the
administration's commitment to fully funding the program in the near
future. This wise investment in the LWCF is one that will permanently
pay dividends to the American people and to our great natural and
historical heritage. The Rachel Carson NWR requests $750,000 towards
the purchase of critical habitat for the New England Cottontail, an
endangered species. This funding will be used for the purchase of land
in the new York River Division of the refuge; this will be the first
land holding in that division.
The LWCF should be fully funded at $900 million annually--the
congressionally authorized level. The LWCF is good for the economy, it
is good for America's communities and their recreational access and it
is critical for our public lands.
The Rachel Carson NWR 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, led
Rachel Carson to become an advocate on behalf of this Nation's vast
coastal habitat and the wildlife that depends on it, the refuge that
bears her name is dedicated to the permanent protection of the salt
marshes and estuaries of the southern Maine coast.
I again extend our appreciation to the subcommittee for its ongoing
commitment to our NWRS and respectfully request the Interior,
Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Subcommittee allocate
$511 million for the NWRS fiscal year 2012 operations and maintenance
budget; $95 million for State Wildlife Grants; $50 million for North
American Wetlands Conservation Act grants; fully fund the LWCF at the
authorized lever of $900 million annually; and appropriate $750,000 to
the Rachel Carson NWR.
Thank you again, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to present this
testimony in support of protecting wildlife and it's habitat.
Bill Durkin,
President.
______
Prepared Statement of the Friends of the Savannah Coastal Wildlife
Refuges, Inc.
Mr. Chairman and honorable members of the subcommittee: Thank you
for this opportunity to present testimony in support of the Land and
Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) in the fiscal year 2012 Interior,
environment, and related agencies appropriations bill. In an historic
embrace of conservation, the President's budget request includes full
funding of the LWCF in fiscal year 2012. The proposed $900 million is
the congressionally authorized amount for the program and seeks to
renew focus on the promise of the LWCF: that it is right and wise to
reinvest proceeds from offshore drilling receipts in the protection of
natural resources and recreational access for all Americans.
I recognize that this subcommittee will face many demands in this
tight fiscal climate. However, far-sighted investment in the LWCF is
one that will permanently pay dividends to the American people and to
our great natural and historical heritage. As the LWCF is funded from
the Outer Continental Shelf revenues--not taxpayer dollars--these funds
should go to their intended and authorized use.
As part of the full commitment to the LWCF in fiscal year 2012, the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) included $1.25 million for the
acquisition of land adjacent to Savannah National Wildlife Refuge in
Georgia in the President's budget. I am pleased that this funding was
included in the request and urge the Congress to provide the full
President's budget amount for the LWCF so that this important project
can receive this needed funding.
Lying on both the South Carolina and Georgia sides of the Savannah
River, just upriver from the city of Savannah, is the picturesque
Savannah National Wildlife Refuge. The refuge is more than 29,000 acres
of freshwater marshes, tidal rivers and creeks, and bottomland hardwood
forests. Known for its flora during the humid summer months, the region
supports a diverse wildlife population. The variety of birdlife within
the refuge is enhanced by its location on the Atlantic Flyway. During
the winter, thousands of ring-necked ducks, teals, pintails, and as
many as 10 other species of waterfowl migrate to the area, joining the
resident wood ducks within the refuge. In the spring and fall,
transient songbirds stop briefly on their journey to and from northern
nesting grounds. Additionally, the Savannah National Wildlife Refuge is
home to the endangered wood stork, West Indian manatee, and shortnose
sturgeon as well as the threatened American alligator.
Located within the boundaries of the Savannah National Wildlife
Refuge and available for acquisition in fiscal year 2012 are two
properties in the vicinity of Abercorn Creek that were included within
the refuge boundaries in 1998. At that time, the Director of the FWS
stated that the lands in the expansion area ``offer an outstanding
diversity of wetland and upland habitats for the benefit of wintering
waterfowl, neotropical migratory birds, wading birds, white-tailed
deer, wild turkey, and many other species of wildlife.''
The Abercorn Creek project consists of two tracts under separate
ownerships in Effingham County. These rich parcels, one comprising 620
acres and the other 388 acres, have remnant rice fields, wetlands, and
upland forests and fields. The wetlands serve as the prime habitat for
wildlife such as king rails, American alligators, and wood ducks. A
host of migratory birds such as swallow-tailed kites and Swainson's and
prothonotary warblers are found on the properties during spring and
summer months.
Once acquired by the refuge, the properties will offer important
recreational access for activities such as hiking, canoeing, hunting
and fishing, and environmental education. An existing road on one of
the tracts leads to the northern interior of the refuge, and this
critical road access will no doubt bring additional visitors to enjoy
the unique offerings of this currently more remote part of the refuge.
Opening up this area to greater visitation should also produce economic
benefits to the surrounding communities.
In recent years, the ongoing Savannah Port Project has created a
great deal of real estate speculation adjacent to the refuge. The
recession has slowed this process, but as the economy becomes more
stable, an upward movement in property values will likely occur. The
landowners are willing to make their lands available for conservation,
but time is limited for the refuge to take advantage of these
opportunities.
The fiscal year 2012 President's budget recommends $1.25 million
from the LWCF for land acquisition at Savannah National Wildlife
Refuge. This allocation, in combination with $1.375 million proposed in
the fiscal year 2011 budget, will allow the refuge to begin the
acquisition of the Abercorn Creek properties and add critical acreage
to the refuge that further enhances access, wildlife habitat, and
public recreation.
Friends of the Savannah Coastal Wildlife Refuges is a community-
based organization whose mission is to support the FWS and to protect
and advocate for the national wildlife refuges within our region. We
strongly support acquisition of the properties within the Abercorn
Creek project and respectfully request that this subcommittee approve
the necessary funding.
______
Prepared Statement of the Friends of the Tampa Bay National Wildlife
Refuges, Inc.
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee: On behalf of the 162
members of the Friends of the Tampa Bay National Wildlife Refuges,
including Egmont Key National Wildlife Refuge (NWR), Passage Key NWR,
and Pinellas NWR, I want to thank you for your leadership and strong
support for the National Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS) through
increased funding over the past few years. We realize that in this time
of budget cuts, it may be difficult to justify increasing the NWRS
funding, but once the refuge habitats start to decline it will cost
many times more than these small increases to return them to a
condition that will fulfill their mandates. I further thank you for the
opportunity to offer comments on the fiscal year 2012 Interior,
environment, and related agencies appropriations bill. We respectfully
request that the subcommittee support the following:
--Increase the funding levels to $511 million for fiscal year 2012
for the operations and management of the NWRS;
--Fund $27 million for refuge revenue sharing;
--Fully fund the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) at $900
million;
--Fund $20.2 million for Landscape Conservation Cooperatives (LCC) in
the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS);
--Fund $20 million for inventory and monitoring for refuges;
--Fund $37 million for the NWRS construction account for large-scale
restoration, visitor center, and energy-efficient projects;
--Fund $80 million for NWRS visitors services;
--Fund $39 million for refuge law enforcement;
--Fund $5 million for the management of the new Pacific Marine
Monuments;
--Fund $65 million for the FWS' Partners for Fish and Wildlife
Programs;
--Fund $95 million for the State and Tribal Wildlife Grants Programs;
--Fund $50 million for the North American Wetlands Conservation Fund;
--Fund $$6.5 million for the Neotropical Migratory Bird Fund;
--Fund $8.4 million for Wildlife Without Borders; and
--Fund 8.5 million for the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation in
the FWS' Resource Management General Administration
appropriation.
The Cooperative Alliance for Refuge Enhancement (CARE) has
determined that the NWRS needs a budget of at least $900 million
annually in operation and maintenance (O&M) funding in order to
properly administer its 150 million acres as mandated in the Refuge
Improvement Act. The current budget is far short of the amount actually
required to effectively operate and maintain the refuges. An $8 million
increase over fiscal year 2010 levels to $511 million for the fiscal
year 2012 appropriation will allow the refuges to maintain status quo
without drastic cuts. This is a reduced amount from the $526 million
that the NWRS actually requires just for O&M capabilities. In this time
of tight budgets, we feel that an $8 million increase to $511 would be
appropriate and appreciated.
The Tampa Bay Refuges are located at the mouth of Tampa Bay on the
west central gulf coast of Florida. The budget increases in the past
few years have meant increased management, protection, and restoration
of the refuges and the ability to better meet the Comprehensive
Conservation Plan (CCP) goals. In 2008 the Tampa Bay Refuges (TBRs) had
one staff person who was split duty manager/law enforcement. It was
very difficult for that one person to have the time to adequately
manage the resources much less have time to patrol. Because of the
incremental increases to the NWRS budgets over the last few years, the
TBRs have a full-time manager, a full-time law enforcement every
weekend during the summer nesting season, and Student Temporary
Employment Program summer hire. Due to the past increases in budget and
personnel the TBRs are able to do long-range planning for big picture
issues such as erosion and increased public use. With decreases in
budget, these will fall by the wayside and the wildlife will have a
degraded or useless habitat.
The Egmont Key NWR has the Fort Dade Guardhouse that has been
restored and will make a great visitor center. Without funding, staff
will not be sufficient to keep the center open to the public. This will
compromise outreach and education goals for the TBRs. Even now with the
incremental increases, the TBRs find themselves short of funds to keep
up with invasive species and predators that threaten the wildlife that
the refuge system is mandated to protect. With smaller budgets, there
will also be less money for facilities maintenance which will then cost
more to restore in the future. If the TBRs were to again lose ground on
their budgets they would not be able to meet many of their CCP goals
due to decreased staffing. Keeping the NWRS budget status quo with an
increase to $511 million for fiscal year 2012 will keep the TBRs from
losing too much ground.
The LWCF was created in 1965 and authorized at $900 million. These
funds are used for land acquisition to protect wildlife and their
habitats. With the effects of a changing climate, it is more important
now than ever to establish key wildlife corridors between protected
areas so wildlife can migrate to more suitable habitat as their
historic ones changes. The price of real estate is low at this time and
the $900 million can go much further in protecting habitats than it can
in a higher real estate market. When we start to lose species due to
lack of food, water, shelter or space, we are changing the balance of
nature. The FWS is in the planning stages for the new Everglades
Headwaters NWR and Conservation Area through the center of the State of
Florida. Funding to set aside these critical lands is urgently needed.
With the new legislation enacted in Florida, it is all too easy for
developers to wipe out environmentally sensitive lands. We will lose
the possibility of these wildlife corridors forever if the areas are
developed. We urge you to pass legislation to permanently fund the LWCF
at $900 million per year as it was originally authorized to give
wildlife a shot at having suitable habitats as our climate changes.
Funding Refuge Revenue Sharing at $27 million will also allow the FWS
to offset loss of local taxes on lands put into conservation, making it
affordable for communities to help set aside lands for wildlife.
With the BP Deepwater Horizon oil spill still fresh in our minds,
the Friends of the Tampa Bay NWR's are extremely aware of the necessity
for wildlife inventory and monitoring. We urge you to appropriate $20
million for inventory and monitoring on refuges. Without historic data
on flora and fauna, we cannot see trends in numbers and species to know
how to adjust management of the lands. When disaster strikes like an
oil spill we need to know what is on the public lands in order to help
protect species and claim for losses. The Friends of the Tampa Bay
NWR's volunteers have been providing Pinellas Refuges with monthly bird
survey data for many years and have recognized trends in usage.
Through partnerships including State and Tribal Wildlife Grants
(SWG), the FWS is able to work together with the States to protect
wildlife. This increases the amount of protection that can be afforded
to wildlife. By funding the SWG program at $95 million, you are helping
fulfill the responsibility to keep our wildlife from becoming
endangered or extinct.
The North American Wetlands Conservation Act (NAWCA) grants will
also help create space, clean water, food, and shelter for wildlife by
acquiring and restoring critical wetlands. Funding of this program at
$50 million in fiscal year 2012 will create additional habitat for
wildlife. This partnership through acquisition and restoration of
critical wetlands also improves water quality and carbon sequestration.
The Friends of the Tampa Bay National Wildlife Refuges, a 501(c)(3)
organization, is 1 of 230 Friends groups who support the NWRs. As
Friends groups, we provide assistance to the NWRs through volunteer
labor and education. In fiscal year 2010, there were more than 40,000
friends and volunteers who provided services for the NWRS equal to 648
full-time equivalents, saving taxpayers million of dollars. The
interest in our NWRS is significant and we are proving it with our
donated time and funds. The administration's proposal to cut $2.3
million from the visitor services budget will also decrease the amount
of volunteer services that can be provided, causing an even greater
impact to the refuges. We request $80 million appropriation for visitor
services. Refuges are economic engines for the community. It is
estimated that for each $1 the Congress spends toward a refuge, $4 is
returned to the community in economic activity. Without volunteers, you
lose many visitor services that fuel this economic activity.
In conclusion, the Friends of the Tampa Bay National Wildlife
Refuges believes the NWRS can meet its important conservation
objectives only with strong and consistent funding leveraged by the
valuable work of refuge staff and volunteers. We again extend our
appreciation to the subcommittee for its ongoing commitment to our
NWRS. We encourage you to approve a $511 million for the fiscal year
2012 NWRS operations and maintenance budget managed by the FWS and to
approve $900 millions for fiscal year 2012 for the LWCF land
acquisition budget, approve funding the SWG program at $95 million and
the NAWCA grants at $50 million, as well as the other important
programs and projects outlined above. Each of these programs is an
important part of keeping our planet healthy with a broad diversity of
species.
______
Prepared Statement of the Friends of Virgin Islands National Park
Mr. Chairman and honorable members of the subcommittee: I
appreciate the opportunity to present this testimony in support of the
Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) in the fiscal year 2012
Interior, environment, and related agencies appropriations bill. In an
historic embrace of conservation, the President's budget request
includes full funding of LWCF in fiscal year 2012. The proposed $900
million is the congressionally authorized amount for the program and
seeks to renew focus on the promise of LWCF: that it is right and wise
to reinvest proceeds from offshore drilling receipts in the protection
of natural resources and recreational access for all Americans.
I recognize that this subcommittee will face many demands in this
tight fiscal climate. However, far-sighted investment in LWCF is one
that will permanently pay dividends to the American people and to our
great natural and historical heritage. As LWCF is funded from Outer
Continental Shelf revenues, not taxpayer dollars, these funds should go
to their intended and authorized use.
As part of the full commitment to LWCF in fiscal year 2012, the
National Park Service (NPS) included $5 million for the acquisition of
land in the Virgin Islands National Park in the President's budget. I
am pleased that this funding was included in the request and urge the
Congress to provide the full President's budget amount for LWCF so that
this important project can receive this needed funding.
I represent the Friends of VI 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 23 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 State 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 for visitors. 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 a
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. Its crystal
waters and soft white beaches are rimmed by a lush forested slope
rising 1,086 feet. 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 and hawksbill 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 andruins on the island is
found within this area.
Slated for completion in 2011, if funds are available, is a 205-
acre acquisition of land overlooking Maho Bay within the Virgin Islands
National Park boundaries. The property offers spectacular views of the
bay and extends the amount of publicly owned beachfront at Maho Bay.
This property, known as Estate Maho Bay, is extremely important because
it connects the southern and northern sections of the national park and
will preserve significant natural and cultural resources. With
increasing growth and investment throughout the Caribbean--including
places not far from the unspoiled beauty of St. John--these vulnerable
lands have become the focus of intense development threats.
Estate Maho Bay was originally part of a larger property under one
ownership. A 3-acre beachfront parcel was carved out of that original
property and came under separate ownership. Now available for
acquisition by the Virgin Islands National Park, the Ortiz property
lies adjacent to Estate Maho Bay and contains 422 linear feet of
beachfront. NPS is already leasing this property for public
recreational use for a nominal fee, with the understanding that the
property will be purchased by the park. The Ortiz property can be
acquired with an LWCF allocation of $3.05 million in fiscal year 2012.
The acquisitions at Maho Bay will ensure continued public access to
the beach, protect ecologically and historically significant land from
development, and connect two separate sections of Virgin Islands
National Park. The President's budget for fiscal year 2012 allocates $5
million for acquisitions at Virgin Islands NP and encompasses the
acquisition of the Ortiz property for $3.05 million as part of that
larger ask.
LWCF is our Nation's premier Federal program to acquire and protect
lands at national parks, forests, refuges, and public lands and at
State parks, trails, and recreational facilities. These sites across
the country provide the public with substantial social and economic
benefits including promoting healthier lifestyles through recreation,
protecting drinking water and watersheds, improving wildfire
management, and assisting wildlife and fisheries adaptation.
I want to thank the chairman and the members of the subcommittee
for this opportunity to testify on behalf of this nationally important
protection effort in the U.S. Virgin Islands, and I appreciate your
consideration of this funding request.
______
Prepared Statement of the Friends of Wallkill River National Wildlife
Refuge
Dear Madam Chair and honorable members of the committee: I
appreciate the opportunity to express my strong support for the Land
and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) and urge the subcommittee to include
ample funding for LWCF in the fiscal year 2012 Interior, environment,
and related agencies appropriations bill. The President's budget
request includes full funding of LWCF in fiscal year 2012. The proposed
$900 million is the congressionally authorized amount for the program
and seeks to renew focus on the promise of the LWCF: that it is right
and wise to reinvest proceeds from offshore drilling receipts in the
protection of natural resources and recreational access for all
Americans. I would also encourage you to support $549 million in
funding for operations and maintenance on refuges, of that, I ask that
Refuge Law Enforcement be funded at the level of at least $76 million.
LWCF is authorized by the Land and Water Conservation Act of 1965.
This act states: ``not less than $900 million for each fiscal year''
from ``Outer Continental Shell oil monies'' will go to subsidize the
acquisition of State and Federal lands. Today, the Bureau of Ocean
Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement report annual revenues
averaging $13.7 billion per year. I strongly encourage your support of
fully funding this fund as dictated by the Congressional Act of 1965.
In the National Wildlife Refuge system much of this funding is used
to purchase wetlands. Wetlands is a technical term for what must of us
are might commonly refer to as ``swamps'' and floodplains. These sites
are the areas that water flows to when there is excess that does not
flow down through the ground to replenish aquifers It is paramount to
protect these lands for the purposes of replenishing Aquifers and as
storage site for flood watersheds protecting habitat for endangered and
threatened species.
Land owners have a constitutionally protected right to sell their
land as dictated by the fifth amendment eminent domain clause. When
developers build on these wetlands, we see unsuspecting home owners
flooded out. The American public then expects FEMA to come to their
rescue financially. I say to you: it is far more financially
intelligent to buy these lands and put them in preservation as a
reservoir for naturally occurring, excessive water flow, than it is to
keep bailing out homes built in flood plains. This funding is means to
prevent building homes in flood plains and protects the water supply
for the current population and future generations. We all want our
children and grandchildren to have safe water.
These sites also serve the purpose of naturally allowing waters to
be absorbed into the aquifer. Safe, potable water is becoming a growing
crisis throughout this country. Preserving lands for the replenishment
of aquifers and watersheds, will ensure that the American public will
have safe water for generations to come. This is a responsibility that
the Congress has the ability to address now. I encourage you to
reinstate LWCF in 2015.
Historically, in New Jersey, LWCF has provided essential funding
for our five national wildlife refuges, park service units from
Delaware Water Gap, to the Edison National Historic Site, vital
conservation dollars for the Highlands Conservation Act program and
funding for numerous State and local parks and trails. It has protected
watersheds and wetlands, ensuring clean, ample, and affordable drinking
water supplies for New Jersey communities. Moreover, this conservation
investment helps support jobs and economic vibrancy in our communities.
In particular, today I wish to emphasize the continuing need for
LWCF funding for national wildlife refuges in New Jersey and across the
Nation. This is essential funding necessary to maintain the integrity
of our refuges by protecting precious wildlife and fisheries habitat,
wetlands and watershed, and expanding public access for recreation.
As a board member and past president of Friends of the Wallkill
River National Wildlife Refuge Association, I possess firsthand
understanding of the land protection needs at this refuge. The refuge
was established in 1990 to preserve and enhance wildlife habitat in one
of the most fertile valleys and natural areas in all of New Jersey. The
Wallkill River valley is a resource-rich part of the New Jersey-New
York Highlands area. The extent of its forested wetlands and
undisturbed grasslands makes the Wallkill River one of the largest
high-quality inland waterfowl habitats in the mid-Atlantic region. The
refuge provides critical habitat for migratory waterfowl on both the
Atlantic Flyway and the Hudson-Delaware corridor and is a major black
duck focus area of the North American Waterfowl Management Plan. Large
populations of nesting black ducks, wood ducks, blue- and green-winged
teal, mergansers, mallards, and pintail frequent the refuge's wetland
areas. In addition, the Wallkill River and its tributaries are home to
19 State-listed threatened and endangered species. Within the past 200
years, the State of New Jersey has lost an estimated 40 percent of its
forested wetlands.
The Wallkill River NWR has focused on urgent land acquisition needs
and faces serious development pressures. A recently approved land
protection plan expands the refuge boundary to provide greater habitat
protection for the federally listed endangered bog turtle. The U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) continues to work with willing seller
landowners and community partners to secure vital properties. Several
high priority properties are currently available from willing seller
landowners. However, without ample LWCF funding, these refuge land
protection needs cannot be met and may be permanently lost to
inappropriate development. Wallkill NWR has a need of $1.75 million,
for land acquisition, still in waiting.
I recognize that this subcommittee will face many demands in this
tight fiscal climate. However, far-sighted investment in LWCF is one
that will permanently pay dividends to the American people and to our
great natural and historical heritage. LWCF is funded from offshore oil
and gas leasing royalties, not taxpayer dollars, and these funds should
go to their intended and congressionally enacted use. A 2009 study by
The Trust for Public Land found that for every $1 invested in land
conservation returns $10 in economic benefits to our New Jersey
communities for flood control and other ecosystem goods and services.
Further, our refuges and other public lands drive tourism and support
jobs and economic vitality in surrounding communities. FWS reports that
each year more than 2.1 million people participate in hunting, fishing,
and wildlife watching in New Jersey contributing $1.7 billion to the
State economy.
In years past, I and others have made the request to this
subcommittee to fully support and increase funding for Refuge Law
Enforcement. Reports from the Government Accountability Office, the
Department of the Interior Inspector General, the International
Association of Chiefs of Police all concur that there is a serious lack
of adequate law enforcement personnel on Refuges. The Deployment Model
of 2005 states that the refuge system needs 845 full-time officers
nationally. Currently, there are 237 full-time officers and 173
collateral duty officers. Collateral duty officer's primary
responsibility is another position such as maintenance or biology. The
total law enforcement officers is 410 compared to the needed 845.
In 1981, the Fire Division was under staffed and not adequately
trained or equipt, resulting in the deaths of three staff members in
1979 and 1981. (Okefenokee Refuge and Merritt Island Refuge).
Congressman Sidney Yates worked to bring adequate funding so that the
Fire Division could get the job done while maintaining the safety of
personnel and public.
Drug smuggling, growing marijuana, and selling drugs on refuges is
presenting and increasing risk to staff and visitors on refuges. The
National Park Service already experienced one fatality as a result of
the Southwest Border drug smuggling and human trafficking. It may seem
as if the loss of one officer is minor in the scheme of things: not to
the family of that person. The risks on refuges are increasing because
there has been inadequate law enforcement staffing.
I ask that you not wait until there are fatalities as a result of
the serious lack of law enforcement of refuges; please don't wait until
there are fatalities to recognize the need for law enforcement. The
current budget asks for $38 million for refuge law enforcement; I ask
that you increase funding to $76 million. The budgets of 2005-2008
dramatically cut staff on refuges; many refuges are still understaffed
and unstaffed. The Refuge system now has 127 refuge complexes, 501
satellite units, 52 stand-alones, 216 stations without any staff, and
110 refuges that are closed. Adequate funding has not been made
available to fully staff the refuge system to the level that is needed
to fulfill the requirements of the Refuge Improvement Act of 1997. When
there is no staff or law enforcement on refuges criminal activity
increases; there is no one to document or react to wrong doing on the
lands that are owned and by the American public.
I urge the subcommittee to invest in the LWCF program to provide
ample funding for wildlife refuges and other public lands protection,
and to fund Refuges at $549 million for operations and maintenance, and
to recognize the need for law enforcement on refuges by specifying $76
million for law enforcement on refuges. In these tough economic times
it is the wise choice that reaps direct benefits to the people of New
Jersey and across the country.
______
Prepared Statement of the Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife
Commission
agencies--bureau of indian affairs (bia) and the environmental
protection agency (epa)
BIA Rights Protection Implementation.--At least $30,451,000 (same
as the fiscal year 2010 appropriation).
Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission (GLIFWC).--At
least $5,619,000 (proportionate allocation within the Rights
Protection Implementation (RPI) program).
Agency/Program Line Item.--Department of the Interior, BIA,
Operation of Indian Programs, Trust-Natural Resources
Management, RPI, Great Lakes Area Resource Management.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The requested BIA funds reflect GLIFWC's allocation of this
line item that also funds the 1854 Treaty Authority.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Funding Authorizations.--Snyder Act, 25 U.S.C. s. 13; Indian
Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (Public Law 93-
638), 25 U.S.C. ss. 450f and 450h; and the treaties between the
United States and the 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 Great Lakes Restoration.--$350,000,000.
Tribal need: $25,000,000.
GLIFWC need.--$1,200,000 (estimated annual need).
Agency/Program Line Item.--EPA, Environmental Programs and
Management, Geographic Programs, Great Lakes Restoration.
Funding Authorizations.--Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. s. 1268(c);
and treaties cited above.
the glifwc's goal--a secure funding base to fulfill treaty purposes
For more than 25 years, the Congress has funded the GLIFWC in
fulfillment of nondiscretionary treaty obligations and associated
Federal court orders. The GLIFWC's conservation, natural resource
protection, and law enforcement programs also provide a wide range of
associated public benefits and assure participation in management
partnerships in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Minnesota. The two elements of
this funding request are:
BIA Rights Protection Implementation.--At Least $30,451,000. In
fiscal year 2010, the Congress provided $30,451,000 in RPI
funding, with the GLIFWC's proportionate share in the amount of
$5,619,000. Due to the current uncertainty, the GLIFWC's fiscal
year 2011 budget is unknown.
Stable funding at fiscal year 2010 levels has allowed the GLIFWC
to fill vacant positions, restore some funding to tribal courts
and registration stations, reinstate fish and wildlife
assessments, and meet a portion of its expanding harvest
monitoring requirements. It does not meet all of the GLIFWC's
program needs, but stable funding at this level acknowledges
the current budget climate while allowing the GLIFWC to meet
core functions and respond to growing demands for its services.
The GLIFWC recently estimated the full cost of its program at
approximately $9,870,000, including: $5,619,000 currently
provided through the RPI line item, approximately $1,800,000
provided by grants and other ``soft'' funding in fiscal year
2010, and $2,451,000 in unmet needs, including funding for
research and assessments of threats to the ceded territories,
for conservation enforcement officers, and to provide up-to-
date public information using current technologies.
EPA Environmental Programs and Management.--$350,000,000. The
GLIFWC supports continued funding for the Great Lakes
Restoration Initiative (GLRI) at the administration's proposed
fiscal year 2012 level of $350,000,000. It also recommends that
at least $25 million be provided to the BIA for tribes, to
ensure they are able to undertake projects that contribute to
the protection and restoration of the Great Lakes. Funding
provided through the BIA should be made available under the
Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act
(ISDEAA). In 2010, the GLRI funding awarded through the ISDEAA
was virtually the only GLRI funding that was available before
the 2010 field season, allowing the early implementation of
projects to realize substantial ``on-the-ground'' ecosystem
benefits.
Sustained funding for GLIFWC at the fiscal year 2010 level of
approximately $1.2 million, will enable GLIFWC to sustain jobs that
will allow it to fully participate in the decisionmaking processes that
affect the treaty rights of its member tribes, ensure that decisions
are based upon sound science, and implement specific habitat and human
health research projects relevant to the subsistence, economic, and
cultural needs of tribal communities.
ceded territory treaty rights--the glifwc's role and programs
Established in 1984, the GLIFWC is a natural resources management
agency for 11-member Ojibwe Tribes regarding their ceded territory
(off-reservation) hunting, fishing, and gathering treaty rights. These
ceded territories extend over a 60,000-square-mile area in a three-
State region. The GLIFWC's mission is to:
--ensure that its member tribes are able to exercise their rights for
the purposes of meeting subsistence, economic, cultural,
medicinal, and spiritual needs; and
--ensure a healthy, sustainable natural resource base that supports
those rights.
The GLIFWC is a ``tribal organization'' as defined by the Indian
Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act. It is governed by a
constitution ratified by its member tribes and by a board composed of
the chairs of those tribes.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The GLIFWC operates a comprehensive ceded territory hunting,
fishing, and gathering rights protection/implementation program through
its staff of 65 full-time biologists, scientists, technicians,
conservation enforcement officers, policy specialists, and public
information specialists. Its activities include:
--natural resource population assessments and studies;
--harvest monitoring and reporting;
--enforcement of tribal conservation codes in tribal courts;
--funding for tribal courts and tribal registration/permit stations;
--development of natural resource management plans and tribal
regulations;
--negotiation and implementation of agreements with State, Federal,
and local agencies;
--invasive species eradication and control projects;
--biological and scientific research, including fish contaminant
testing; and
--development and dissemination of public information materials.
justification and use of the requested funds
For more than 25 years, the Congress has recognized the GLIFWC as a
cost-efficient agency that plays a necessary role in:
--meeting specific Federal treaty and statutory obligations toward
the GLIFWC's member tribes;
--fulfilling conservation, habitat protection, and law enforcement
functions required by Federal court decisions affirming the
tribes' treaty rights;
--effectively regulating harvests of natural resources shared among
the treaty signatory tribes; and
--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, the GLIFWC will:
Maintain the Requisite Capabilities To Meet Legal Obligations, To
Conserve Natural Resources, and To Regulate Treaty Harvests.--
Although it does not meet all the GLIFWC's needs, sustained
funding at fiscal year 2010 levels would go a long way in
facilitating continued tribal compliance with various court
decrees and intergovernmental agreements governing the tribes'
treaty-reserved hunting, fishing, and gathering rights. It also
enhances the GLIFWC's capability to undertake work and
participate in relevant partnerships to tackle ecosystem
threats, such as invasive species, habitat degradation and
climate change, that harm treaty natural resources.
Remain a Trusted Environmental Management Partner and Scientific
Contributor in the Great Lakes region.--With the requested EPA
funding base, the GLIFWC would maintain its role as a trusted
environmental management partner and scientific contributor in
the Great Lakes region. It would bring a tribal perspective to
the interjurisdictional mix of Great Lakes managers \3\ and
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.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ The 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 Restoration
Initiative, and the implementation of agreements to regulate water
diversions and withdrawals under the Great Lakes Charter, Annex 2001.
\4\ With the requested fiscal year 2012 funds, GLIFWC would:
-- continue a ceded territory wild rice enhancement project;
-- facilitate tribal review and input on the re-negotiation of
the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement and any implementing
activities;
-- continue to participate in the development and implementation
of the Lake Superior Lakewide Management Plan;
-- build upon its long-standing fish contaminant analysis and
consumption advisory program by testing additional species, testing in
a wider geographic range, and testing for chemicals of emerging
concern; and
-- enhance its invasive species and animal disease prevention,
monitoring and mitigation programs, particularly given the potential
impacts of climate change, the recent discovery of viral hemorrhagic
septicemia (VHS) in Lake Superior and the potential migration of the
Asian Carp into the Great Lakes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maintain the Overall Public Benefits That Derive From its
Programs.--Over the years, the 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, the 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.
The GLIFWC has built and maintained numerous partnerships that:
--provide accurate information and data to counter social
misconceptions about tribal treaty harvests and the status of
ceded territory natural resources;
--maximize each partner's financial resources and avoid duplication
of effort and costs;
--engender cooperation rather than competition; and
--undertake projects and achieve public benefits that no one partner
could accomplish alone.
other related appropriations concerns
Full Funding of BIA Contract Support Costs.--The GLIFWC seeks full
funding of its contract support costs and supports the administration's
fiscal year 2012 proposed increase of $29.5 million from fiscal year
2010 levels. The GLIFWC anticipates its fiscal year 2011 indirect cost
shortfall to be approximately $207,000, and this does not take into
account the shortfall for all of its direct contract support costs.
These shortfalls significantly inhibit the GLIFWC's ability to restore
program cuts and service capacity.
BIA Conservation Law Enforcement Officer Program.--The GLIFWC
supports BIA's proposal for $1 million in fiscal year 2012 to support
conservation officers like those employed by the GLIFWC. This program
will assist tribal conservation enforcement programs in protecting and
monitoring natural resources, and may be particularly important in
light of proposed cuts to the Department of Justice Community Oriented
Policing Tribal Grant Program.
BIA Circle of Flight Tribal Wetland and Waterfowl Initiative.--The
GLIFWC supports BIA funding of the Circle of Flight Tribal Wetland &
Waterfowl Enhancement Initiative for Michigan, Minnesota, and
Wisconsin. The Circle of Flight Program is a long-standing tribal
contribution to the North American Waterfowl Management Plan that has
leveraged matching partnership funding on a 3 to 1 ratio. In 2010, this
program was awarded a Department of Interior ``Partners in
Conservation'' Award.
______
Prepared Statement of the Green Mountain Club
Mr. Chairman and honorable members of the subcommittee: As director
of Conservation for the Green Mountain Club, the nonprofit organization
that maintains Vermont's Long Trail, the Nation's oldest long-distance
hiking trail, I appreciate the opportunity to present this testimony in
support of the Forest Legacy Program (FLP) in the fiscal year 2012
Interior, environment, and related agencies appropriations bill. The
FLP works with landowners, the States, and other partners to protect
critical forestlands with important economic, recreation, water
quality, and habitat resources through conservation easement and fee
acquisitions. The program has protected more than 2 million acres in 43
States and territories, consistently with a 50 percent non-Federal cost
share, double the required 25 percent cost share. For several years
this important conservation program has been funded under the umbrella
of the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF).
In an historic embrace of conservation, the President's budget
request includes full funding of LWCF in fiscal year 2012. The proposed
$900 million is the congressionally authorized amount for the program
and seeks to renew focus on the promise of the LWCF: that it is right
and wise to reinvest proceeds from offshore drilling receipts in the
protection of natural resources and recreational access for all
Americans. Of that $900 million, the President requested $135 million
for the FLP.
I recognize that this subcommittee will face many demands in this
tight fiscal climate. However, far-sighted investment in the FLP is one
that will permanently pay dividends to the American people and to our
great natural and historical heritage. As LWCF is funded from Outer
Continental Shelf revenues, not taxpayer dollars, these funds should go
to their intended and authorized use.
As part of the full commitment to LWCF and FLP in fiscal year 2012,
the U.S. Forest Service included $2.55 million for the Northern Green
Mountains Linkage project in Vermont in the President's budget. I am
pleased that this funding was included in the request and urge the
Congress to provide the full President's budget amount for the FLP so
that this important project can receive this needed funding.
The FLP in Vermont seeks to achieve significant conservation goals
for the State by protecting the following types of land:
--large contiguous and productive forest blocks;
--wildlife habitats dependent on large contiguous forest blocks;
--threatened and endangered species habitat;
--State fragile areas and undeveloped shoreline;
--significant wetlands; and
--important recreation corridors.
Sustainable timber harvesting is also critical; the annual
contribution of forest products, forest-based manufacturing, and
forest-related recreation to Vermont's economy is more than $2.6
billion. All tracts are well suited for development of large estate
lots or subdivisions due to the extensive road frontage, water bodies,
gentle terrain, scenic value, and proximity to ski resorts and urban
areas.
The 5,804-acre Northern Green Mountains Linkage project is situated
on the spine of the Northern Green Mountains in Lamoille and Orleans
Counties, and will protect managed and productive timberland while
protecting 25 undeveloped ponds, 25 miles of streams, several rare
species and natural resource communities and high-quality habitat.
Using fee and easement acquisitions, the project will link 62,200 acres
of conserved lands, including lands the Green Mountain Club has
protected for the Long Trail, providing connectivity from the Champlain
Valley to the Green Mountains and north to Quebec and east to the
Worcester Range. This project will address the problem of forest
fragmentation and associated impacts on the timber economy, public
access to recreation and wildlife habitat connectivity in Vermont's
northern region by permanently protecting critically located
properties.
Vermont's Northern Green Mountains are one of the wildest and
largest forested landscapes remaining in all of New England. The
region, which follows the spine of the Green Mountains north from Mount
Mansfield to the Canadian border, encompasses sweeping tracts of forest
where moose, bobcat, black bear, and a myriad of rare and endangered
songbirds make their home. These mountains and their slopes are
remarkably diverse, containing all the major ecosystem types of the
ecoregion, from boreal forests, temperate mixed hardwoods, and alpine
meadows to floodplain forests and marshes. Additionally, there are
State rare and threatened plant species on the properties, including
cliff fern, rose pogonia, lungwort, and smooth musk flower. It is also
a magnet for hikers, skiers, backpackers, and other outdoor
enthusiasts, particularly those drawn by more than 65 miles of the Long
Trail--the Nation's oldest long-distance hiking path built by the Green
Mountain Club between 1910 and 1930 and the inspiration for the
Appalachian Trail. Also snaking through the region is the increasingly
popular Catamount Trail, a skiing trail traversing the length of
Vermont.
The Northern Green Mountains have long been recognized as a top
conservation priority by many of the region's small towns, such as Jay,
Westfield, and Hyde Park, who are now mobilizing to conserve the places
that define and sustain their communities. Two Countries One Forest
(2C1Forest), a Canadian-American coalition of 50 conservation
organizations, public agencies, and researchers sponsored scientific
research to identify important wildlife corridors in the Northern
Appalachian Acadian ecoregion. In 2007, 2C1Forest chose the Northern
Green Mountains-to-Sutton Mountains linkage as one of their top five
conservation priorities. The area has also been identified as
significant in VT Fish & Wildlife's soon-to-be-completed statewide
assessment and ranking of large forested blocks and associated linkage
habitats. The Northern Green Mountains are a crucial place for regional
landscape connectivity because they help tie the Adirondacks of New
York, and the central Appalachians of Massachusetts and points south to
the Northern Appalachians of Maine and Canada. In so doing they serve
as an important north-south corridor for wildlife and, because of their
large range in elevation, provide species with flexibility in their
movement.
Projects like the Northern Green Mountains Linkage that maintain
connectivity on local, State, and regional scales are also critical to
support adaptation of wildlife species to climate change. These
corridors will facilitate species movement in response to shifts in
forest habitat, food availability, and snowpack. As 1 of the 5 most
important mega-corridors in the entire region, protecting the Northern
Green Mountains habitat linkage will be essential for climate
adaptation. These forested tracts also offer important climate
adaptation value as habitat refugia for cold-loving species whose
habitats will be lost in other areas. The Northeast Climate Impacts
Synthesis Assessment Team projects that this region will retain
consistently cold winters and reliable snowpack through the end of the
21st century, even under high-carbon-emission scenarios. This is
significant for a wide range of snow-dependent species, like snowshoe
hare and marten, as these same projections suggest that snowpack will
largely disappear from New England to the south of the project area.
Protection of this area is also important for adaptation of the eastern
brook trout. Some of the parcels for protection include important
headwater streams to the Missisquoi River, one of Vermont's important
habitat areas for eastern brook trout. Conserving these high-elevation
headwater streams will help maintain flows and cooler water
temperatures in the lower lying Missisquoi as the climate warms in this
area.
The 3,739 acres that will be conserved with fiscal year 2012 FLP
funding is made up of three separate parcels. Almost the entire
expanse--95 percent--of the 1,748-acre Jay Brook tract in Westfield is
more than 1,500 feet, providing critical wildlife habitat protection
and important refugia to species adapting to climate change. Protection
of this land would conserve 3.6 miles of the Catamount Trail and add an
extra conserved buffer to 5.8 miles of The Long Trail, where portions
of the Long Trail State Forest are only 650 feet wide--an inadequate
buffer of the State's most well-known and well-loved trail. The 1,478-
acre Bullard Tract, in Eden and Hyde Park provides a wide linkage that
connects lowland forest to previous FLP investments around Green River
Reservoir State Park (protected with fiscal year 1999 funds) up to the
ridgeline of the Green Mountains on the Eden Forest property (protected
with fiscal years 2009 and 2010 funds). Lastly, the 513-acre Westfield
Mountain Tract is managed for the production of maple syrup and high-
value timber and would be a significant addition to a previously
conserved block of forestland in the Northern Green Mountains.
The vast majority of the land in the Northern Greens remains in
private hands, with thousands of acres available on the open market.
Threats from an expanding second-home industry (even in today's
uncertain economy), road construction, and changing forestry and
farming practices put key blocks of forestland at risk and create
barriers to wildlife movement. Such changes also threaten the vibrant
rural culture and economy of the Northern Greens, with is mix of small-
scale community farms, forestry, and recreation. A recent explosion of
development pressure in the Northern Green Mountains resulting from
expanding ski resorts and the area's proximity to greater Burlington
and other population centers, has made this a ``now or never'' moment
to conserve key landscapes in this important habitat and recreation
area. According to census data, growth rates in Lamoille and Orleans
counties are more than double the growth rate in Vermont as a whole. In
Vermont, only 21 percent of the Northern Green Mountains is protected
from development, compared to 45 percent of the central and southern
Green Mountains.
A request for $2.3 million in FLP funding was requested in the
fiscal year 2011 President's budget for the first 2,065 acres of the
Northern Greens project. The President's budget for fiscal year 2012
requests an additional $2.55 million from the FLP for the remaining
3,739 acres of the project, which is ranked 19 in the Nation out of 46
projects. These 2 years of Federal funds are needed to ensure the
protection of critical forest resources in northern Vermont and will be
matched by $1.62 million of non-Federal contributions for the
acquisition of full fee and partial interests through conservation
easement.
I want to thank the Chairman and the members of the subcommittee
for this opportunity to testify on behalf of this nationally important
protection effort in Vermont, and I appreciate your consideration of
this funding request.
______
Prepared Statement of the Glacier National Park Fund
Mr. Chairman and honorable members of the subcommittee: I
appreciate the opportunity to present this testimony in support of the
Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) in the fiscal year 2012
Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies appropriations bill. In an
historic embrace of conservation, the President's budget request
includes full funding of LWCF in fiscal year 2012. The proposed $900
million is the congressionally authorized amount for the program and
seeks to renew focus on the promise of the LWCF: that it is right and
wise to reinvest proceeds from offshore drilling receipts in the
protection of natural resources and recreational access for all
Americans.
I recognize that this subcommittee will face many demands in this
tight fiscal climate. However, far-sighted investment in LWCF will
permanently pay dividends to the American people and to our great
natural and historical heritage. As LWCF is funded from Outer
Continental Shelf (OCS) revenues, not taxpayer dollars, these funds
should go to their intended and authorized use.
As part of the full commitment to LWCF in fiscal year 2012, the
National Park Service (NPS) included $1.223 million for the acquisition
of land in Glacier National Park in Montana in the President's budget.
I am pleased that this funding was included in the request and urge the
Congress to provide the full President's budget amount for LWCF so that
this important project can receive this needed funding.
In 2010, Glacier National Park celebrated the 100th anniversary of
its creation by the Congress and President Taft on May 11, 1910. That
law declared that the national park in Montana should be ``dedicated
and set apart as a public park or pleasure ground for the benefit and
enjoyment of the people of the United States.'' Since 1932, Glacier,
along with its northern neighbor--Waterton Lakes National Park--has
symbolized the long-lasting friendship between the American and
Canadian peoples as an international peace park.
Two years before the park's creation, George Bird Grinnell, a co-
founder of the Audubon Society and the Boone and Crockett Club,
appropriately called the area the ``Crown of the Continent''. Indeed,
Triple Divide Peak in the park is the meeting point between three of
the main drainages of the North American continent (Hudson Bay, Pacific
Ocean, and the Gulf of Mexico). The Crown of the Continent is also the
meeting point for diverse wildlife at the intersection of mountains,
plains, forests, and rivers. The park protects habitat for more than
270 species of birds, 70 species of mammals, and 25 species of native
fish.
Today, Glacier receives nearly 2 million visitors annually. The
park provides more than 730 miles of hiking trails (often in
backcountry glacial valleys and forests), camping, horseback riding,
and boating on the its many lakes. Visitors can also choose to spend
the night at one of several historic park-owned lodges, which were
built at the beginning of the 20th century at the foot of rugged snow-
capped mountains or on the shore of a cold glacial lake. Most visitors
ascend to Logan Pass in the center of the park via the spectacular 50-
mile-long Going to the Sun Road. Completed in the 1930s, this
engineering marvel clings to mountainsides surrounded by majestic
alpine scenery.
The Glacier National Park Fund was created in 1999 as the nonprofit
partner of Glacier National Park. Our mission is to support the
preservation of the outstanding natural beauty and cultural heritage of
Glacier National Park for the use and enjoyment of present and future
generations by fostering public awareness and encouraging private
philanthropy. We have allocated more than $3 million in direct grants
to the park along with another $1.5 million in outreach and public
awareness activities. We are dedicated to partnering with NPS to ensure
that future generations can enjoy Glacier the same way we have through
our lifetimes. Thus, we are very excited about this opportunity to
acquire an inholding that will provide additional opportunities to
experience Glacier and wholeheartedly support and applaud the efforts
to make this invaluable and historic piece of land a part of Glacier
National Park.
Available for acquisition in fiscal year 2012 is the 120-acre
Harrison Creek inholding. The tract is located at the south end of the
park along the Middle Fork of the Flathead River--the legislated
boundary of the park. The Congress declared the Middle Fork a national
wild and scenic river in 1976 from its headwaters to the confluence
with the South Fork. U.S. Route 2 and the BNSF/Amtrak transcontinental
railway follow the river along its south side, with the 286,700-acre
Great Bear Wilderness lying within the Flathead National Forest just
beyond. The Harrison Creek tract is the second largest private
inholding within Glacier National Park and the only inholding bordering
the Middle Fork of the Flathead Wild and Scenic River corridor. The
river is popular with rafters, floaters, anglers, and other outdoor
recreation enthusiasts.
If acquired, the Harrison Creek tract will improve access for
hiking and horseback riding. The South Boundary Trail runs through the
property and is one of the first trails available to hikers after
winter snows begin to melt, providing spectacular views of the Middle
Fork and an abundant array of wildflowers.
The property is prime habitat for a host of species including elk,
wolves, Canada lynx, and grizzly bear. The river corridors,
floodplains, and associated riparian habitat attract these species from
the surrounding mountains. Since the tract is entirely surrounded by
public lands, its development would threaten protected habitat on both
sides of the Middle Fork.
The Harrison Creek tract is part of the Doody Homestead. A historic
cabin sits on the portion of the homestead that NPS already owns, but
the remaining private portion contains artifacts and remnants of
pioneer life. Dan Doody was one of the first rangers in the park, and
his wife Josephine was known to supply moonshine to grateful railroad
workers in the early 1900s.
The acquisition of the Harrison Creek tract would prevent
incompatible development on a prominent site along U.S. Route 2 and the
Middle Fork; improve recreational access for rafters, horseback riders,
hikers, and anglers; and enhance habitat connectivity within the Crown
of the Continent. NPS has prioritized the acquisition of this tract as
part of Glacier's centennial celebration. An allocation of $1.223
million from the Land and Water Conservation Fund--as recommended in
the President's budget--is needed in fiscal year 2012 to acquire this
inholding within one of America's most beloved and beautiful national
parks.
LWCF is our Nation's premier Federal program to acquire and protect
lands at national parks, forests, refuges, and public lands and at
State parks, trails, and recreational facilities. These sites across
the country provide the public with substantial social and economic
benefits including promoting healthier lifestyles through recreation,
protecting drinking water and watersheds, improving wildfire
management, and assisting wildlife and fisheries adaptation.
I want to thank the chairman and the members of the subcommittee
for this opportunity to testify on behalf of this nationally important
protection effort in Montana. I greatly appreciate your consideration
of this funding request.
______
Prepared Statement of the Green Ravens Environmental Club
Mr. Chairman and honorable members of the subcommittee: We
appreciate the opportunity to present this testimony in support of the
Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF). The Green Ravens support this
program because of the impact it could have in our neighborhoods in
Albuquerque if the Price's Dairy property can be acquired and turned
into a national wildlife refuge. LWCF would be the Congress' way of
supporting this refuge idea through the property's protection.
In supporting the Price's Dairy project, we have learned a lot
about the LWCF and how it helps Albuquerque and other places in New
Mexico. LWCF was created back in 1964 to protect important lands and
the natural, recreational, economic, water, historic, and ecological
resources on them. The program is supposed to receive $900 million a
year from money generated from offshore drilling. The concept of LWCF
is simple: when we use and decrease a natural resource, we should put
some of the gain to use and increase other natural resources like our
public lands.
We understand that the President has proposed full funding of LWCF
in fiscal year 2012. We think this is wise and will help make America a
better place to live and enjoy our outdoors. For the Green Ravens, we
think this proposal will make it easier and eventually allow for the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to protect the 570-acre Price's Dairy
property in the South Valley and make it a part of a national wildlife
refuge.
Price's Dairy is one of the last undeveloped properties in the
South Valley. Other properties have been developed around it, and it is
one of the last remaining places to see birds and other wildlife close
to our neighborhood and school. It is important to protect this
property before it is lost.
The property is next to the Rio Grande, one of New Mexico's
greatest resources. The river supplies a lot of water for the people of
New Mexico for drinking, for farming and ranching, and for the wildlife
that live near it. The protection of the Price's Dairy property and its
water rights will save water and make the river healthier.
A refuge at Price's Dairy would also expand recreational and
educational opportunities for students like us, the rest of the people
in Albuquerque, and everyone who comes to visit. The refuge would host
class trips, internships, and volunteer activities. It would be a place
to learn about our natural surroundings in New Mexico:
--the Rio Grande;
--the mountains;
--the desert; and
the wildlife.
There are many trails along the river, and the refuge would focus
attention on the trails and increase their use.
All of these recreation, tourism, and educational activities would
help the economy of the South Valley. Most importantly, it would also
do so in our own neighborhood in a place accessible to our families and
schools and to the people who come to New Mexico to visit. The refuge
would be the first urban national wildlife refuge in the Southwest.
We know it will take time to create this refuge and to buy the land
through the LWCF. We believe it is worth the time, because, if the
refuge project is completed, we will have it, benefit from it, and take
care of it for many years to come. It will then be around for our
children when they are in high school.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to present this
written testimony from the Green Ravens of Rio Grande High School in
support of the LWCF and the proposed Middle Rio Grande National
Wildlife Refuge.
______
Prepared Statement of the Geological Society of America
summary
The Geological Society of America (GSA) urges the Congress to
appropriate at least $1.2 billion for the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)
in fiscal year 2012. The USGS is one of the Nation's premier science
agencies. It addresses many of society's greatest challenges, including
mineral and energy resources, natural hazards, climate change, and
water availability and quality. The USGS benefits every American every
day. The magnitude 9.0 earthquake and tsunami that devastated Japan on
March 11, 2011 emphatically demonstrates the value of robust natural
hazards monitoring and warning systems and the need for increased
funding for the USGS. Nevertheless, funding for the USGS has stagnated
in real dollars for more than a decade.
The GSA supports strong and growing budgets for the USGS. Increased
Federal funding for Earth science is needed to stimulate innovations
that fuel the economy, provide national security, and enhance the
quality of life. The USGS has a unique combination of expertise and
assets that enable it to address interdisciplinary research challenges
that are beyond the capabilities of most other organizations.
The GSA, founded in 1888, is a scientific society with more than
24,000 members from academia, government, and industry in all 50 States
and more than 90 countries. Through its meetings, publications, and
programs, GSA advances the geosciences, enhances the professional
growth of its members, and promotes the geosciences in the service of
humankind. The 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.
rationale
Science and technology are engines of economic prosperity,
environmental quality, and national security. Federal investments in
research pay substantial dividends. According to the National
Academies' report Rising Above the Gathering Storm (2007), ``Economic
studies conducted even before the information-technology revolution
have shown that as much as 85 percent of measured growth in U.S. income
per capita was due to technological change.'' In 2010, the National
Academies issued an updated report, Above the Gathering Storm,
Revisited, which says:
``It would be impossible not to recognize the great difficulty of
carrying out the Gathering Storm recommendations, such as doubling the
research budget, in today's fiscal environment, with worthy demand
after worthy demand confronting budgetary realities. However, it is
emphasized that actions such as doubling the research budget are
investments that will need to be made if the Nation is to maintain the
economic strength to provide for its citizens healthcare, social
security, national security, and more. One seemingly relevant analogy
is that a nonsolution to making an overweight aircraft flight-worthy is
to remove an engine.''
Likewise, the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and
Reform, headed by Erskine Bowles and Alan Simpson, said:
``Cut and invest to promote economic growth and keep America
competitive. We should cut red tape and unproductive Government
spending that hinders job creation and growth. At the same time, we
must invest in education, infrastructure, and high-value research and
development to help our economy grow, keep us globally competitive, and
make it easier for businesses to create jobs.''
``Earth science is a critical component of the overall science and
technology enterprise. Growing support for Earth science in general and
the USGS in particular are required to stimulate innovations that fuel
the economy, provide security, and enhance the quality of life. Earth
science provides knowledge and data essential for developing policies,
legislation, and regulations regarding land, mineral, energy, and water
resources at all levels of Government.''
advancing science and scientific integrity at the department of the
interior (doi)
Science and scientific integrity advanced through the combination
of two recent developments at the DOI. Secretary of the Interior Ken
Salazar issued a new 5-year strategic plan that for the first time
elevates science to 1 of 4 mission areas for the entire DOI. The DOI
also adopted a comprehensive scientific integrity policy that sets
clear expectations for all employees, including political appointees,
public affairs officers, and scientists. These developments are cause
for optimism. The GSA expects that the elevation of science to a
mission area will guide investments and the allocation of resources
that are reflected in the budget for the USGS.
broader impacts of the usgs
The USGS is one of the Nation's premier science agencies. It
addresses many of society's greatest challenges, including natural
hazards, mineral and energy resources, climate change, and water
availability and quality.
--Natural hazards--including earthquakes, tsunamis, volcanic
eruptions, floods, droughts, wildfires, and hurricanes--remain
a major cause of fatalities and economic losses worldwide. A
failure to prevent natural hazards from becoming natural
disasters will increase future expenditures for disaster
response and recovery. Recent natural disasters provide
unmistakable evidence that the United States remains vulnerable
to staggering losses. The magnitude 9.0 earthquake and tsunami
that devastated Japan on March 11, 2011, the magnitude 7.0
earthquake that killed more than 200,000 people in Haiti on
January 12, 2010, and the small volcanic eruptions in Iceland
that disrupted global air traffic in April 2011, provide
compelling evidence that the United States needs better data to
inform further actions to reduce risks from natural hazards. An
improved scientific understanding of geologic hazards will
reduce future losses through better forecasts of their
occurrence and magnitude. We urge the Congress to increase
funding for the USGS to modernize and upgrade its natural
hazards monitoring and warning systems.
--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 address economic and environmental issues. The USGS
assessments of mineral and energy resources--including rare
earth elements, unconventional natural gas resources, and
geothermal resources--are essential for making informed
decisions about the Nation's future. Widespread deployment of
new energy technologies can reduce greenhouse gas emissions,
mitigate climate change, and reduce dependence on foreign oil.
Minerals and energy are intertwined because many emerging
energy technologies--such as wind turbines and solar cells--
depend on rare earth elements and critical minerals that
currently lack diversified sources of supply. China accounts
for 95 percent of world production of rare earth elements
although it has only 36 percent of identified world reserves
(USGS, 2010). A renewed Federal commitment to innovative
research, information, and education on mineral and energy
resources is needed to address these issues.
--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.
--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.
--Research in Earth science is also fundamental to training and
educating the next generation of Earth science professionals.
budget shortfalls
President Obama's fiscal year 2012 budget request for the USGS is
$1.118 billion, a decrease of $15 million or 1.3 percent below the USGS
budget request for fiscal year 2011. Although there is a $6 million or
0.5 percent increase in the total USGS budget request for fiscal year
2012 compared to the fiscal year 2010 enacted level, the fiscal year
2012 budget request contains $89.1 million in budget cuts in core
science programs that would be offset by increases in other areas,
including a $48 million increase in a new account for National Land
Imaging. The proposed budget cuts would have significant negative
impacts on the scientific capabilities of the USGS. Proposed reductions
in the fiscal year 2012 USGS budget request include -$9.8 million for
biological information management and delivery; -$9.6 million for
mineral resources; -$8.9 million for National Water Quality Assessment;
-$6.5 million for Water Resources Research Act Program; and -$4.7
million for earthquake hazards. The GSA urges the Congress to
appropriate at least $1.2 billion for the USGS in fiscal year 2012.
It appears that responsibilities for Landsat satellites have been
transferred from the NASA to the USGS without a corresponding transfer
of budget authority. In the USGS budget request for fiscal year 2012, a
$48 million increase for National Land Imaging would be offset by
budget decreases for core USGS science programs. This trend cannot
continue without compromising the mission of the USGS. Experience with
other satellites indicates that the cost of operating Landsat is likely
to rise significantly in future years with the launch of Landsat 8, 9,
and 10.
The USGS budget has been nearly stagnant in real dollars since
1996. The USGS budget for fiscal year 2010 was below the USGS budget
for fiscal year 2001 in real dollars. The decline in funding for the
USGS during this time period would have been greater if the Congress
had not repeatedly restored proposed budget cuts. Federal funding for
non-Defense research and development has increased significantly while
funding for the USGS stagnated for more than a decade. During this
time, natural hazards, mineral and energy resources, and water
availability and quality have become increasing important to the
Nation.
______
Prepared Statement of the Gathering Waters Conservancy
Mr. Chairman and honorable members of the subcommittee: I
appreciate the opportunity to present this testimony in support of the
Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) and the Forest Legacy Program
(FLP) in the fiscal year 2012 Interior, environment, and related
agencies appropriations bill. In an historic embrace of conservation,
the President's budget request includes full funding of LWCF in fiscal
year 2012. The proposed $900 million is the congressionally authorized
amount for the program and seeks to renew focus on the promise of the
LWCF: that it is right and wise to reinvest proceeds from offshore
drilling receipts in the protection of natural resources and
recreational access for all Americans. Of that $900 million, the
President requested $135 million for FLP.
I recognize that this subcommittee will face many demands in this
tight fiscal climate. However, far-sighted investment in LWCF and FLP
will permanently pay dividends to the American people and to our great
natural and historical heritage. As LWCF is funded from Outer
Continental Shelf revenues, not taxpayer dollars, these funds should go
to their intended and authorized use.
As part of the full commitment to LWCF and FLP in fiscal year 2012,
the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) included funding requests for two
projects in Wisconsin. First, $1 million was recommended for
acquisitions in the Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forest as part of the
Wisconsin Wild Waterways program. Second, $2.5 million was requested
for the Chippewa Flowage project in FLP. I am pleased that this funding
was included in the request and urge the Congress to provide the full
President's budget amount for LWCF and FLP so that these important
projects can receive this needed funding.
wisconsin wild waterways--lwcf
The Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forest in northern Wisconsin
boasts towering stands of balsam and spruce, diverse hardwood trees,
and swamp forests with spruce, tamarack, and white cedar. These varied
forest types are complimented by an abundance of lakes, rivers, and
streams. The forest offers outstanding opportunities for diverse
recreation, including hunting and fishing, hiking and camping, wildlife
viewing, crosscountry skiing, bicycling, and snowmobiling.
The 1.5 million-acre forest hosts thousands of visitors each year.
Active outdoor recreation contributes more than $9.7 billion annually
to the State's economy and supports 129,000 jobs. As a top destination
for recreation, the Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forest provides an
economic boost to Wisconsin while preserving its natural heritage.
USFS has recognized the unique attributes of the Wisconsin forests
by undertaking the Wisconsin Wild Waterways land protection program,
supported through annual funding from the LWCF. The program focuses on
consolidation of publicly owned land to benefit recreation and natural
resources and to improve forest management. In the past few years, more
than 10,000 acres of undeveloped shoreline along several critical lakes
and streams have been protected through this program.
In fiscal year 2012, there is an opportunity to support the LWCF
acquisitions that would place valuable properties within the ownership
of the USFS. Placing these inholdings in USFS ownership will ensure
that they are managed to preserve their values as wildlife habitat,
timber production and recreational amenities. The President's budget
for fiscal year 2012 includes $1 million for the Wisconsin Wild
Waterways Project at the Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forest. This will
be a significant investment in a multi-year, multi-property
conservation effort by Wisconsin's Board of Commissioners of Public
Lands, The Nature Conservancy, and The Trust for Public Land.
chippewa flowage--flp
The protection of 18,179 acres of forestlands within the
checkerboard of public and private ownership is an exciting opportunity
to create a unified area of 1 million protected acres that can support
the local economy by preserving vast wildlife habitat, help climate
mitigation and adaptation, ensure public access for recreation, and
maintain sustainable forestry practices.
The easement is an important opportunity to create a unified block
of more than 1 million acres of protected forest and natural lands in
the Chippewa Flowage watershed, which is an ecological gem. The
Chippewa Flowage is one of the wildest lakes in Wisconsin, drawing
recreationists from around the world for its fishing. More than 12,000
acres within the flowage are managed jointly by the Wisconsin
Department of Natural Resources, USFS, and the Lac Courte Oreilles Band
of Lake Superior Chippewa (LCO). The western boundary of the easement
property adjoins nearly 24,000 acres of primarily natural LCO tribal
land.
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. Benefits for surrounding
communities include water supply and watershed protection. The Village
of Radisson's municipal water flows from parts of this property. The
federally listed endangered Gray Wolf is known to frequent the
property, which also contains State Species of Concern, State
Threatened and State Endangered species.
The Chippewa Flowage is a major tourist destination, helping to
generate $8 million annually in Wisconsin from fishing, hunting and
wildlife viewing. Public access on this 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 also a common destination for migratory and
forest interior birdwatchers. If this property is not protected by an
FLP easement, it will be divided and sold like other nearby
timberlands.
The property will also offer unique values for addressing climate
change, as it holds important forestlands and wetlands containing large
carbon stores that will help mitigate climate change. Carbon
sequestration on the lands will be further enhanced by the sustainable
forestry guidelines of the FLP easement.
LWCF is our Nation's premier Federal program to acquire and protect
lands at national parks, forests, refuges, and public lands and at
State parks, trails, and recreational facilities. These sites across
the country provide the public with substantial social and economic
benefits including promoting healthier lifestyles through recreation,
protecting drinking water and watersheds, improving wildfire
management, and assisting wildlife and fisheries adaptation. FLP works
with landowners, the States, and other partners to protect critical
forestlands with important economic, recreation, water quality, and
habitat resources through conservation easement and fee acquisitions.
For several years this USFS program has been funded under the umbrella
of the LWCF.
Gathering Waters Conservancy's mission is to help land trusts,
landowners and communities protect the places that make Wisconsin
special. Our goal is to increase the amount of protected land in the
State through private, voluntary action. Unlike any other organization,
we accomplish our mission by promoting private, voluntary conservation
action and strengthening Wisconsin land trusts. Gathering Waters
Conservancy provides land trust services in three related ways:
--we function to keep land trusts running smoothly, we help them
increase the pace and sustainability of their work;
--we work on a nonpartisan, nonadversarial basis to advance policies
and programs that promote permanent, voluntary land
conservation and strengthen Wisconsin's land trust community;
and
--finally we work to help land trusts become well-known and valued
community institutions. We aim to see land trusts strongly
supported and sought out as conservation leaders.
I want to thank the chairman and the members of the subcommittee
for this opportunity to testify on behalf of these nationally important
protection efforts in Wisconsin, and I appreciate your consideration of
this funding request.
______
Prepared Statement of the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS),
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 2012 Department of the Interior
appropriation.
large constrictor snakes
The HSUS commends the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) for
proposing to list nine species of large constrictor snakes as
``injurious'', which will prohibit importation and interstate movement
of these animals as pets. A recent, comprehensive report by the U.S.
Geological Survey showed these snakes all pose medium or high risk to
our environment; none are low risk. While Burmese pythons and, to a
lesser extent, boa constrictors have been established in Florida for
some time, it appears that Northern African pythons are now breeding
there as well. In other areas, releasing these animals to fend for
themselves can lead to an inhumane death from starvation, dehydration,
being struck by cars, or exposure to bitterly cold temperatures. The
FWS must have the resources to respond quickly to prevent the spread of
these species and establishment of new ones.
environmental protection agency (epa)
Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program
Research focused on molecular screening has the potential to
revolutionize toxicity testing improving both its efficiency as well as
the quality of information available for human safety assessment in the
Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program (EDSP). These ``next-generation
tools'' will speed up the assessments of chemicals in the EDSP and
reduce, and ultimately, replace animal use. We urge the subcommittee to
incorporate the following report language:
``Recognizing ToxCast has great promise to streamline and
significantly increase the throughput of the Endocrine Disruptor
Screening Program (EDSP), the Committee directs EPA to accelerate the
evaluation, validation and implementation of the endocrine-relevant
ToxCast assays. The Agency shall devote $26,209,000 in fiscal year 2012
to Office of Research and Development's Computational Toxicology
Research, with a $5,000,000 increase over the fiscal year 2012
Presidential Budget to be expressly devoted to validating ToxCast
endocrine screening methods for the EDSP. This increase will be funded
from the fiscal year 2012 Science and Technology account.
``EPA shall not issue EDSP Test Orders for additional substances
until such time as 1) the EDSP List 1 test results have been collected,
analyzed by EPA and poorly performing or redundant assays eliminated
and replaced, if necessary, with valid ToxCast assays; and 2) the
Agency uses a peer consultation process to revise the EDSP weight of
the evidence guidance to assure a systematic and consistent approach
for evaluating other scientifically relevant information and EDSP
results. These two activities, led by the EPA office issuing EDSP List
1 test orders, shall include public comment, independent scientific
peer review, and publication of Agency responses before adoption by the
Agency.''
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 the Congress to benefit African and Asian
elephants, rhinos, tigers, great apes, and marine turtles. The 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 2012 by appropriating $2 million each for the Asian elephant,
African elephant, and marine turtle, $2.5 million for the Great Ape
Conservation Funds, and $4 million for the combined Rhinoceros and
Tiger Conservation Fund. We also request $7.4 million for the Wildlife
Without Borders regional program. These numbers represent level funding
for all of the Funds except Rhino-Tiger, which has a $1 million
increase to bring it level with African and Asian elephants and marine
turtles and to capitalize on commitments made at last year's Tiger
Summit.
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 the necessary funds in
fiscal year 2012 to permit the listing of the Pacific walrus, which has
been placed on the candidate list for threatened or endangered status
under the Endangered Species Act. The FWS recently found that listing
the Pacific walrus was warranted, due primarily to threats the species
faces from loss of sea ice in its arctic habitat as a result of climate
change. Walruses are targeted by native hunters for subsistence;
hundreds are killed annually, with this number climbing to as many as
7,000 in some years. In some hunting villages, females and their calves
are preferentially killed, against the recommendation of the FWS and
standard management practice. By waiting to list the Pacific walrus,
the species' likelihood of survival is in doubt. We encourage this
subcommittee to direct the FWS to prioritize the Pacific walrus listing
by immediately moving forward with the listing process.
bureau of land management (blm)--wild horse and burro program
The HSUS is one of the leading advocates for the protection and
welfare of wild horses and burros in the United States with a long
history of working collaboratively with the BLM--the agency mandated to
protect America's wild horses and burros--on the development of
effective and humane management techniques. Wild free-roaming horses
and burros deserve first to be given every chance to live out their
lives wild and free, as the American public has clearly mandated and
the Congress has stated. When intervention is required, we owe them our
best efforts to ensure that any human actions that affect their lives--
such as gathers, transportation, confinement, and adoption--are done in
a way to assure their humane treatment.
Therefore, the HSUS strongly supports a significant reduction in
the number of wild horses and burros gathered and removed from our
rangelands annually. We believe removing horses from the range without
implementing any active program for preventative herd growth is
unsustainable, and simply leads to a continual cycle of roundups and
removals when more long-term, cost-efficient and humane management
strategies, such as fertility control, are readily available.
For years, the BLM has removed far more wild horses and burros from
the range than it could possibly expect to adopt annually, and as a
consequence, the costs associated with caring for these animals off the
range have continued to skyrocket. For instance, between 2001 and 2007,
the BLM removed approximately 74,000 (an average of about 10,600
animals per year) from the range, but could only place 3,000 horses a
year, with the rest forced into holding facilities. The annual costs
associated with caring for one wild horse in a long-term holding
facility is approximately $500, and the average lifespan of a wild
horse in captivity is 30 years. There are approximately 40,600 horses
in these pens currently. In the most recently completed fiscal year
(2010), holding costs accounted for $36.9 million out of a total wild
horse and burro budget of $63.9 million (plus an additional $2.1
million in 2009 ``carryover'' funding).
We are encouraged by the BLM's recent announcement (referenced in
the agency's fiscal year 2012 budget justifications) \1\ regarding the
agency's intent to open ``a new chapter in the management of wild
horses, burros, and our public lands'' by fast-tracking ``fundamental
reforms'' to its current policies and procedures. Specifically, the
agency announced that it would strengthen its commitment to the use of
fertility control by significantly increasing the number of mares
treated with fertility control--from 500 in 2009, to a target of 2,000
in each of the next 2 years. This represents a huge step in the right
direction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Bureau of Land Management 2012 Budget Justifications (Page IV
66-67) http://www.doi.gov/budget/2012/data/greenbook/FY2012--BLM--
Greenbook.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The idea of using fertility control to efficiently manage wild
horses and burros on the range is nothing new, and one that we have
been actively supporting and involved with for several decades. As
early as 1982, the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) called on the BLM
to use immunocontraception to manage wild horse and burro populations,
finding it an effective technology and part of a pro-active management
strategy. And in its 1990 report on the BLM's wild horse management
program, the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) found then
that keeping excess animals in long-term holding was costly and
recommended that BLM examine alternatives, such as treating animals
with reproductive controls and releasing them back on the range.\2\
Further, a 2008 paper determined that contraception on-the-range could
reduce total wild horse and burro management costs by 14 percent,
saving $6.1 million per year.\3\ Finally, the results of an economic
model commissioned by The HSUS indicates that by treating wild horses
and burros with the fertility control vaccine Porcine Zona Pellucida,
the BLM would save approximately $204 million over 12 years while
achieving and maintaining Appropriate Management Levels on wild horse
Herd Management Areas in the United States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ GAO, Rangeland Management: Improvements Needed in Federal Wild
Horse Program, GAO/RCED-90-110 (Washington D.C.: Aug. 20, 1990).
\3\ Bartholow, J. 2007. Economic benefit of fertility control in
wild horse populations. J. Wildl. Mgmt. 71(8):2811-2819.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
However, even with a significant increase in the number of mares
treated and released back onto the range, by the end of fiscal year
2012, the BLM plans to remove an additional 15,000 wild horses from our
public lands. Since there are already 40,600 wild horses and burros
living in Government holding facilities today--and, on average, the
agency is only able to find homes for approximately 3,000 animals a
year--by 2012, there could be more than 50,000 animals in captivity.
That's almost twice the number of wild horses and burros living on our
public lands today, and as a result, the cost of caring for these
animals off the range could more than double in a just a few years.
The BLM must balance the number of animals removed from the range
annually with the number of animals it can expect to adopt in a given
year if it hopes to effectively reduce off-the-range management costs.
Therefore, while we support the BLM's efforts to increase the use of
fertility control to manage wild horse herds, we strongly recommend
that the subcommittee deny the $12 million budget increase that the BLM
has requested, and instead, direct the agency to focus all spending on
gather, treat, and release programs and the proper care of horses in
its custody rather than continuing with a removal program that further
floods Government pens with wild horses.
Again, we commend the Secretary and the BLM for taking critical
steps towards a more sustainable wild horse management program and
believe the subcommittee's guidance and support for humane and
sustainable management will further the implementation of a program
that will be of great benefit not only to our Nation's beloved wild
horse populations, but also to the American taxpayer.
______
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 (IMCC). I appreciate the
opportunity to present this statement to the Subcommittee on the
Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies regarding the views of the
Compact's member States on the fiscal year 2012 budget request for the
Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM) within the
U.S. Department of the Interior. In its proposed budget, OSM is
requesting $60.3 million to fund title V grants to States and Indian
tribes for the implementation of their regulatory programs, a reduction
of $11 million or 15 percent below the fiscal year 2010 enacted/fiscal
year 2011 continuing resolution level. OSM also proposes to cut
discretionary spending for the title IV abandoned mine land (AML)
program by approximately $6.8 million, including the elimination of
funding for the emergency program, and a reduction in mandatory AML
spending by $184 million pursuant to a legislative proposal to
eliminate all AML funding for certified States and tribes.
The Compact is comprised of 24 States that together produce some 95
percent of the Nation's coal, as well as important noncoal minerals.
The Compact's purposes are to advance the protection and restoration of
land, water, and other resources affected by mining through the
encouragement of programs in each of the party States that will achieve
comparable results in protecting, conserving and improving the
usefulness of natural resources, and to assist in achieving and
maintaining an efficient, productive, and economically viable mining
industry.
OSM has projected an amount of $60.3 million for title V grants to
States and tribes in fiscal year 2012, an amount which is matched by
the States each year. 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 2010, the Congress approved an additional $5.8
million increase for State title V grants over the fiscal year 2009
enacted level, for a total of $71.3 million. This same amount was
approved for fiscal year 2011. For the first time in many years, the
amount appropriated for these regulatory grants aligned with the
demonstrated needs of the States and tribes. The States are greatly
encouraged by the significant increases in title V funding approved by
the Congress over the past 3 fiscal years. Even with mandated
rescissions and the allocations for tribal primacy programs, the States
saw a $12 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
minimize the potential adverse impacts of coal extraction operations on
people and the environment.
In its fiscal year 2012 budget, OSM has once again attempted to
reverse course and essentially unravel and undermine the progress made
by the Congress in supporting State programs with adequate funding.
This comes at precisely the wrong time. 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. As States prepare their future budgets, we trust
that the recent increases approved by the Congress will remain the new
base on which we build our programs. Otherwise we find ourselves
backpedaling and creating a situation where those who were just hired
face layoffs and purchases are canceled or delayed. Furthermore, a
clear message from the Congress that reliable, consistent funding will
continue into the future will do much to stimulate support for these
programs by State legislatures and budget officers who each year, in
the face of difficult fiscal climates and constraints, are also dealing
with the challenge of matching Federal grant dollars with State funds.
In this regard, it should be kept in mind that a 15 percent cut in
Federal funding generally translates to an additional 15 percent cut
for overall program funding for many States, especially those without
Federal lands, since these States can only match what they receive in
Federal money.
OSM's solution to the drastic cuts for State regulatory programs
comes in the way of an unrealistic assumption that the States can
simply increase user fees in an effort to ``eliminate a de facto
subsidy of the coal industry.'' No specifics on how the States are to
accomplish this far-reaching proposal are set forth, other than an
expectation that they will do so in the course of a single fiscal year.
OSM's proposal is completely out of touch with the realities associated
with establishing or enhancing user fees, especially given the need for
approvals by State legislatures. IMCC's recent polling of its member
States confirmed that, given the current fiscal and political
implications of such an initiative, it will be difficult, if not
impossible, for most States to accomplish this feat at all, let alone
in less than 1 year. OSM is well aware of this, and yet has every
intention of aggressively moving forward with a proposal that was
poorly conceived from its inception. We strongly urge the subcommittee
to reject this approach and mandate that OSM work through the
complexities associated with any future user fees proposal in close
cooperation with the States and tribes before proposing cuts to Federal
funding for State title V grants.
At the same time that OSM is proposing significant cuts for State
programs, the agency is proposing sizeable increases for its own
program operations ($4 million) for Federal oversight of State
programs, including an increase of 25 FTEs. OSM justifies this increase
based on its ``new strategic direction'', i.e., expanded and enhanced
oversight of State regulatory programs and strengthened stream
protections to maintain the hydrologic balance of watersheds pursuant
to the June 2009 Memorandum of Understanding with the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). However, as
we have articulated on numerous occasions over the past 18 months in
comments submitted to the agency, OSM has never fully explained or
justified the basis for these new directions. In fact, OSM's annual
oversight reports indicate that, in general, the States are doing a
commendable job of implementing their programs.
In making the case for its funding increase, OSM's budget
justification document contains vague references to the need for
improvement in approximate original contour (AOC) compliance and re-
evaluation of bonding procedures in 10 States with respect to bond
adequacy. OSM also notes a marked increase in the number of potential
violations pursuant to enhanced Federal oversight inspections during
fiscal year 2010. However, when placed in context, neither of these two
explanations justifies the significant increase in funding for Federal
operations. Increasing the number of Federal inspections can logically
be expected to generate more Ten-Day Notices, especially where State
regulatory authorities are not invited to accompany Federal inspectors
(as required by OSM's own regulations). The oversight process can also
be expected to identify areas of potential program improvement,
especially where OSM has designated certain areas for more intensive,
nationwide review, as it did in fiscal year 2010 with regard to AOC and
bond adequacy. Again, the overall performance of the States as detailed
in OSM's annual oversight reports demonstrates that the States are
implementing their programs effectively and in accordance with the
purposes and objectives of SMCRA.
In our view, this suggests that OSM is adequately accomplishing its
statutory oversight obligations with current Federal program funding,
and that any increased workloads are likely to fall upon the States,
which have primary responsibility for implementing appropriate
adjustments to their programs identified during Federal oversight. In
this regard, we note that the Federal courts have made it abundantly
clear that SMCRA's allocation of exclusive jurisdiction was ``careful
and deliberate'' and that the Congress provided for ``mutually
exclusive regulation by either the Secretary or State, but not both.''
Bragg v. West Virginia Coal Ass'n, 248 F. 3d 275, 293-4 (4th Cir.
2001), cert. Denied, 534 U.S. 1113 (2002). While the courts have ruled
consistently on this matter, the question remains for the Congress and
the administration to determine, in light of deficit reduction and
spending cuts, how the limited amount of Federal funding for the
regulation of surface coal mining and reclamation operations under
SMCRA will be directed--to OSM or the States. For all the above
reasons, we urge the Congress to approve not less than $71 million for
State and tribal title V regulatory grants, as fully documented in the
States' and tribes' estimates for actual program operating costs.
With regard to funding for State title IV Abandoned Mine Land (AML)
program grants, congressional action in 2006 to reauthorize title IV of
SMCRA has significantly changed the method by which State reclamation
grants are funded. Beginning with fiscal year 2008, State title IV
grants are funded primarily by mandatory appropriations. As a result,
the States should have received a total of $498 million in fiscal year
2012. Instead, OSM has budgeted an amount of $313.8 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 $184.2 million reduction flies in the face
of the comprehensive restructuring of the AML program that was passed
by the Congress in 2006, following more than 10 years of congressional
debate and hard fought compromise among the affected parties. In
addition to the elimination of funding for certified States and tribes,
OSM is also proposing to reform the distribution process for the
remaining reclamation funding to allocate available resources to the
highest-priority coal AML sites through a competitive grant program,
whereby an Advisory Council will review and rank AML sites each year.
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 articulated by the
administration concerning both jobs and environmental protection,
particularly stream quality. We urge the Congress to reject this
unjustified proposal, delete it from the budget and restore the full
mandatory funding amount of $498 million. In this regard, we endorse
the testimony of the National Association of Abandoned Mine Land
Programs (NAAMLP), which goes into greater detail regarding the
implications of OSM's legislative proposal for the States.
We also urge the Congress to approve continued funding for the AML
emergency program. In a continuing effort to ignore congressional
direction, 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). When
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. We therefore request that the Congress restore funding
for the AML emergency program in OSM's fiscal year 2012 budget.
One of the more effective mechanisms for accomplishing AML
restoration work is through leveraging or matching other grant
programs, such as the 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 once again include language in the fiscal
year 2012 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 moneys for State travel. These programs are central
to the effective implementation of State regulatory programs as they
provide necessary training and continuing education for State agency
personnel. In this regard, it should be noted that the States provide
nearly one-half of the instructors for OSM's training course and,
through IMCC, sponsor and staff benchmarking workshops on key
regulatory program topics. IMCC also urges the subcommittee to support
funding for TIPS, a program that directly benefits the States by
providing critical technical assistance. Finally, we support funding
for the Watershed Cooperative Agreements in the amount of $1.55
million.
______
Prepared Statement of the Independent Tribal Court Review Team
Thank you for the opportunity to testify today and to address the
serious funding shortages that have limited and continue to hinder the
operations of tribal judicial systems in Indian country. I serve as the
lead judge representing the Independent Tribal Court Review Team
(ITCRT). For the past 5 years, the ITCRT has conducted an assessment of
approximately 73 tribal courts systems, including analysis of staffing
and resources. We thank this subcommittee for the additional $10
million funding in fiscal year 2010. These funds were a blessing to
tribes. Even minimal increases were put to good use. It is the strong
recommendation of the ITCRT that the Federal tribal courts budget be
substantially increased in fiscal year 2012 to support the needs of
tribal judicial systems.
budget priorities, requests and recommendations
A $10 million increase for tribal courts above the fiscal year 2010
enacted level.
A $58.4 million authorized under the Indian Tribal Justice Act of
1993, Public Law 103-176, 25 U.S.C. 3601 and reauthorized in year 2000,
Public Law 106-559 (no funds have been appropriated to date).
The increase funding will support the:
--Hiring and training of court personnel;
--Compliance with the 2010 Tribal Law and Order Act;
--Salary increases for existing judges and court personnel;
--State-of-the-art technology for tribal courts;
--Security and security systems to protect court records and privacy
of case information;
--Tribal court code development; and
--Financial code development.
background
The Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) within the Department of the
Interior provides funding to tribal governments to supplement their
justice systems including courts. Tribal courts play a ``vital role''
in tribal self-determination and self-governance as cited in long-
standing Federal policy and acts of the Congress. Funding levels from
the BIA to support tribal justice systems have not kept up with the
Federal obligations and responsibilities.
For the past 5 years, the ITCRT has been traveling throughout
Indian country assessing how tribal courts are operating. During this
time, we have completed approximately 73 court reviews. There is no one
with more hands-on experience and knowledge regarding the current
status of tribal courts than the ITCRT.
We have come into contact with every imaginable composition of
tribe: large and small; urban and rural; and 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.
justification for request
Hiring and Training of Court Personnel.--Tribal courts make do with
underpaid staff, underexperienced staff, and minimal training. (We have
determined that hiring tribal citizens limits the inclination of staff
to move away; a poor excuse to underpay staff.)
Compliance With the 2010 Tribal Law and Order Act.--To provide
judges, prosecutors, public defenders, who are attorneys and who are
bared to do ``enhanced sentencing'' in tribal courts.
Salary Increases for Existing Judges and Court Personnel.--Salaries
should be comparable to local and State court personnel to keep pace
with the nontribal 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 under-developed 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.
tribal courts review
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
allocate 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 184 tribes with courts that
received $24.7 million in Federal funding in 2010.
Assessments have indicated that the BIA only funds tribal courts at
26 percent of the resources needed to operate. Tribes who have
successful economic development ventures generally 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. All this while operating at a
disadvantage with already overstrained resources and underserved needs
of the tribal citizens. The assessment suggests that the smaller courts
are both the busiest and most underfunded.
The grant funding from the Department of Justice (DOJ) is intended
to be temporary. However, we have found that it is often 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 DOJ 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 DOJ 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 5 fiscal years through fiscal year 2010, there were only two
isolated incidents of a questionable expenditure of Federal funds. It
is speculated that because of our limited resources, we compromise
one's 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. It is true that tribal courts need an immediate,
sustained, and increased level of funding. However, as we have noted,
there are strong indications that the courts will put such funding to
good use.
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.
There are several courts where the roofs leak when it rains and
those court houses cannot be fixed due to lack of sufficient funds. The
ITCRT took pictures of those damaged ceilings for the BIA hoping to
have additional funds for the tribes to fix the damaged ceilings.
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 not 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 the 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 the Congress
we need better facilities, more law enforcement, more detention
facilities, more legal advice, better codes, etc. The list goes on and
on. But, as we have indicated, it all involves more funding. This
Congress and this administration can do something great. We
respectfully request that funding be invested in our tribal courts to
fulfill and meet the promises that have been made.
national requests
We support the requests and recommendations of the National
Congress of American Indians.
In closing and on behalf of the ITCRT; Charles D. Robertson Jr.,
Honorable Philip D. Lujan, Myrna R. Rivera, and myself, we thank you
for the opportunity to provide these requests and recommendations.
______
Prepared Statement of the Inter Tribal Buffalo Council
introduction and background
My name is Ervin Carlson; I am a member of the Blackfeet Nation in
Montana and the president of the Inter Tribal Buffalo Council (ITBC),
formerly the Inter Tribal Bison Cooperative. Please accept my sincere
appreciation for this opportunity to submit written testimony to the
honorable members of the Senate Committee on Appropriations;
Subcommittee on the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies. The
ITBC has recently become a federally charted Indian Organization under
section 17 of the Indian Reorganization Act and is headquartered in
Rapid City, South Dakota. The ITBC is comprised of 56 federally
recognized Indian tribes in 19 States.
On behalf of the member tribes of the ITBC I would like to address
the following issues:
--request an appropriation of $3 million for fiscal year 2012 from
the Department of the Interior (DOI), Bureau of Indian Affairs
(BIA), and Operation of Indian Programs to continue our
restoration effort; to continue to provide highly qualified
technical assistance; implement our marketing initiative; and
to continue our health initiative which utilizes buffalo to
treat and prevent diet-related diseases among Native Americans;
--explain to the subcommittee the unmet needs of the members of the
ITBC; and
--update the subcommittee on the present initiatives of the ITBC.
The American buffalo, also known as bison, has always held great
meaning for American Indian people. The buffalo provided the tribes
with food, shelter, clothing, and essential tools. In the 1800's, the
Whiteman recognized the reliance Indian tribes had on the buffalo. Thus
began the systematic destruction of the buffalo to try to subjugate the
tribal nations. The slaughter of more than 60 million buffalo left only
a few hundred buffalo remaining.
Indian people developed a strong spiritual and cultural
relationship with the buffalo that has not diminished with the passage
of time. To Indian people, buffalo represent their spirit and remind
them of how their lives were once lived, free and in harmony with
nature. It is this connection that caused multiple tribes to come
together to organize the ITBC with the mission of preserving the sacred
relationship between Indian people and the buffalo through restoring
buffalo to tribal lands. The ITBC envisioned the restoration of buffalo
on tribal lands would foster sustainable economic development that
would be compatible with each of the tribal cultures. The land bases of
most tribal reservations is unsuitable for farming or raising livestock
but this marginal land is ideal for raising buffalo who have lived in
this ecosystem for thousands of years. The ITBC received funds in 1992
and began their restoration efforts.
Federal appropriations have allowed the ITBC to successfully
restore buffalo to more than 50 reservations on more than 1 million
acres of trust land, 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 the 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 the 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
The ITBC respectfully requests an appropriation for fiscal year
2012 in the amount of $3 million. This amount would restore the ITBC
funding to the fiscal year 2006 appropriation level and will greatly
enhance our ability to successfully accomplish tribal goals and
objectives. This request will help balance our continuing growth in
membership with our funding level. The $3 million funding level would
restore vital funding that was cut in fiscal year 2007, by the previous
administration, and has not been restored. Our requested funding level
of $3 million 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, the ITBC and its 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 the ITBC. The
ITBC was funded $1 million in fiscal year 2007 through a congressional
earmark appropriation. In fiscal year 2008, the ITBC received $1
million from the BIA for herd development grants to tribes only. In
fiscal year 2009, the ITBC was received $1 million through a
congressional earmark appropriation in the DOI, BIA budget and
$421,0000 for the ITBC administration from the BIA fiscal year 2008
carryover funds. In fiscal year 2010, the ITBC was in the BIA budget at
the level of $1.4 million. In fiscal year 2011, the ITBC was included
in the Presidents budget for $1.4 million through the BIA. Reductions
in funding critically impacted the ITBC's successful Marketing Program
and Health Initiative to address diet-related health problems epidemic
on most 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 the Congress in fiscal year
2006 toward the 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.
The ITBC is structured as a member cooperative and 100 percent of
the appropriated funds are expended on the development and support of
tribal buffalo herds and buffalo product business ventures. The ITBC
funding is distributed to the ITBC member tribes via a Herd Development
Grant Program developed by the consensus of the members. The ITBC
surveys member tribes annually to determine unmet project needs and
currently the total unmet needs for the ITBC member tribe's projects is
$10 million. The Tribal Bison Project Proposal summaries that detail
the ITBC member tribes projects and financial needs are on file with
the ITBC and available for your review.
the itbc goals and initiatives
The goal of the ITBC is restoration of buffalo to Indian lands for
tribes to utilize in their day to day lives in a manner that promotes
sustainable economic development. The ITBC's ultimate goal is for
tribal buffalo herds to achieve sustainability and become a daily part
of tribal life through an increased presence in the diets of tribal
members.
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. The ITBC has proven extremely successful at
buffalo restoration in its 15 years of existence. Today, with the
support and technical assistance of the 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. The
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. 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 circulates 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. The ITBC provides critical technical
assistance to member tribes that have developed sustainable management
and infrastructure development plans. Additionally, the ITBC provides
training curriculum for the newly created jobs and marketing plans as
tribal herds reach marketing capabilities. The ITBC has commenced
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
The 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. The ITBC
believes this lack of a constant supply chain that is cost effective is
what is limiting the economic development of tribal buffalo herds.
The 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. The ITBC has assisted the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe in
South Dakota with operation of their meat-packing facility. The ITBC
has provided assistance to the Ponca Tribe of Nebraska for a tannery
that the tribe has started to produce brain tanned hides. The ITBC is
currently providing buffalo for the USDA AMS solicitation for ground
bison for inclusion in the Food Distribution Program for Indian
Reservations (FDPIR). The 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. The 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 Health Care Initiative
The 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.
The ITBC member tribes has just commenced preventive healthcare
initiatives 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 led
to the elimination of the majority of the program with only the
educational program still in existence. 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. The ITBC seeks to remedy this concern by providing buffalo
meat in family sized quantities to reservation markets and interact
with the Federal food programs. The 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
In 2012, the ITBC will have been in existence for 20 years
assisting its member tribes to restore buffalo to their native lands
for cultural purposes and working toward economic development for herd
sustainability. The ITBC will continue to provide technical assistance
and funding to its member tribes to facilitate the development of
sustainable buffalo herds.
The ITBC and its member tribes have created a new reservation
industry, tribal buffalo production, resulting in new money for
reservation economies. In addition, the 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.
The 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 the ITBC funding close to the fiscal
year 2006 level of $3 million, which will allow the 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 the ITBC invite the honorable
members of the subcommittee to visit our tribal buffalo projects and
experience first hand their successes.
______
Prepared Statement of the Izaak Walton League of America
The Izaak Walton League of America appreciates the opportunity to
submit testimony for the record concerning appropriations for fiscal
year 2012 for various agencies and programs under the jurisdiction of
the subcommittee. The League is a national, nonprofit organization with
38,000 members and more than 250 local 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 by the Departments of Agriculture and the Interior, Fish
and Wildlife Service, and Environmental Protection Agency.
keep fiscal year 2012 bill free of extraneous policy provisions
The League opposes inclusion of policy ``riders'' which would
undermine the ability of the departments and agencies under the
subcommittee's jurisdiction to effectively implement their statutory
authority. In particular, the League opposes any provision which would
prevent the EPA from proposing, finalizing, or implementing any
guidance, rulemaking, or other authorized administrative action
concerning jurisdiction over ``waters of the United States'' under the
Clean Water Act. We also oppose any provision barring the EPA from
exercising its authority under the Clean Air Act to regulate emissions
of greenhouse gases.
The League strongly supports administrative actions the EPA and
Army Corps of Engineers could take to restore Clean Water Act
protections to some of the streams, wetlands, and other waters that are
now at risk of pollution and destruction under the Supreme Court's
SWANCC and Rapanos decisions. These actions are necessary and
appropriate. In fact, Supreme Court justices, including Chief Justice
John Roberts and Justice Breyer, have urged the agencies to take such
action. Any steps the agencies could take would occur through well-
established administrative processes, which provide multiple
opportunities for public participation, comment, and review. It is
counterproductive to bar agency action, which could restore Clean Water
Act protections to wetlands that provide essential habitat for fish,
wildlife, and waterfowl, as well as streams that flow to public systems
supplying drinking water for more than 117 million Americans.
departments of agriculture and the interior--land and water
conservation fund (lwcf)
The League supports providing $900 million for the LWCF in fiscal
year 2012 as requested by the administration. It is important to begin
to reinvest in strategic land acquisition to protect critical habitat,
secure valuable in-holdings, provide recreational access, and to buffer
against the likely impacts of climate change. Dramatically reducing
funding for LWCF will not provide meaningful savings to taxpayers
because it is capitalized with revenue from off-shore oil and gas
drilling. As importantly, diverting resources from LWCF to offset other
expenditures from the general treasury directly undermines the
fundamental premise on which LWCF is based. That common sense premise
is a portion of the revenue generated by natural resource extraction
should be invested in conserving other natural resources at the
national, regional, and State levels.
fws--national wildlife refuge system (nwrs) operations and maintenance
The League joins other members of the Cooperative Alliance for
Refuge Enhancement (CARE), a diverse coalition of 21 wildlife,
sporting, conservation, and scientific organizations representing
millions of members and supporters, in requesting $511 million in
fiscal year 2012 for operations and maintenance of the NWRS. This is
approximately $8 million more than the administration's request, and is
designed to partially offset rising fixed costs that erode the already
underfunded system budget.
The League and CARE groups appreciate the importance of fiscal
discipline and making strategic spending decisions. CARE annually
develops an estimate of the operations and maintenance budget that is
necessary to effectively provide visitor services and law enforcement
and conserve and manage fish, wildlife, and habitat across the refuge
system. CARE estimates operations and maintenance needs total $900
million annually. Although our long-term goal is to make steady
progress toward a budget which more accurately reflects demands on the
ground, CARE's request for fiscal year 2012 is flat after accounting
for inflation and other fixed costs.
Although holding the refuge system budget constant for multiple
fiscal years diminishes capability to effectively perform core
functions, cutting the budget to the fiscal year 2008 level would have
much more negative repercussions. Returning to fiscal year 2008 levels
would cut the system's operation and maintenance budget by
approximately $66 million. The FWS estimates that cutting this amount
would adversely affect a wide range of functions, including:
Visitor Services.--In 2010, approximately 44.5 million Americans
visited wildlife refuges across the country to hunt and fish,
observe wildlife, learn from FWS professionals, or simply take
a walk in the woods. And these visitors have a direct, positive
impact on local economies. The FWS estimates that refuge
visitors generate $1.7 billion in economic activity and support
27,000 private-sector jobs.
If funding is cut to the fiscal year 2008 level, the FWS
estimates that 54 visitor centers will be closed and another 11
currently under construction will not be opened due to staff
reductions. Functioning visitor centers are essential to
providing tens of millions of Americans with information,
professional expertise and programming, and basic services that
make their visits to refuges not only enjoyable, but in many
cases, practical. The FWS further estimates that 48 refuges
would terminate hunting programs and another 45 would shutter
angling programs. As access to private land for hunting and
fishing continues to decline and the broader hunting and
angling community works hard to grow the number of
participants, it would be counterproductive to reduce
opportunities to pursue both sports on readily available and
accessible public land. If visitor services decline due to
budget cuts and visitation is negatively impacted, our shared
goal of reviving the economy and creating jobs could be
undermined.
Law Enforcement.--As the subcommittee knows, the refuge system
faces pressing law enforcement challenges, including illegal
drug production and trafficking, illegal immigration, serious
violent crime, and poaching. At the same time, the system has
only a fraction of the personnel recommended by law enforcement
professionals and independent auditors. In 2005, the
International Association of Chiefs of Police concluded that
the refuge system needs 845 full-time law enforcement officers
to effectively protect visitors and enforce laws applicable to
the system. In fiscal year 2011, the system has 213 officers,
which is unchanged from fiscal year 2010 and approximately 75
percent below the level recommended by our police chiefs. The
analysis of refuge system performance issued by Management
Systems International (MSI) in 2008 concluded that: ``[A]t many
refuges, law enforcement coverage is insufficient to ensure
protection of resources and the safety of visitors and refuge
staff.''
If the system budget is reduced to the fiscal year 2008 level,
the FWS could be forced to fire law enforcement officers along
with hundreds of other essential staff. With the system already
under-resourced in this critical area, deep budget cuts would
only exacerbate existing law enforcement problems.
Operations and Maintenance Backlog.--The subcommittee is also
very familiar with the persistent backlog of operations and
maintenance projects across the NWRS. The FWS now estimates
that deferred maintenance projects--everything from repairing
washed out trails and roads to rebuilding duck blinds and
observation platforms--total about $2.7 billion. Repeatedly
deferring essential maintenance only makes the problems worse
and more expensive to address over time. We frequently hear
about ``running government like a business''. Experts recommend
that businesses invest 2 to 6 percent of the total value of
assets in annual maintenance. For the refuge system, with
assets valued at more than $23 billion, the annual maintenance
budget is about $135 million, which represents an investment of
less than 1 percent. Further cutting investment in maintenance,
which is essential to providing quality visitor services and
effectively managing habitat, fish, and wildlife, is not a good
business practice.
fws--state and tribal wildlife grants
As a member of the Teaming with Wildlife Coalition, the League
urges the subcommittee to provide $95 million in fiscal year 2012,
which is equal to the administration's request, for State and Tribal
Wildlife Grants. The State Wildlife Grants support proactive
conservation projects aimed at preventing wildlife from becoming
endangered. Experience shows that efforts to restore imperiled wildlife
can be particularly contentious and costly when action is taken only
after species are formally listed as threatened or endangered pursuant
to the Endangered Species Act. State Wildlife Grants augment State and
community-based efforts to safeguard habitat and wildlife before either
reaches the tipping point. This program also provides States with an
important source of Federal funds to address nongame species. Finally,
the Federal investment leverages significant funding from private,
State, and local sources.
epa--great lakes restoration
The League supports providing $350 million as requested to build on
the investment made in Great Lakes restoration in fiscal years 2010 and
2011. The Great Lakes provide drinking water to 35 million people and
support jobs and recreational opportunities for millions more. However,
the health of the Great Lakes is seriously threatened by untreated
sewage, toxic pollution, invasive species, and habitat loss. The eight
States that border the Lakes and many nongovernmental organizations
have invested significant resources to safeguard these national
treasures. Sustained Federal investment at a significant level is also
needed or the problems will only get worse and cost even more to fix.
Cleaning up the Great Lakes will provide many benefits, including
economic development in the region. According to the Brookings
Institution, Great Lakes restoration efforts produce $2 in economic
return for every $1 invested. Restoration projects create jobs for
engineers, landscape architects, construction workers, and many more.
Restoration results in cleaner drinking water, clean beaches, and
healthy fish and wildlife habitat. These results lay the foundation for
long-term prosperity in the region.
The League urges the subcommittee to provide at least $350 million
to advance this critical initiative, especially when numerous studies
estimate that $5 billion is required to restore the Great Lakes
ecosystem.
epa--non-point source management program (clean water act section 319)
The League urges the subcommittee to appropriate at least $200
million for section 319, the Non-point Source Management Program.
Unfortunately, the administration proposes to cut more than $36 million
compared to fiscal year 2010 at the same time the EPA and many 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. Based on the pressing nature of the
problem, it makes sense to maintain, if not increase, investment which
helps States and local governments to more aggressively tackle nonpoint
source pollution.
epa--chesapeake bay program
The League supports the administration's request for $67.4 million
in fiscal year 2012 for the Chesapeake Bay Program. The Chesapeake Bay
is the largest estuary in the United States and one of the largest in
the world. More than 16 million people live within the Bay watershed.
The Bay is a critical economic, environmental, and recreational
resource for these residents and the Nation as a whole. However, the
productivity and health of this nationally significant resource remain
seriously impaired by nutrient pollution from multiple sources
throughout the watershed.
The EPA and States have launched a significant and rigorous effort
to cut pollution and improve water quality. Few would argue that
implementing the recently adopted total maximum daily load (TMDL) will
not be challenging or not require significant investment to reduce
point and nonpoint source pollution. However, the EPA is requesting
additional funds, in part, to support States, local governments, and
other partners as they begin implementing the TMDL. The League believes
it is essential to provide technical assistance to achieve results on-
the-ground and lay the foundation for long-term pollution reductions.
The Izaak Walton League appreciates the opportunity to testify
about these important issues.
______
Prepared Statement of the Jamestown S'Klallam Tribe, Washington State
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 2012 Bureau of
Indian Affairs (BIA) and Indian Health Service (IHS) budgets. The
fiscal year 2012 President's proposed budget presents a renewed
opportunity for the U.S. Government to live up to the promises made to
American Indians/Alaska Native tribal governments. We have long
appreciated this subcommittee's support of our funding requests and are
pleased to submit the following recommendations and requests:
tribal-specific appropriation priorities
We request $600,000 for a land purchase for the Tamanowas Rock
Sanctuary Project and a $200,000 increase to the BIA tribal base budget
for fish and wildlife management.
local/regional requests and recommendations
The Jamestown S'Klallam Tribe is a direct beneficiary of the
collective Tribal efforts and continues to support the requests and
recommendations of the Affiliated Tribes of Northwest Indians,
Northwest Portland Area Indian Health Board, and the Northwest Indian
Fisheries Commission.
national requests and recommendations
BIA Requests
Provide a $82.9 million general increase to the BIA Tribal Priority
Allocation (TPA) for inflationary and fixed costs; provide $47.5
million increase for the BIA Contract Support Cost (CSC), including
direct CSC; and provide $5 million increase in the Indian Self-
Determination (ISD) Fund; restoration and increase funding for Indian
Loan Guarantee Program; and establishment and funding for a Surety
Bonding Guarantee Program
IHS Requests
Hold Indian health programs harmless and protect from roll-backs,
freezes, and recessions; exempt tribes from Federal pay freeze and use
appropriate inflation rates; a $200 million increase for Contract
Health Services (CHS); a $153 million increase for IHS to fully fund
CSC, including direct CSC; and increase $5 million to the IHS Office of
Tribal Self-Governance (OTSG).
We support all requests and recommendations of the National
Congress of American Indians (NCAI) and the National Indian Health
Board (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.
tribal-specific appropriation justification
$600,000 for a 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 Rock 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. We are taking the
lead to seek funds to purchase the land and the remaining 80 acres
directly surrounding Tamanowas Rock, all of which would be protected in
perpetuity.
$200,000 Increase to the BIA Tribal Base Budget for Fish and
Wildlife Management.--Jamestown S'Klallam Tribe is 1 of 4 tribes that
signed the Point No Point Treaty with the U.S. Government in 1855. The
U.S. Government formally recognized Jamestown in 1981. By then, the BIA
was contracting with tribes 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. Rather
than redistribute the funding pie, Jamestown received a smaller portion
for fisheries management in relation to the other three tribes. Even
with self-governance (SG), the BIA continues to distribute contracted
funds based on funding history, thus Jamestown receives a significantly
smaller portion of the PNPTC base funding than the other three tribes.
The Jamestown S'Klallam Tribe is nonetheless required to meet the basic
fisheries and wildlife management responsibilities of U.S. vs.
Washington (Boldt Decision), including planning, negotiation,
regulation, technical expertise, and enforcement. The $200,000 increase
to our fiscal year 2012 SG base is needed to implement these essential
treaty fish and wildlife management services.
national requests and priorities
BIA Requests
The President has committed to support and advance tribal ISD and
SG for the Nation's 567 federally recognized tribes. Consistent with
that commitment, the fiscal year 2012 budget should include the
following critical increases:
--TPA General Increase.--Provide $82.9 million (10 percent increase
more than fiscal year 2010) for a general increase to the BIA
TPA for inflationary and fixed costs.
TPA is one of the most important funding areas for tribal
governments. It covers such needs as scholarships and higher education
funding, human services, economic development, and natural resources
management. This funding has steadily eroded due to inflation and
population growth. The effects of rising costs of travel, equipment,
supplies, and purchased services have been compounding for years while
the Native American population has increased at 1.6 percent per year.
Since tribes have the flexibility to use TPA funds to meet the unique
needs of their individual communities, they are the main resources for
tribes to exercise their powers of ISD and SG.
--CSC.--Provide a $47.5 million Increase for the BIA to fully fund
CSC, including direct CSC and provide $5 million for the ISD
Fund.
Excluding the President's requested increase of $21.5 million for
CSC for fiscal year 2011, the BIA projected a CSC shortfall of $47.5
million. The BIA did not make projections for fiscal year 2012 or
fiscal year 2013, but the projected shortfall would go up based upon
inflation and new contracting. Additionally, $5 million is needed
annually for administrative costs for new and expanded programs (ISD
Fund). When CSC is not fully funded, tribes are forced to utilize
limited direct program services dollars or tribal resources to cover
these shortfalls. Further, CSC directly funds jobs-- and those jobs
directly enhance services for education, law enforcement and other
essential governmental services across Indian country. We respectfully
urge the subcommittee to fund these essential services and not permit
Indian agreements to remain the only government contracts that are not
fully funded.
Indian Loan Guarantee Program.--Restoration and increase funding.
Part of the rationale to cut back this program is that the program
could be duplicating other services, such as Small Business
Administration loan programs. This assumption is wrong and will
undermine the tribes economic development efforts. This important
program has resulted in a very positive impact for Indian country. The
default rate is low and key in assisting tribes with economic
development and providing additional jobs to Indian country. We
respectfully urge the subcommittee to preserve this program at minimum
to the fiscal year 2010 level of $8.1 million.
Surety Bonding.--Establishment and funding of a Surety Bonding
Program. There long been a need for a surety bonding program for Indian
country. The traditional bonding industry-- uncomfortable and
unfamiliar with sovereign tribes--require excessive waivers of
sovereign immunity to issue surety bonds for our companies requiring
these bonds. This industry impediment clearly suppresses our business
opportunities.
IHS Requests
Our tribe strongly encourages the following:
--Hold Harmless.--Hold Indian health programs harmless and protect
prior year and proposed fiscal year 2011 and fiscal year 2012
increases from budget roll-backs, freezes, and rescissions. We
have been encouraged by the increased investments made in
Indian health in fiscal years 2008, 2009, and 2010 and greatly
appreciate President Obama's proposed increases for fiscal year
2011 and 2012. However, we are equally concerned that efforts
by the Congress and the Administration to reduce the overall
size of the Federal budget may jeopardize the recent progress
to address severe and chronic health and funding disparities in
Indian country as well as our ability to effectively implement
the Indian Health Care Improvement Act and the Affordable Care
Act.
Current Services.--Exempt tribes from Federal pay freeze and use
appropriate inflation rates. Not only Commissioner Corps Officers, but
all tribal and Federal IHS employees should be exempted from any
Federal employee pay freeze that may be imposed in fiscal year 2011,
2012, or 2013. The rates of inflation applied to hospitals and clinics,
dental health, mental health, and CHS in developing the IHS budget
should correspond to the appropriate components in the consumer price
index, and that there should be parity in the calculation of inflation
among the Department of Health and Human Services operating divisions.
CHS.--Provide $230 million Increase for CHS and Catastrophic Health
Emergency Fund (CHEF). Tribes have recommended that an increase of $200
million is needed for CHS funding plus an additional $30 million for
the CHEF, for a total of $1.17 billion. At present, less than one-half
of the CHS need is being met, leaving too many Indian people without
access to necessary medical services. 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.
(CSC)T1.--Provide $153 million for IHS to fully fund CSC, including
direct CSC. This year's fiscal year 2012 request of a $63.3 million
increase for CSC continues a sad chapter of neglect for the ISD Fund.
For fiscal year 2012, the estimated shortfall is $153 million.
OTSG.--Increase $5 million to the IHS OTSG.--In 2003, the 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. As of
2011, there are 331 SG tribes managing approximately $1.5 billion in
funding. This represents 59 percent of all federally recognized tribes
and 33 percent of the overall IHS funding.
In closing, we thank you for the opportunity to provide this
written testimony on the budget priorities of the Jamestown S'Klallam
Tribe.
______
Letter From the Kennesaw Mountain National Battlefield Park, Georgia
May 4, 2011.
Hon. Jack Reed,
Chairman, Subcommittee on the Interior, Environment, and Related
Agencies, Washington, DC.
Hon. Lisa Murkowski,
Ranking Member, Subcommittee on the Interior, Environment, and Related
Agencies, Washington, DC.
Mr. Chairman and Honorable Members of the Subcommittee: I
appreciate the opportunity to present this testimony in support of the
Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) in the fiscal year 2012
Interior, environment, and related agencies appropriations bill. In an
historic embrace of conservation, the President's budget request
includes full funding of the LWCF in fiscal year 2012. The proposed
$900 million is the congressionally authorized amount for the program
and seeks to renew focus on the promise of the LWCF: that it is right
and wise to reinvest proceeds from offshore drilling receipts in the
protection of natural resources and recreational access for all
Americans.
I recognize that this subcommittee will face many demands in this
tight fiscal climate. However, far-sighted investment in the LWCF will
permanently pay dividends to the American people and to our great
natural and historical heritage. As the LWCF is funded from Outer
Continental Shelf (OCS) revenues, not taxpayer dollars, these funds
should go to their intended and authorized use.
As part of the full commitment to the LWCF in fiscal year 2012, the
National Park Service (NPS) included $2.772 million for the acquisition
of land in the Kennesaw Mountain National Battlefield Park in Georgia
in the President's budget. I am pleased that this funding was included
in the request and urge the Congress to provide the full President's
budget amount for the LWCF so that this important project can receive
this needed funding.
After victories in 1863 at Gettysburg in the East and Vicksburg and
Chattanooga in the West, 1864 appeared to be a bright year for Union
arms. A favorable end to the Civil War appeared closer than ever. In
concert with each other Union armies launched southbound offensives in
Virginia and Georgia at the beginning of May against supposedly
weakened Confederate forces. The marching and fighting was nearly
continuous. In Virginia it was exceptionally intense and brutal at the
Wilderness, Spotsylvania, and Cold Harbor. In northern Georgia, due to
the topography and geography, the Union troops of General William
Tecumseh Sherman had more room and opportunities for less violent
flanking maneuvers that pushed back the Confederates under General
Joseph E. Johnston. By June 19, Johnston had retreated to a strong
defensive position at Kennesaw Mountain near Marietta, 20 miles from
the center of Atlanta.
The Congress established Kennesaw Mountain National Battlefield
Park in 1935 to commemorate the battle and the 1864 Atlanta campaign.
The park protects nearly 2,850 acres of battlefield along a 5.5-mile
line west of Marietta. Many of the 1.3 million annual visitors hike or
drive to the top of Kennesaw Mountain to see the panoramic view of the
Atlanta skyline to the southeast and the Appalachian foothills to the
north and northwest. The mountain is 1,800 feet above sea level and 700
feet above the visitor center and surrounding Marietta. Visitors also
enjoy 18 miles of trails, Civil War interpretive programs, historic
monuments, surviving earthworks, and the opportunity to view birds and
wildlife.
Available for acquisition in fiscal year 2012 is the 16-acre
Leavell property. The inholding is located on the south side of Burnt
Hickory Road near the center of the park. The NPS owns surrounding
property to the west and south, while the tract directly to the east
has been developed for several large houses. Just farther to the east
along Burnt Hickory Road, there is a NPS parking area for visitors
wishing to hike 1,240-ft Pigeon Hill to the northeast and the Hardage
Saw Mill site to the south. A tributary of Noses Creek passes through
the property. Noses Creek eventually flows into Sweetwater Creek, a
tributary of the Chattahoochee River.
The acquisition of the Leavell property by the NPS would protect a
significant inholding at Kennesaw Mountain across which Union troops in
General Joseph Lightburn's brigade attacked to reach Pigeon Hill. Given
its frontage on Burnt Hickory Road and the growth in and around
Marietta and the entire Atlanta metropolitan area, the property is
likely to be developed if not conserved. Tracts to the north and east
within the boundaries of the national battlefield park have already
been developed.
These descriptions of the land and the battle are very helpful in
understanding the overall battlefield, the actions that took place, and
its consequences. However, as an historian, it is worth presenting some
of the words of the soldiers who fought at Kennesaw Mountain.
On June 26, 1864, as General Sherman prepared orders to charge the
Kennesaw Mountain Line, his men prepared rations and wrote letters home
to family. These men looked across the open field to the fortified
trenches they were soon going to attack. On one of the hottest days of
the 1864 campaign, many a soldier of General Lightburn's Brigade
touched pen to paper to send one last letter to a mother.
Martin Comer of the 53rd Ohio wrote in the fading light of the 25th
of June: ``Dear Mother in the hardest of all the hard campaigns, in the
hottest of days I set down to write you a few lines. We have prepared
three days rations and have been given orders to attack soon. I have
all the faith in God as you have tought me. I wish only to return home
and see you and father once more. Your loving son.''
Jefferson Cantor wrote, ``Mother and father we are near Atlanta, I
feel one more charge will do in the rebbles and we shall take the queen
city. I have hope to return home soon and to embrace you once more as
mother and son. Your son Jeff.''
Charles B. Fox wrote, ``Dear mother I hope that those who have
stayed home in the fight against the destruction of our nation will
know what our brave boys have done in this campaign. We will save our
country and once more to live in the peace of our land, I hope to enjoy
that peace, and to all my love to you, mother I hope to see you soon.
your loving son C B Fox.''
Austin Gilmore, a slave who enlisted in the 111th Illinois as a
cook, but on June 27, 1864, under a general order from General Sherman
that all cooks and musicians would take up as stretcher bearers when
the army went into battle. They would wear a white armband on their
left sleeve. Austin on June 27, 1864, took on this duty and while
removing a white wounded soldier from harm's way was wounded himself in
the right hip. On July 1, 1864, in a hospital in Rome, Georgia, Austin
died and 1867 he was placed in an unknown grave in the Marietta
National Cemetery.
The story of these brave men and many more are told on the ground,
which we are asking to be purchased. This ground has already been paid
for and all we need to do is purchase it and preserve it for future
generations. I am asking in the names of these brave men to have this
land saved.
An allocation of $2.772 million from the LWCF in fiscal year 2012--
as recommended in the President's budget--is needed to protect this
important Civil War battlefield inholding at Kennesaw Mountain National
Battlefield Park.
I want to thank the Chairman and the members of the subcommittee
for this opportunity to testify on behalf of this nationally important
protection effort in Georgia, and I appreciate your consideration of
this funding request.
Brad Quinlin,
Civil War Historian.
______
Prepared Statement of the League of American Orchestras
The League of American Orchestras urges the subcommittee to approve
fiscal year 2012 funding for the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA)
at a level of $167.5 million. We urge the Congress to continue
supporting the important work of this agency, which broadens public
access to the arts, nurtures cultural diversity, spurs the creation of
new artistic works, and fosters a sense of cultural and historic pride,
all while supporting countless jobs in communities nationwide.
The League of American Orchestras leads, supports, and champions
America's orchestras and the vitality of the music they perform. Its
diverse membership of nearly 900 orchestras across North America runs
the gamut from world-renowned symphonies to community groups, from
summer festivals to student and youth ensembles. The only national
organization dedicated solely to the orchestral experience, the League
is a nexus of knowledge and innovation, advocacy, and leadership
advancement for managers, musicians, volunteers, and boards. Founded in
1942 and chartered by the Congress in 1962, the League links a national
network of thousands of instrumentalists, conductors, managers, board
members, volunteers, and business partners.
Federal arts support has a compelling exponential impact: the
intense competition for Federal dollars means that the awarding of an
NEA grant greatly enhances and strengthens an orchestra's application
for funding from other sources. Furthermore, an NEA grant serves as an
emblem of public value and national artistic significance, and
communities large and small partake in the distinction of presenting
nationally recognized NEA-supported programs. In fiscal year 2010, the
NEA's Grants to Organizations included 119 grants to orchestras, and
continued funding for the agency will support its ability to serve the
American public. The Endowment promotes creation, engagement, and
learning in the arts through Arts Works, the major support category for
organizations that includes the Access to Artistic Excellence, Learning
in the Arts for Children and Youth, and Challenge America: Reaching
Every Community grant programs--as well as through vital Federal/State
partnerships.
The presence of orchestras is often an indicator of a community's
economic and cultural strength. In fact, investing in the arts has a
demonstrated impact in helping to reverse economic decline. In addition
to fueling local economies, attracting new business development, and
educating young people, music unites people and cultures in good times
and bad. The League is committed to help orchestras by bringing new
knowledge and perspectives concerning the shifting priorities in our
communities to our members. Likewise, the NEA plays an incredibly
valuable leadership role through its direct grants to organizations,
strategic initiatives, and ongoing national research illuminating
trends in public participation and workforce development.
nea grants help orchestras educate and encourage america's youth
The Boise Philharmonic, a 70-member professional orchestra with an
administrative staff of 9 employees, is Idaho's largest and oldest
performing arts organization. The orchestra maintains a vast array of
educational programs, including classes for young children, a Family
Concert series, annual Children's Concerts with full symphony orchestra
performing for 15,000 school children in 9 free performances, Musicians
in the Schools, Ensembles in the Schools, Conductor in the Schools and
the Jeker Eagle Schools music project. In fiscal year 2010 the Boise
Philharmonic received NEA support for Classic Collaborations, a series
of concerts accompanied by related educational activities. Each concert
in the series integrated symphonic music with vocal music, theater, or
dance along with participating area opera, theater, and dance
companies, embodying the collective strength of arts disciplines coming
together.
The New World Symphony, a 23-year-old orchestral academy whose 750
graduates now perform in more than 176 orchestras across the country,
is also committed to serving America's youth. In addition to connecting
musicians and artists around the globe, the orchestra provides
instruction and mentoring to schools by making its performances
available to school systems across South Florida. The Musician
Professional Development Program receives NEA support to offer
performances, coaching, and community outreach activities as a means to
prepare more than 80 gifted young musicians each year for musical
leadership positions in the orchestral field. Thanks in part to Federal
funding, these young musicians have the opportunity to experience music
at multiple levels of engagement and enjoy the advantages of highly
trained coaches to develop their own professional careers in music.
nea funding leads to increased public access to culturally diverse art
The NEA, together with the organizations it helps support, is
committed to improving public access to the arts. With grants reaching
every congressional district, the NEA helps orchestras connect to their
community and the experience of live music serves as a conduit for
disparate communities to connect with each other. The Pacific Symphony,
employing 88 part-time musicians and 44 full-time staff, formed a
partnership with an Indian cultural center in Irvine, California to
present numerous traditional Indian performances to rapt audiences.
With assistance from the NEA, many listeners experienced a new musical
form and enjoyed the cultural richness of their own community for the
first time. The traditional performers were also integrated into the
orchestra's American Composers Festival, featuring the world premiere
of a new work, Passion of Ramakrishna, by Philip Glass. NEA funds not
only supported traditional works of art, but a new work that celebrates
our diverse American heritage.
Federal support often enables grantees to extend their reach beyond
their immediate cities and towns, bringing unique musical experiences
to communities that would not otherwise be able to enjoy them. The
Bremerton Symphony Orchestra employs 11 full-time and part-time staff,
and with 120 volunteer orchestra and chorale members, it will present
an ``Inspiring Virtuosity'' concert with violinist Marie Rossano. In
addition to the concert itself, the orchestra's NEA grant will help
make the concert accessible to the Hispanic and Tribal populations of
the Kitsap Peninsula as well as low income families of Bremerton. The
orchestra conductor will meet personally with each of the groups to
invite members of Kitsap County to the concert. NEA grants are
undoubtedly a vital part of the support system that enables orchestras
to showcase our society's rich array of cultures and to engage and
connect with the diverse audiences around them.
nea support fosters national pride and remembrance
In addition to widening access to our country's cultural diversity,
NEA grants provide a stirring way for orchestras to aid in the
remembrance of key moments in our American history. To commemorate the
10th anniversary of September 11th, the New York Philharmonic
commissioned a new work, ``One Sweet Morning,'' by American composer
John Corigliano. The orchestra, which employs 192 full-time and 353
part-time or seasonal staff, along with 190 volunteers, will use its
NEA grant in the presentation of this poignant artistic perspective on
the years following September 11, 2001, which will incorporate texts on
war and peace by American lyricist E.Y. ``Yip'' Harburg, Lithuanian-
American poet Czeslow Milosz, the Ancient Greek poet Homer, and Tang
Dynasty poet Li Po.
The National Symphony Orchestra, numbering 100 musicians and 19
administrative employees, likewise commemorated another important event
in American history--the 50th anniversary of President John F.
Kennedy's 1961 inauguration. The historic concert was performed earlier
this year at Constitution Hall in tribute to a leader who believed that
the arts can help shape the national character and bring understanding
between nations. The celebration included the commissioned piece,
Remembering JFK (An American Elegy) by Peter Lieberson, which
incorporated text from President Kennedy's speeches and writings.
The city of Birmingham pays homage to another important figure in
American history in Reflect and Rejoice: A Community Tribute to Dr.
Martin Luther King, Jr., an annual remembrance of the progress that has
taken place since Dr. King's ``Letter from a Birmingham Jail,'' written
in 1963. A consortium grant from the NEA supports this musical and
artistic collaboration between partners such as the Birmingham Civil
Rights Institute, local choirs, and the Alabama Symphony Orchestra,
which employs an administrative staff of 20 full-time and 2 part-time
employees, a full-time core orchestra of 54 musicians, and 4
conductors. In conjunction with the tribute, the orchestra holds a
poetry contest every year in which students submit poems inspired by
orchestral work from the Reflect & Rejoice concert. Appreciating our
history is crucial for current and future generations, and the NEA is a
valued partner in creating impactful, engaging, and memorable ways such
as these to honor our past.
nea funding encourages new works and programming
NEA grants to orchestras help support the creative capacity of
American musicians and composers. A grant from the NEA will support the
Living Composers Project, produced by The Saint Paul Chamber Orchestra,
whose 35 musicians and 33 full-time and 15 part-time administrative
staff share a commitment to stimulate and challenge audiences by
including recent and newly commissioned works as part of its regular
programming. The project will encompass more than 20 performances and
world premieres throughout the Twin Cities metro area. Composers will
be invited to attend performances of their commissioned pieces and
participate in open rehearsals and pre- and postconcert discussions to
help introduce audiences to contemporary chamber orchestra music in
thoughtful and engaging ways.
With 10 full-time staff and approximately 70 part-time musicians,
the long-term support of the NEA has been essential to the Albany
Symphony Orchestra in keeping living American composers at the center
of its mission. This year, an NEA grant will help in the production of
the orchestra's American Music Festival, which nurtures and supports
the work of living composers like Joan Tower, Zhou Long, and Michael
Daugherty. Festivals such as this one are essential to assuring that
orchestral music remains a part of the American cultural experience and
that opportunities can be presented to composers to have their works
shared at the highest artistic level.
NEA grants uniquely encourage orchestras to cultivate innovation,
ensure that music continues to flourish within our cultural landscape,
and help make it possible for audiences of all sizes to access it from
every part of the country. Thank you for this opportunity to express
the value of NEA support for orchestras and communities across the
Nation. The Endowment's unique ability to provide a national forum to
promote excellence, both through high standards for artistic products
and the highest expectation of accessibility, remains one of the
strongest arguments for a Federal role in support of the arts. We urge
you to support creativity and access to the arts by approving $167.5
million in funding for the National Endowment for the Arts.
______
Prepared Statement of the Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior
Chippewa Indians
As vice-president of the Lac du Flambeau Tribe of Lake Superior
Chippewa Indians, located in Wisconsin, I am pleased to submit this
testimony, which reflects the needs and concerns of our tribal members
for the upcoming fiscal year 2012. We would like to begin our testimony
by expressing our deep appreciation for President Obama's commitment to
the United States' obligations to tribes and Indian people. We would
also like to thank the subcommittee, particularly this subcommittee,
for supporting Indian programs throughout the fiscal year 2011
appropriations process. We understand the Congress' concern for our
country's depressed economy and that it must respond by tightening the
belt of the Federal Government. In the face of these circumstances, we
particularly appreciate the support you have shown our programs.
bureau of indian affairs (bia)
Education.--The President has made education one of his core
priorities nationwide. Investing in educating our children is an
investment in our future. An educated workforce creates economic
opportunities, allows individuals and families to be self-sufficient,
and, as a whole, allows us to be competitive in national and global
markets. Education is one area where a relatively small amount of
investment leads to long-term savings and benefits.
Because the tribe's children attend public schools, Johnson
O'Malley (JOM) funding provides the core of the tribe's education
program. In our tribe, JOM money funds a counselor/mentor position at
the local high school. This position is particularly important as our
children transfer from an elementary school that is more than 90
percent Indian to a high school in which they are the minority. We
believe this rough transition is part of the reason why our native
students at Lakeland Union High School have had a graduation rate of
56-61 percent over the last 4 years. While we deeply appreciate that
the President's request did not cut funding for the program, we would
like to take the opportunity to remind the subcommittee that this is an
important program that deserves full funding.
Higher education is even more important as the overall workforce
becomes college educated. Tribal communities must continue to evolve
with other communities. Higher education is needed for our children to
learn the skills necessary to enter the workforce, to be innovators,
and to lead our tribal governments. President Obama has repeatedly
expressed his commitment to national education programs, and in his
address to Indian country he made a commitment to honor ``obligations
to Native Americans by providing tribes with the educational resources
promised by treaty and Federal law.'' We embrace that commitment, but
we want to remind you that the need for support does not lie only with
high schools. Our students who want to pursue higher education need our
continued support.
The budget proposes $2.164 million for Special Higher Education
Program (SHEP) Scholarships to support Indian students working for
graduate degrees. We strongly support the SHEP program, and are
concerned that funding for it has remained flat over the last couple of
years. Tribal communities have made great strides in educating their
youth. Those strides are evident in the fact that more Indian students
are attending and graduating from colleges and other postsecondary
institutions. However, tribal communities must continue to evolve with
other communities. The national and global economy has changed--
students must earn graduate degrees to remain competitive. After making
progress in Indian education, Indian students cannot be allowed to fall
behind again because of lack of access to higher education programs.
One area of education that requires additional attention is job
training and technical education. We propose an increase in adult basic
education. At Lac du Flambeau, we would use any increase in this
account to fund technical training at a local technical college. In the
area of job training, we would use increases to double the number of
scholarships for such areas as heating/ventilation/air conditioning,
welding or culinary arts. This would be the training our members need
to rejoin the workforce.
Natural Resources and Conservation Officers.--Tribes are leaders in
natural resource protection and the 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. We greatly
appreciate the slight increases natural resources programs have
recently received.
We would like to remind the Congress that, in addition to being
important cultural and environmental resources for current and future
generations, natural resources provide many tribes and surrounding
communities with commercial and economic opportunities. Whether tribes
use those resources to sell licenses for hunting or recreational
fishing, or operate commercial fisheries, these resources often provide
much needed economic resources for families and tribes. As you all
know, each and every economic opportunity today is invaluable, and
should not be taken lightly. To ensure that these opportunities
continue, these resources must be protected. We fear that the natural
resource budget will be cut without understanding the importance they
play in our economies.
One of the critical elements of our natural resource program is our
Conservation Law Enforcement Officers (CLEOs). 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. These officers play an integral
part in protecting our cultural and economic resources, as well as
assisting with the most important role of protecting public safety. We
would like to express our thanks to President Obama for including $1
million for conservation law enforcement in his fiscal year 2012 budget
request. However, this amount will be divided among tribes nationwide.
We respectfully request that the amount provided for these CLEOs be
increased to assist tribes that are not able to supplement the funding
be better able to administer their conservation law enforcement
program.
Housing Improvement Program (HIP).--The HIP is a critical program
for tribes like Lac du Flambeau, providing much-needed money to
renovate dilapidated housing. This is an especially critical need in
northern Wisconsin, where substandard housing can have serious health
and safety consequences in the winter, and especially at a time when
President Obama has requested reduced funding for heating assistance
programs. On average, Lac du Flambeau receives about $38,000 annually--
enough to improve a single home, leaving the waiting list for HIP
services increasingly long each year. We are grateful that President
Obama did not cut funding for this program in his fiscal year 2012
request, but we would like to remind the subcommittee that the current
funding is already inadequate in our State, and States like it, where
the average temperature from December through March is 5-10 degrees at
night.
Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission (GLIFWC).--Related
to the tribe's natural resource needs, we would like to voice our
continuing support for the GLIFWC. The tribe is a member of the GLIFWC,
which assists the tribe in protecting and implementing its treaty-
guaranteed hunting, fishing, and gathering rights. We would also like
to take this opportunity to express the need to maintain the tribal
set-aside from the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative at $3 million.
environmental protection agency (epa) programs
Clean Water Program.--The Clean Water Program provides grants to
tribes under section 106 of the Clean Water Act to protect water
quality and aquatic ecosystems. The Lac du Flambeau Clean Water program
maintains and improves water quality as development continues for the
tremendous amount of surface water within the exterior boundaries of
our reservation. According to the 2000 Census, the Lac du Flambeau
Reservation includes nearly one-half of all of the water area (56.34
square miles) within the Wisconsin Indian reservations. The tribe's
Geographic Information System Program indicates that there are 260
lakes covering 17,897 acres, 71 miles of streams, and 24,000 acres of
wetlands within the reservation. Surface waters cover nearly one-half
of the Lac du Flambeau Reservation. Funding to maintain clean waters on
our reservation has already decreased below the minimum required to
maintain our program, and the President has proposed a cut to the
national program. We ask the subcommittee to protect funding for this
program important to the health of our communities.
Clean Air.--Tribal communities have the authority, through the
Tribal Authority Rule, to implement Clean Air Act (CAA) regulatory
programs and to conduct air quality monitoring, emissions inventories,
and other studies and assessments. They are eligible for funding
through the EPA to conduct these programs and services. However, when
the EPA first increased its funding for these activities, relatively
few tribes were conducting clean air activities. This funding has
remained the same, although more and more tribes are taking over these
clean air programs. During the past 10 years, the funding as ranged
between $10.7 million and $13.3 million. As more tribes are applying
for this funding, the funds are becoming increasingly inadequate. We
respectfully request that these funds are increased to assist tribes in
administering their CAA programs and activities.
indian self-determination act contract support costs
Inflation, Cost of Living, and Fixed Costs.--We fully support the
increase that President Obama has requested for these contract support
costs (CSC)--providing an increase of $29.4 million for the tribal
government programs, and $63.3 million for the Indian Health Service
(IHS). Again, this is a relatively small investment that will protect
against a need for greater funding in the future.
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 the Congress
and the Department of the Interior have historically failed to fulfill
their obligation to ensure that tribes have the same resources to carry
out these functions.
One particular element of the CSC is the cost of health insurance,
which is increasing every year. In order for us to maintain a $10 per
hour employee (approximately $20,000 per 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 full funding of CSC funding,
the tribe will continue to decrease services to our tribal membership
because we cannot afford to absorb these costs.
ihs
Contract Health.--A need that is expressed to the subcommittee
every year is increased funding for the IHS, and particularly in
contract healthcare funding. This request is constant because contract
healthcare funding is so important to the basic health and well-being
of our communities, and is historically and continually tragically
underfunded. Again we would like to express our appreciation to
President Obama, and this subcommittee, for providing increases to
contract healthcare funding over the past couple of years. I do not
want this to go unappreciated. We strongly support the $89.6 million
increase for contract health services proposed for the fiscal year 2012
budget. However, even at this level only half of the need is being met.
We would request that an additional $118 million be provided. We
believe this modest funding increase, would increase access to
necessary care for a significant number of Indian people.
Dental Health.--We fully support the increase that the President
has requested for the dental health subaccount. However, this increase
is for commissioned officers' pay costs, population growth, and
inflation. No increase is provided to expand services to already under-
served populations. Dental services in Indian country, like most health
services, are extremely limited, and routine procedures are generally
unavailable. It has been reported that only 25 percent of Indian people
had access to dental care in 2008. While this is unacceptable in its
own right, with growing evidence that dental health directly impacts
the health of our hearts and cardiovascular systems, adequate dental
health is necessary to protect the overall health of our communities.
We respectfully request that an additional $10 million more than the
President's request be provided for dental health.
______
Prepared Statement of the Lummi Indian Business Council
Good morning and thank you Mr. Chairman and distinguished
subcommittee members for the opportunity to share with you the
appropriation priorities of the Lummi Nation for the fiscal year 2012
budgets of the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) and the Indian Health
Service (IHS).
Lummi-specific requests--BIA:
--+$300,000 to increase the funding for the BIA natural resources law
enforcement.
--+$2 million--Phase 1.--New water supply system increase in funding
for hatchery construction, operation, and maintenance. Funding
will be directed to increase hatchery production to make up for
the shortfall of wild salmon; and
Committee directive requests:
--Direct the BIA to work with Lummi Nation to ensure that its needs
related to the removal of wild stocks from the salmon available
for harvest are met through increased hatchery construction,
operations, and maintenance funding; and
--Direct the Department of the Interior (DOI) to fully fund the
Office of Indian Energy and Economic Development, Workforce
Development Division to continue its job training/development
work that has resulted in jobs.
Lummi-specific requests--IHS:
--Request funds for community-based AIDS/HIV rapid testing; and
--+$4 million to combat drug epidemic in Lummi community.
Regional requests:
--Support the requests of the Affiliated Tribes of Northwest Indians,
the Northwest Portland Area Indian Health Board, and the
Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission.
National requests:
--Tribal Priority Allocation (TPA) General Increase.--Provide $82.9
million (10 percent increase more than fiscal year 2010) for
general increase;
--Contract Support Costs (CSC).--Provide $50 million increase for BIA
and $112 million for the IHS to fully fund CSC, including
direct CSC; and provide $5 million for the Indian Self-
Determination (ISD) Fund;
--Law Enforcement/Tribal Courts/Tribal Detention Facilities.--Provide
$30 million more than fiscal year 2010 levels;
--Education.--Provide $24.3 million to fully restore funding to
Johnson O'Malley (JOM);
--Increase funding to the Office of Tribal Self-Governance (OTSG) to
fully staff the office; and
--Support the requests of the National Congress of American Indians.
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 15 years. This is the inescapable reality the
Lummi Nation fishers face without salmon. We were the last surviving
society of hunters/gatherers within the contiguous United States. We
can no longer survive in the traditional ways of our ancestors.
lummi-specific requests--bia
+$2 million--Phase 1. New water supply system increase in funding for
hatchery construction, operation and maintenance. Funding will
be directed to increase hatchery production to make up for the
shortfall of wild salmon.
The Lummi Nation currently operates two salmon hatcheries that
support tribal and nontribal fishers in the region. The tribal hatchery
facilities were originally constructed utilizing Federal funding from
1969-1971. Predictably some of the original infrastructure needs to be
repaired, replaced, and/or modernized. Lummi Nation fish biologists
estimate that these facilities are currently operating at 40 percent of
their productive capacity. Through the operation of these hatcheries
the tribe annually produces 1 million fall Chinook and 2 million Coho
salmon. To increase production, we offer a ``phased approach'' that
addresses our water supply system. The existing system only provides
850 gallons per minute to our hatchery. To increase production to a
level that will sustain tribal and nontribal fisheries alike, we need
to increase our water supply four fold. A new pump station and water
line will cost the tribe approximately $6 million. We are requesting
funding for the first phase of this project. Our goal is to increase
fish returns by improving aquaculture and hatchery production and
create a reliable, sustainable resource to salmon fishers by increasing
enhancement.
+$300,000 to increase the funding for the BIA natural resources law
enforcement.--Two new officers, extended training beyond the
Police Academy, and one new patrol vehicle.
The Lummi people rely on several commercial fisheries for their
livelihood and several noncommercial fish, game, fowl, and natural
plants for ceremonial and subsistence purposes. Lummi Natural Resource
Officers patrol the Lummi Indian Reservation and all areas open to
harvest within the Usual and Accustom (U&A) fishing grounds, and
hunting and gathering areas of the Lummi Nation, as defined by the
Treaty of Point Elliott and Federal court cases interpreting the
treaty.
There are currently three Natural Resource Enforcement Officers
(NREOs) and one sergeant to patrol the 1,846 square miles of marine
area and 9,145 square miles of the ceded lands. The NREO's patrol from
the Canadian Border to Mount St. Helens; a distance roughly 300 miles
north to south. The Natural Resource Officers patrol a vast area, with
a large amount of natural resources to protect, including: shellfish,
salmon, halibut, deer and elk, and other protected species. NREOs also
respond to emergency oil spills and natural disasters.
Currently, Lummi NREOs are only able to concentrate their patrol to
the major treaty concerns of fishing, crabbing, and shellfish
harvesting. Other important enforcement activities include: halibut
fishing, hunting, goeduck harvests, derelict vessels and gear
management, and monitoring protected species. The addition of two NREOs
would mean that we could effectively patrol the U&A, enforce tribal
laws, and protect our natural environment.
To increase efficiency within the department and to promote safety
of our officers, we request funds for training beyond the basic
training that is given in the academy. Our officers patrol in boats,
ATVs, and motorized vehicles, and require proper training in operation
and maintenance.
Direct the DOI to fully fund the Office of Indian Energy and Economic
Development, Workforce Development Division to continue its job
training/development work that has resulted in jobs.
Unemployment on the reservation has been very difficult to address
with limited on-reservation jobs. Tribal governments need to be able to
meet the employment and training needs of our membership as well as the
business development needs of our communities. We need financial
assistance to enable our membership to get the job skills the local
(reservation and nonreservation) labor market demands. The Lummi Nation
and many other tribes worked well with the Office of Indian Energy and
Economic Development. We developed and successfully implemented a
welding training program with the support of both union and nonunion
companies. Now we hear that all employment and training funding has
been eliminated from this office. We ask the subcommittee to direct the
BIA to replace the employment and training support activities that were
provided by the Office of Indian Energy and Economic Development.
lummi-specific requests--ihs
Request Funds for Community-based AIDS/HIV Rapid Testing
Lummi Nation is requesting that all tribal health systems,
operating within the IHS, be provided with an annual allocation to
support community-based AIDS/HIV rapid testing based on the population
served. Lummi Nation is experiencing an epidemic of black tar heroin
among its addicted members. This has increased the risk in our
community for contracting HIV. We are seeking this funding on an
emergency basis, to support implementation of rapid HIV testing among
all tribal members.
+$4 Million To Combat Drug Epidemic in Lummi Community
Drug abuse is at epidemic proportions on the Lummi Reservation. The
proximity of the Lummi Reservation to the United States and Canadian
borders makes for a key ingredient in successful drug trafficking. With
that prime ingredient add production, transportation, distribution,
abuse, and drug-related crimes . . . welcome to where I live and where
my people are becoming prisoners in our own homes.
Our people are seeking a return to health through massive
consumption of Lummi Nation healthcare resources. We have been
successful in slowing the rate of death due to overdose suicides. We
have increased the number of tribal members receiving substance abuse
treatment and mental health counseling by 300 percent. But we are not
equipped to keep pace with the increasing access and use of heroin and
other opiate additive drugs that have besieged our ports, borders,
communities, and citizens.
National requests--BIA:
--TPA General Increase.--Provide $82.9 million (10 percent increase
more than fiscal year 2010) for general increase;
--CSC.--Provide $50 million increase for BIA to fully fund CSC,
including direct CSC; and provide $5 million for the ISD Fund;
--Law Enforcement/Tribal Courts/Tribal Detention Facilities.--Provide
$30 million more than fiscal year 2010 levels;
--Education.--Provide $24.3 million to fully restore funding to JOM;
and
--Increase funding to the OTSG to fully staff the office for the
increase of tribes entering Self-Governance.
National requests--IHS:
--Fully Fund Current Services.--Provide $532 million for the IHS and
tribal pay costs, inflation, and population growth; staffing
for new/replacement facilities and healthcare facilities
construction previously approved plan;
--Contract Health Services (CHS).--Provide $118 million increase for
CHS;
--CSC.--Provide $122 million for the IHS to fully fund CSC; and
--OTSG.--Increase $5 million to the IHS OTSG.
Thank you for this opportunity to provide these oral and written
appropriations priorities of the Lummi Nation.
Hy'shqe.
______
Letter From Ludlow's Island Resort
March 28, 2011.
Hon. Jack Reed,
Chairman, Subcommittee on the Interior, Environment, and Related
Agencies, Washington, DC.
Hon. Lisa Murkowski,
Ranking Member, Subcommittee on the Interior, Environment, and Related
Agencies, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Reed and Senator Murkowski: I appreciate the
opportunity to present this testimony in support of the Land and Water
Conservation Fund (LWCF) in the fiscal year 2012 Interior, environment,
and related agencies appropriations bill. In an historic embrace of
conservation, the President's budget request includes full funding of
the LWCF in fiscal year 2012. The proposed $900 million is the
congressionally authorized amount for the program and seeks to renew
focus on the promise of the LWCF: that it is right and wise to reinvest
proceeds from offshore drilling receipts in the protection of natural
resources and recreational access for all Americans.
I recognize that this subcommittee will face many demands in this
tight fiscal climate. However, far-sighted investment in the LWCF is
one that will permanently pay dividends to the American people and to
our great natural and historical heritage. As the LWCF is funded from
Outer Continental Shelf revenues, not taxpayer dollars, these funds
should go to their intended and authorized use.
As part of the full commitment to the LWCF in fiscal year 2012, the
U.S. Forest Service (USFS) included $1.4 million for the acquisition of
land in the Chippewa and Superior national forests in Minnesota in the
President's budget. I am pleased that this funding was included in the
request and urge the Congress to provide the full President's budget
amount for the LWCF so that this important project can receive this
needed funding.
The Minnesota Wilderness land acquisition program includes the
Superior and Chippewa national forests in Minnesota and is focused on
protecting public access to lakes and streams as well as ensuring
critical habitat protection for fish and wildlife. These forests offer
Minnesotans and other visitors abundant opportunities for outdoor
recreation and are an integral part of the Northwoods economy.
Located in the northeastern-most tip of Minnesota, the Superior
National Forest (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 SNF 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 hosts a quarter of a million visitors each
year, who follow 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 (CNF) is located in the heart of
northern Minnesota, combining elements of western prairies and northern
boreal forests. 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 CNF shares borders with the Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe. More than
400,000 acres of the CNF are actually lakes and wetlands. The CNF
contains 2 of Minnesota's 5 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 CNF are dependent on
lakes and wetlands. More than 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 CNF 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 the USFS's Minnesota Wilderness acquisition program, four
properties totaling 111 acres are available for acquisition in fiscal
year 2012 in the Superior and Chippewa NFs. The President's budget for
fiscal year 2012 includes a request for $1.4 million, which will go
towards the acquisition of these tracts, whose total value is $2.728
million. Funding for the SNF and CNF was also requested in fiscal year
2011; if approved the $1.4 million request would protect Phase II of
Wolf Island and a partial acquisition of Stony Point.
Stony Point ($1.05 million).--The 40-acre Stony Point property is
located on a prominent point on the shores of Leech Lake in the CNF.
Home to thousands of acres of waterfowl and other wildlife habitat,
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 a half-mile of Leech Lake frontage. The pristine
parcel is completely surrounded by national forest ownership and likely
contains Native American artifacts. Acquisition by the CNF would
eliminate the need for road access that would otherwise impact more
than a half-mile of undisturbed wetlands. The property was purchased by
a developer who intended to develop it into several homesites, thus
depriving forest visitors of significant scenic and recreational
values.
Kremer Lake ($1.125 million).--Located on the eastern boundary of
the CNF, the 43-acre Kremer Lake property offers substantial lakeshore
protection along the Edge of the Wilderness National Scenic Byway (Rte.
38) near Grand Rapids in Itasca County. The Kremer Lake parcel is
located along the north shore of this more than 80-feet deep small
lake, which lies along the west side of the byway. The property has
more than 4,500 feet of riparian shoreline and is adjacent to the Suomi
Hills Semi-Primitive Recreation Area. It is located within the Upper
Mississippi River watershed and contains wildlife habitat for the
endangered gray wolf and the Canadian lynx, as well as for the
sensitive bald eagle. This property offers substantial recreational
opportunities, such as fishing, hiking and cross country skiing, and
its acquisition would improve public access to the lake for these
purposes. Demand for summer recreational residences and hunting cabins
is present in the area near Grand Rapids, and portions of the Kremer
Lake property could be developed for this purpose. Its acquisition
would eliminate any development threat and ensure permanent protection
of critical water resources.
Fall Lake I and II ($553,000).--Two adjacent properties totaling
just more than 28 acres are available this year and would provide
access into the BWCAW, lakefront protection, and enhanced recreational
opportunities for the SNF. Both properties are located on a peninsula
that is otherwise almost completely protected by USFS ownership. The
Fall Lake I property, at 11 acres, is primarily forested, features 550
feet of frontage on Fall Lake and adjoins the BWCAW. A USFS campground
situated across from the tract makes it especially desirable for the
SNF. The landowners had considered disposing of the property because of
escalating property taxes, but they have now chosen to sell the
property for conservation by working through a nonprofit conservation
organization. The Fall Lake II property, at 17.3 acres, features 413
feet of frontage on Fall Lake and also adjoins the BWCAW. The
property's landowners were not willing to wait until Federal
acquisition funds might be available, so a nonprofit conservation
organization agreed to purchase the property and hold it for the USFS
until the USFS acquisition funds are available. The property is
primarily upland forest with some forested wetlands. The Superior NF
recognizes the need to protect the scenic values of the BWCAW by
acquiring these highly developable properties now.
Public acquisition of Stony Point, Kremer Lake, and the Fall Lake
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, and the call of the wild--will be
protected in perpetuity. While the total value of these three tracts is
$2.728 million, an allocation of $1.4 million from the LWCF as proposed
in the President's budget for fiscal year 2012 will allow the USFS to
begin to secure these properties and provide greater access for current
and future generations of visitors to both secluded lakes and popular
lakes within the forests that are such critical natural resources for
the public.
The LWCF is our Nation's premier Federal program to acquire and
protect lands at national parks, forests, refuges, public lands, and at
State parks, trails, and recreational facilities. These sites across
the country provide the public with substantial social and economic
benefits including promoting healthier lifestyles through recreation,
protecting drinking water and watersheds, improving wildfire
management, and assisting wildlife and fisheries adaptation.
My resort, located on Lake Vermilion relies on visitors to the
great Northwoods of Minnesota. Protection of key places, such as Wolf
Island, Stony Point, Kremer Lake/Spider Lake are critical to insure
that future generations can continue to enjoy these valued resources as
well as contribute to the tourism economy in the area.
I want to thank the Chairman and the members of the subcommittee
for this opportunity to testify on behalf of this nationally important
protection effort in Minnesota, and I appreciate your consideration of
this funding request.
Sincerely,
Mark Ludlow,
Owner.
______
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 situated in Michigan. Our tribe is
organized under the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 and is comprised
of more than 4,000 tribal citizens. I offer this testimony in support
of fully funding the United States' legal obligation to pay contract
support costs (CSC) to tribes like the Little River Band that have
contracted or compacted with the United States to operate the Indian
Health Service (IHS) and Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) programs. To
meet that legal obligation, the IHS appropriation for CSC should be
increased to $615 million, and the BIA appropriation for CSC should be
increased to $228 million.
The Little River Band operates a self-governance compact with IHS.
Under our compact we administer a clinic that includes a family
physician, a registered nurse, and a laboratory. We also employ
community health representatives (CHRs)--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 in-house capacity, we administer an elaborate
contract health services program under which we collaborate with local
private providers. Our compact totals more than $1.5 million annually,
and in direct care delivery we employ 38 people in several disciplines
and service focuses.
We fully honor our compact with IHS. We have excellent independent
audits. We also provide far better care than IHS would ever be able to
provide if IHS were in direct control of these services. Our tribal
management is smarter, more dedicated, and better able to match local
services to the needs of our patients and our community. We combine an
efficiency and effectiveness that IHS could never match. We are very
proud of what we have been able to achieve in carrying out the
essential governmental function of healthcare pursuant to our contracts
and now our compact.
But IHS has not honored its bargain with us.
Specifically, IHS has failed to pay us CSC that IHS, itself,
calculates that we have been owed. Every year IHS issues a CSC
shortfall report, detailing the amounts by which IHS underfunds our
contract. It is a truly stunning admission of the agency's breach of
our rights.
According to IHS' data, in fiscal year 2010 IHS underpaid the Band
by $386,022. For us, $386,022 is six nursing positions. It is six
substance abuse counselors in our understaffed behavioral health
department. It purchases 6 years' worth of vaccine and medical supplies
necessary to operate our clinic. It is equivalent to nine full-time
billing specialists to assist us in collecting third-party revenues.
The IHS CSC shortfall report only tells part of the story, for IHS
is funding us at only 33 percent of our actual expenditures for
healthcare. Yet, even with the additional contribution the tribe makes
each year, we are spending less per person than is spent on the average
Federal employee health plan beneficiary. 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 shortfall we have faced year after year must finally be closed.
Once closed, the funds will be used to enhance healthcare services
through increased employment, because at the Band we currently leave
positions vacant to make up for the shortfall in IHS covering our fixed
costs. Just last year, when our shortfall was reduced by just $290,000,
the Band was able to fill six positions, including a physician's
assistant, a nurse, a medical assistant, a clinical applications
coordinator, a billing office coordinator, and a benefits coordinator.
Plainly the CSC shortfall is costing us jobs and, just as plainly,
reducing that shortfall will help restore those jobs.
The same is true with our BIA contract. The BIA's data shows that
last year we were underpaid $273,532, representing five lost positions
in a contract devoted to public safety, family services, education,
governance, and natural resources. Eliminating that deficit 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:
--information technologies;
--alternative energy development; and
--skilled tradesmen for infrastructure development.
We could set up ``friend of the court'' and child support
enforcement agencies to ensure that dependent children are supported
appropriately and have their needs met in their best interest and in a
proper cultural setting. We could expand our economic development
through diversification of enterprise ventures that could meet the
needs of the current economic recovery.
In short, eliminating the shortfall would help us to leverage
permanent employment positions in many of the areas I have mentioned,
providing the people of my Band economic stability and employment
security in a populace that critically needs help to attain the
standard of living most of America enjoys. But the BIA and IHS first
have to be furnished sufficient funds to pay all of its contracts in
full. The CSC shortfalls must be stopped.
But pulling together does not mean dishonoring the contracts we
make. Our tribe would never break a contract we made, and the Federal
Government has no excuse for breaking its contracts with our tribe--all
the more so given the tragic history our tribe has already suffered as
a result of hostile government policies.
So, I come here today to ask that the 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 CSC to which we
are entitled, and by adding the necessary appropriations to finally get
these sums paid.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify today on these critical
issues.
______
Prepared Statement of the Maine Appalachian Trail Land Trust
Mr. Chairman and honorable members of the subcommittee: I
appreciate the opportunity to present this testimony in support of the
Forest Legacy Program (FLP) in the fiscal year 2012 Interior
appropriations bill. FLP works with landowners, the states, and other
partners to protect critical forestlands with important economic,
recreation, water quality, and habitat resources through conservation
easement and fee acquisitions. The program has protected more than 2
million acres in 43 States and territories, consistently with a 50
percent non-Federal cost share, double the required 25 percent cost
share. For several years this important conservation program has been
funded under the umbrella of the Land and Water Conservation Fund
(LWCF).
In an historic embrace of conservation, the President's budget
request includes full funding of LWCF in fiscal year 2012. The proposed
$900 million is the congressionally authorized amount for the program
and seeks to renew focus on the promise of the LWCF: that it is right
and wise to reinvest proceeds from offshore drilling receipts in the
protection of natural resources and recreational access for all
Americans. Of that $900 million, the President requested $135 million
for FLP.
The Appalachian Trail (AT) travels 281 miles across Maine from the
summit of Mount Katahdin southwesterly to the Maine-New Hampshire
border. The Maine Appalachian Trail Land Trust was formed in 2002 for
the purpose of identifying lands along the AT that have high natural
resource and recreational value, then working with willing landowners
to explore ways that the landowner, communities, and recreationists
would benefit from State ownership of land parcels or easements. This
State of Maine application for FLP funding is the result of those
efforts.
I recognize that this subcommittee will face many demands in this
tight fiscal climate. However, far-sighted investment in the FLP is one
that will permanently pay dividends to the American people and to our
great natural and historical heritage. As LWCF is funded from OCS
revenues, not taxpayer dollars, these funds should go to their intended
and authorized use.
As part of the full commitment to LWCF and FLP in fiscal year 2012,
the U.S. Forest Service included $1.73 million for the High Peaks--
Orbeton Stream project in Maine in the President's budget. I am pleased
that this funding was included in the request and urge the Congress to
provide the full President's budget amount for FLP so that this
important project can receive this needed funding.
With more than 15 million acres of forestland, Maine remains one of
the Nation's most heavily forested States. The white pine, spruce fir,
and northern hardwoods that characterize the Maine woods are a critical
component in two of Maine's largest industries--forestry and tourism.
They provide incredible recreational opportunities for the State's
residents and many visitors, including hiking, hunting, snowmobiling,
fishing, camping, boating, and numerous other activities. This
landscape also sustains valuable fish and wildlife habitat for many
different animal species.
One of the greatest challenges facing Maine's forests is the
fragmentation of ownership and the conversion of lands to nonforest
uses. With most of Maine's woods being privately owned, the State of
Maine and its nonprofit partners have been working to protect critical
areas using a combination of Federal, State, local, and private funding
to purchase targeted fee lands and large-scale conservation easements.
The State of Maine was 1 of the original 5 States to join FLP when it
was created in 1990 and has greatly benefited from the matching Federal
funds that has to date resulted in the conservation of almost 675,000
acres of forestlands. These forestlands now provide permanent
protection of valuable natural resources, public access to renowned
recreation lands, and continued harvesting of timber resources in a
sustainable fashion.
Continuing its focus on protecting strategically important
recreation lands, the State of Maine has proposed the 17,000 acre High
Peaks Conservation Project (Crocker Mountain and Orbeton Stream) for
FLP funding in fiscal year 2012. The High Peaks Conservation Project
will protect two key tracts that are part of a 71,000-acre network of
conserved lands in Franklin County that includes the Bigelow Preserve,
the Redington Navy Base, the Mount Abraham Reserve, and the National
Park Service AT corridor. AT bisects the Crocker Mountain parcel for
approximately 10 miles and is within the viewshed of the northern
portion of the Orbeton Stream parcel. Protecting these two tracts will
preserve both motorized and nonmotorized trail networks in the region
and enhance the Rangeley/High Peaks area as a tourist destination. More
than 75 percent of the acreage conserved will stay in working forest
status and continue to provide a source of raw materials for the
forestry, logging, wood products, paper, and furniture manufacturing
industries in Franklin County.
crocker mountain
The Crocker Mountain tract holds exceptional economic, natural
resource, and recreational value for the State of Maine. At almost
11,800 acres, it is the largest remaining working forest in the Town of
Carrabasset Valley. Given that Franklin County has the highest
percentage of workers in the forest products industry in Maine,
continuing to operate roughly 60 percent of the property as working
forest will help keep the region's forestry workers employed.
The Crocker Mountain property contains 3 of the 14 highest peaks in
Maine and is part of the State's largest subalpine forest. Climate
models predict that this high mountain area will be one of the few
places in the Northeast to retain consistent snowpack, cold
temperatures, and spruce fir forests that are needed for species like
Eastern brook trout, lynx, marten, and snowshoe hare. The property also
contains 25 percent of the global population of the State-listed
endangered Roaring Brook mayfly. This insect is only found at 12
locations in the world and 3 of the locations are on the Crocker
Mountain property.
The property buffers a spectacular 10-mile section of the AT. In
addition, it includes approximately 3 miles on snowmobile Route 115 of
Maine's Interconnected Trail System (ITS) and 4 miles of the State-
sanctioned ATV trail system that serve as important links in the
State's network of motorized trails. Protection of the property will
guarantee access for nonmotorized recreation as well, including
hunting, hiking, mountain biking, and cross-county skiing.
This project represents an important opportunity to protect
significant ecological resources, preserve jobs in Maine's forest
products industry, and promote outdoor recreation in the region. The
State of Maine will pursue sustainable timber harvesting on the
property, which will maintain local jobs and provide a revenue stream
for the Bureau of Parks and Lands. Located only a stone's throw away
from Sugarloaf Ski Resort-Maine's most popular ski area-Crocker
Mountain is prime real estate for second home residential development.
If a conservation sale is not successful, the landowner, a real estate
investment trust, will pursue a development strategy.
The High Peaks Conservation Project represents another outstanding
model for a successful Federal/State/private partnership that will keep
forests as forests for public benefit and maintain their value as a
source of timber to fuel the State's economy. Without immediate
protection, the Crocker Mountain parcel faces a serious threat of
development. In fiscal year 2012, the Maine Bureau of Parks and Lands
is requesting an allocation from the FLP of $7 million to acquire the
11,798-acre Crocker Mountain parcel in fee.
orbeton stream
The Orbeton Stream property is owned and managed for timber by a
small local family timber company that uses the fiber to supply its
mill, directly supporting the company's 40 employees. The company also
supplies fiber to all of the major mills located throughout Franklin
County. Protecting this 5,808-acre property from subdivision and
development through the purchase of a conservation easement will help
keep Maine's forests working and will ensure access for recreation,
including backwoods fishing for native wild brook trout, and hiking,
paddling, and hunting.
The property is in the primary foreground viewshed of AT and
maintaining its undeveloped state is integral to preserving the scenic
characteristics of this section of the trail. The property has been
identified as a priority for conservation by the State wildlife action
plan and other conservation planning efforts. The Orbeton property also
includes a critical 6.4-mile section of snowmobile Route 84 of Maine's
ITS system.
The entire Orbeton Stream parcel has been designated by the
National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration as critical
habitat for the federally listed Atlantic salmon. In 2007, as a result
of significant restoration efforts by the Maine Department of Marine
Resources, salmon reared in the Orbeton watershed returned from the
North Atlantic Ocean for the first time in more than 150 years. The
Eastern Brook Trout Joint Venture has identified this property as one
of its highest priorities for protection. Conserving the Orbeton Stream
property will ensure a continued source of sustainably managed and
certified forest products and protect a strategically important parcel
for outdoor recreation. This property is at great risk of development
and without income from the sale of a conservation easement, the
landowner will have few other options but to subdivide the property.
The High Peaks Conservation Project represents another outstanding
model for a successful Federal/State/private partnership that will keep
forests as forests for public benefit and maintain their value as a
source of timber to fuel the State's economy. Without immediate
protection, the Crocker Mountain parcel faces a serious threat of
development. In fiscal year 2012, the Maine Bureau of Parks and Lands
is requesting an allocation from FLP of $1.73 million to purchase a
conservation easement on the 5,808-acre Orbeton Stream parcel.
I want to thank the chairman and the members of the subcommittee
for this opportunity to testify on behalf of these nationally important
protection efforts in Maine, and I appreciate your consideration of
this funding request.
______
Letter From the Marine Conservation Biology Institute
April 6, 2011.
Hon. Jack Reed,
Chairman, Subcommittee on the Interior, Environment, and Related
Agencies, Washington, DC.
Hon. Lisa Murkowski,
Ranking Member, Subcommittee on the Interior, Environment, and Related
Agencies, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Reed and Senator Murkowski: The Marine Conservation
Biology Institute (MCBI), based in Bellevue, Washington, is a nonprofit
conservation organization whose mission is to protect vast areas of the
ocean. We use science to identify places in peril and advocate for
bountiful, healthy oceans for current and future generations. MCBI
supports the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) National Wildlife
Refuge System (NWRS) for the habitats it protects, particularly the
monuments and refuges that conserve marine environments. I wish to
thank the members of the Subcommittee on the Interior, Environment, and
Related Agencies for the opportunity to submit written testimony
recommending $9.03 million in fiscal year 2012 for the management of
the Nation's marine monuments.
The USFWS NWRS oversees 553 refuges and 4 marine national monuments
covering more than 234,000 square miles. A comprehensive analysis
compiled by the Cooperative Alliance for Refuge Enhancement (CARE), of
which MCBI is a member, shows that the NWRS needs at least $900 million
in annual operations and maintenance funding to properly administer its
lands and waters, educational nature programs, habitat restoration
projects, and much more. Of that $900 million goal for the NWRS, $18
million is needed to provide sufficient management of the marine
national monuments.
Four marine national monuments have been established in the Pacific
Ocean since 2006: Papahanaumokuakea Marine National Monument, Marianas
Trench Marine National Monument, Pacific Remote Islands Marine National
Monument, and Rose Atoll Marine National Monument. Together, these
monuments protect approximately 335,348 square miles of marine habitat,
of which the Service's jurisdiction from the Hawaii-Pacific Refuge
Complex increased by 215,600 square miles. These four monuments include
12 marine refuges and more than 20 islands, atolls, and reefs spread
across the vast Pacific Ocean. President Bush gave the Department of
the Interior (designated to the USFWS) management responsibility over
the three newest monuments, although the Department of Commerce
maintains primarily responsibility for managing fishing in the outer
waters. In sum, USFWS responsibilities in the Pacific Islands have
increased substantially, but the funding to manage these vast areas has
not followed suit.
papahanaumokuakea marine national monument
Papahanaumokuakea Marine National Monument is managed collectively
by the Department of the Interior, USFWS; the Department of Commerce,
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA); and the State
of Hawaii, Department of Land and Natural Resources. The monument is
home to millions of seabirds, an incredible diversity of coral species
including deep-sea corals, and the highly endangered Hawaiian monk
seal. Approximately 90 percent of Hawaii's green sea turtles nest in
the monument, as do about 99 percent of the world's population of
Laysan albatross and 98 percent of the black-footed albatross. These
islands within the monument are also important to Native Hawaiians for
culture, history, and religion.
pacific remote islands marine national monument
The Pacific Remote Islands Marine National Monument contains some
of the last remaining, relatively intact coral reef and pelagic
ecosystems in the Pacific Ocean. Any 1 of the 7 coral islands contains
nearly four times as many shallow water, reef-building coral species as
the entire Florida Keys. The monument provides habitat for an estimated
14 million seabirds and many 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 nautical miles of
these seven islands. Seamounts are important biodiversity hotspots
because they provide habitat and localized nutrients in the vast
pelagic waters of the Pacific.
rose atoll marine national monument
Rose Atoll Marine National Monument 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 Atoll also provides sanctuary for the
giant clam, whose population is severely depleted throughout the
Pacific Ocean.
marianas trench marine national monument
The Marianas Trench Marine National Monument protects areas of
biological, historical, and scientific significance. The monument is
home to unusual life forms found in its boiling and highly acid waters,
highly diverse and unique coral reef systems (more than 300 species of
stony coral), and an astonishingly high population of apex predators,
including large numbers of sharks. It monument also encompasses the
Mariana Trench, the deepest ocean area on Earth, deeper than Mount
Everest is tall.
marine national monument management implementation
It is imperative that USFWS establish appropriate management
measures to adequately protect the land, waters, and seafloor of all
four of these relatively pristine marine monuments. In particular, the
USFWS must have adequate funds to continue to develop management plans
for each monument, hire adequate management personnel, provide
transportation to visit the islands on a regular basis, develop plans
to restore damaged reefs and lands, and consult with NOAA and the U.S.
Coast Guard to provide proper surveillance and enforcement actions for
all the monuments.
Restoration actions are needed at most of the islands, including
restoring natural habitats, removing discarded equipment and structures
from past military occupations, and dealing with old waste disposal
sites. Additionally, human exploration and occupation has introduced
many invasive species to the islands, including various rodents,
insects, and plants, which should be removed for the survival of the
native species.
For example, two fishing vessels that grounded in the Pacific
Remote Islands Marine National Monument have yet to be removed and are
currently devastating the surrounding coral ecosystems. In 1991, a 121-
foot Taiwanese fishing boat sank on Palmyra Atoll; in 2007 an abandoned
85-foot fishing vessel was discovered on Kingman Reef. These two
islands are home to coral reefs that are some of the most pristine in
the world. The Palmyra wreck sits directly on the reef and continues to
damage the ecosystem by leaching iron into the water which has
accelerated the rapid growth of a nuisance corallimorph, Rhodactis
howesii. According to the report by the U.S. Geological Service and the
University of Hawaii, greater than 100 million corallimorph individuals
cover more than 247 acres of the bottom. The most recent expedition to
the atoll shows that the corallimorph doubled coverage in 1 year
(within 500 meters of the ship in 2007 to 1,100 meters in 2008). Refuge
managers recently reported that the corallimorph is continuing to
spread out of control and the ship must be removed immediately to avoid
further damage to the ecosystem.
The Kingman Reef wreck's initial grounding gouged the reef and has
continued to cause physical and ecological damage. The area is showing
early signs of the nuisance corallimorph, as well as an elevated growth
of algae. The algae and the corallimorph become very abundant when
stimulated by increases in limited nutrients, such as iron from
corroding ship, and in time smother and kill the surrounding coral
reefs. The algae are present on nearly 10 percent of the metal debris
(metallic engine parts, piping, cookware, etc.). Both the algae and
corallimorph are present within 200 meters of the abandoned shipwreck.
As the ship continues to break apart, more steel will be scattered over
the reef crest encouraging algae and corallimorph growth. If this
growth continues unabated, it is expected to spread towards the north
facing shoreline where more fragile coral gardens are located.
appropriation needs
MCBI requests that the subcommittee increase funding for NWRS
operations to $9.03 million in fiscal year 2012 to begin to properly
manage and restore the four Pacific monuments. Of the approximately
$7.5 million that USFWS received in fiscal year 2010 to manage
Papahanaumokuakea Marine National Monument, over half contributed to
the maintenance and operation of Midway Atoll Airfield and upkeep of
historic buildings, which is managed and funded jointly with the
Federal Aviation Administration. The remaining USFWS funds were
inadequate for monument resource management needs. For instance, USFWS
does not currently have adequate funds to hire a biologist for the
monument.
MCBI recommends a small increase of $0.5 million to continue to co-
manage Midway Atoll Airfield and more adequately manage the natural
resources of the monument. The requested amount is in line with the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's funding to co-manage
the monument.
Furthermore, USFWS received less than $200,000 in fiscal year 2010
for management of the three new marine monuments. It has been more than
2 years since the establishment of the newest monuments and an increase
of less than $200,000 to manage these three extraordinary marine
monuments is unacceptable. To properly manage and restore these
monuments, the monuments at minimum need $1.03 million to hire a
manager to oversee each new monument (a Rose Atoll Manager was funded
in fiscal year 2010), one public planner position to aid in management
responsibilities, and associated administrative costs such as office
space costs and travel expenses. Additional funds would begin to
address restoration measures to remove nuisance and invasive species
that are impacting native wildlife populations. Funds will also fund an
initial assessment for the removal of the two shipwrecks mentioned
above that are damaging coral habitats.
In summary, the USFWS has not requested sufficient funds in fiscal
year 2012 to meet its stewardship responsibilities to manage the four
marine national monuments and associated refuges.
MCBI respectfully recommends that the subcommittee appropriate a
total of $9.03 million to USFWS NWRS to protect and restore these
marine conservation areas for current and future generations.
Thank you for the opportunity to share our views.
Sincerely,
William Chandler,
Vice President for Government Affairs.
______
Prepared Statement of the Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida
Chairman Reed, Ranking Member Murkowski, members of the
subcommittee, on behalf of the Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida,
thank you for the opportunity to submit testimony to the subcommittee
to address several issues of importance to the Miccosukee Tribe of
Indians of Florida. When I was sworn in as Chairman in January 2010, I
made several commitments to the Miccosukee people including good
governance, protecting and enhancing our sovereignty, economic
development, and environmental stewardship. As elected officials, you
understand the great honor, but also the great responsibilities of
leadership. We need your support in several areas related to our tribe,
Indian country, as well as our home, the Florida Everglades. These
remarks focus on programs at the Interior Department including the
National Park Service (NPS), the Bureau of Indian Affairs, among other
matters including the Congressional trust relationship with Indian
country.
carcieri v. salazar fix: action needed in the 112th congress
I urge the Senate to try again this Congress to enact a legislative
fix to address the harmful effects of the U.S. Supreme Court decision,
Carcieri v. Salazar. As you are aware, since 1934, the Department of
Interior has construed the Indian Reorganization Act to allow the
Secretary of the Interior to place lands into trust status for all
federally recognized Indian tribes. The Carcieri decision has
overturned this principal by not allowing the placement of lands into
trust for certain tribes. If this mistaken interpretation of the Indian
Reorganization Act is not corrected, it will lead to unequal treatment
of currently federally recognized tribes; threatening tribal
sovereignty, economic self-sufficiency, and self-determination. It will
also create long-term challenges to public safety and criminal
jurisdiction across Indian country, and put in serious risk important
and much needed land acquisitions for schools, housing, health clinics,
and protection of tribal sacred sites. On behalf of the Miccosukee
people, I strongly urge the 112th Congress to take concrete and
immediate steps to correct this issue. The longer you delay action, the
more Indian country will suffer.
dispelling myths about federal tribal programs
I want to commend this subcommittee's oversight efforts. Your
taking a closer look at the management practices of the Department of
the Interior, as well as regulatory overreach by the NPS, is necessary
and long overdue. We are living in challenging economic times and, as I
will detail shortly, the Department of the Interior and its many
bureaus are unnecessarily making everyday life more difficult for the
Miccosukee Tribe and the Miccosukee people. Working together, in
substantive government-to-Government and sovereign-to-sovereign
partnership, we will begin to fix these problems through better
communication and consultation. As chairman of the Miccosukee Tribe, on
behalf of the Miccosukee people, I have already met with several
Members of Congress and agency officials to discuss some of these
issues. But we need to do much more. And the Congress, particularly,
needs to step-up and do more to correct the mismanagement.
I have two issues that I would like to discuss in more detail. One,
we need to dispel the myth that Federal tribal assistance programs are
no longer needed because of Indian gaming. Two, I will ask for your
support about an environmental catastrophe in the making in our home,
the Florida Everglades. On this latter point, I am sure that it is not
everyday that witnesses come before this subcommittee not to ask for
funding, but rather to save the Federal Government millions of dollars.
As you are all well aware, the U.S. Constitution explicitly recognizes
Indian tribes as sovereign governments. Furthermore, the United States
has historically developed a legal policy based on Federal trust
responsibility towards Native Americans and Indian tribes. In 1942, the
Supreme Court held in Seminole Nation v. United States, that the
Federal Government has charged itself with moral obligations of the
highest responsibility and trust. The Congress has a unique and
important role in this process. Nevertheless, we all know that in
practice, this Federal trust responsibility has not worked as well as
it should.
There is a misperception in popular culture and, regrettably, among
some in the Congress, that Federal tribal assistance programs are
comparable to welfare. Nothing could be further from the truth. Federal
tribal assistance programs are designed and used to further assist the
Federal Government to carry out its legal and moral duty towards Indian
country--legally binding special relationship that the United States
has voluntarily created by its actions and policies.
Some tribes, like the Miccosukee Tribe, have Indian gaming. Through
Indian gaming, many Indian tribes have been able to defeat the vicious
cycle of poverty and economic stagnation. These enterprises help
achieve significant improvements in the areas of health, housing and
education. While not all Indian tribes have Indian gaming, even those
that have successful gaming businesses have been severely affected by
worldwide economic crisis.
Federal tribal assistance programs should never be considered gifts
by the Federal Government, but rather well established commitments.
Federal tribal assistance programs are simply what the word means:
assistance. This program provides much needed supplemental funds for
vital tribal programs for the young, elder and infirm, as well as for
tribal judicial systems. The proceeds from Indian gaming, even for
those gaming enterprises that are very successful, are simply not
enough to provide for all of these vital services.
We applaud subcommittee efforts to maintain and increase Federal
funding for tribal healthcare, education, social services, and other
vital programs. I urge you to take a close and hard look at these
programs and make sure that they are not de-funded or underfunded. The
incidence of Indian country poverty continues to be among the highest
of any minority group in the United States. Federal tribal assistance
programs are a critical component of the tribes' plan to achieve self-
sufficiency. Therefore, Federal tribal assistance programs must be
maintained at the current levels or increased. The Miccosukee people,
however, recognize that in this new era of fiscal responsibility and
spending restraints, there may come a time when a program needs to be
de-funded. The Miccosukee people have such program for you: a very
expensive, scientifically un-sound and arbitrary Interior Department
bridging project that will cause great harm to the Florida Everglades
and to the Miccosukee people.
everglades bridging--an environmental disaster in the making
As many of you in this subcommittee are aware, in addition to
utilizing the proceeds from Indian gaming to finance vital services for
the community, the Miccosukee Tribe and the Miccosukee people also use
these proceeds to honor and protect our sacred, religious, and
traditional stewardship of the land. We do this by supporting sound
projects that are designed to protect and save our ancestral home, the
Florida Everglades.
As the chairman of the Miccosukee Tribe, I am humbled, but at the
same time, proud to represent to you that no one in the history of the
United States has done more to protect the Florida Everglades than the
Miccosukee people. Our unwavering commitment to protect, save, restore,
and preserve the Florida Everglades is based on well-rooted historical
and religious reasons. The Florida Everglades is today, as it has been
for centuries, the home of the Miccosukee people. We have invested, and
continue to invest, our human and economic resources in making sure
that future generations of Miccosukees, Floridians, and the world will
have a clean and environmentally sound Everglades.
``We must honor the earth, from where we are made'' is not a slogan
but a central tenet of the Miccosukee people. When the Everglades hurt,
we hurt. For years our tribe has struggled to have an equal place at
the table with regards to Everglades restoration. As this subcommittee
well knows, the Miccosukee people's commitment to the protection of the
Florida Everglades is well-documented. Our commitment to Everglades
conservation is unwavering.
In 2008, the Interior Department and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
decided to build a 1 mile-long bridge at the eastern end of the Tamiami
Trial (U.S. Highway 41), which runs east to west through the Florida
Everglades and the Miccosukee Tribe, connecting Miami-Dade County and
Collier County. The price tag at the time was $81 million. The
Miccosukee Tribe immediately realized that this project was fiscally
and scientifically unsound. We filed for a declaratory and injunctive
action in Federal District Court. The judge agreed with our arguments,
labeling the project as an ``environmental bridge to nowhere''. On
November 13, 2008, the judge issued a temporary injunction against the
project and temporarily stopped further construction until all Federal
laws, rules and procedures, such as the National Environmental Policy
Act (NEPA), were complied with. Unfortunately, the Congress was
misinformed and mistakenly led to intervene the following year.
On March 11, 2009, the Congress passed the Omnibus Appropriations
Act of 2009. In this appropriations act, language was inserted that
authorized the expenditures of funds already allocated for this project
and to continue construction, ``notwithstanding any other provision of
law.'' By inserting this provision, the Congress deliberately overruled
the Federal injunction and divested the Federal courts of subject
matter jurisdiction over this important matter. This legislative
maneuver was done without any input from the Miccosukee Tribe, its
representatives or other advisors in Florida and Washington, DC. We
believe that the ``notwithstanding any other provision of law''
language used to start this bridge work violates our Constitutional
rights and goes against several existing Federal laws including NEPA;
Native American Graves Protection and Reparation Act (``NAGPRA''); the
American Indian Religious Freedom Act (``AIRFA''); and the National
Historic Preservation Act (``NHPA''), among others.
The Miccosukee Tribe can find no better example in recent
Everglades restoration history of the dangers of misguided Federal
largesse and counter-productive environmental legislation than this One
Mile Bridge. It symbolizes all that is wrong with an arbitrary
appropriation maneuver conducted without consultation with the
government and people that the legislation will affect. It is
emblematic of the what the Government Accountability Office (GAO) said
in 2007 about the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP):
there is ``little assurance'' that the CERP will be effective because
the agencies and officials are not using any overarching sequencing
criteria for the work, but rather focus on availability of funds. See
South Florida Ecosystem: Restoration Is Moving Forward but Is Facing
Significant Delays, Implementation Challenges, and Rising Costs (GAO-
07-520, May 31, 2007).
In this One Mile Bridge project, the Department of the Interior,
the NPS and the United States Corps of Engineers have, like in previous
occasions, instead of working with the Miccosukee as true partners to
save the Everglades, largely ignored our ideas. The concerns of the
Miccosukee people were ignored. Less expensive, safer and
scientifically available alternatives supported by the Miccosukee Tribe
and the former Commandant of the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers for the
region were also ignored.
In January 2010, the University of Miami released a study that
supports our position that a Culvert Approach will be just as effective
as bridging. Under the Culvert Approach, the focus will be on clearing
existing culverts, which are small tunnels or bridges under the Tamiami
Trail. Also adding additional culverts where necessary, and clearing a
large swale area south of each culvert. This will be accomplished
following the Time Sequence Plan detailed in CERP. The Culvert Approach
will save millions of dollars of taxpayers' money and will deliver the
same amount of water to the Everglades National Park as the current
proposal. In contrast to the elevated bridge approach represented by
the One Mile Bridge, or any future bridges, the cost of the Culverts
Approach will be significantly less and will potentially save the
Federal Government close to $400 million.
We have yet to receive a detailed, verifiable cost-estimate on the
One-Mile Bridge. There seems to be $60 million in the President's
current budget for Mod Waters, $8 million of which will be used for
Limited Reevaluation Report (LRR) work that specifically includes the
One-Mile Bridge. In 2009, the fiscal year 2010 omnibus included $234
million for NPS construction projects, including the One-Mile Bridge.
This subcommittee has the power to direct the Secretary of the Interior
to exercise his discretionary authority to stop construction of this
One Mile Bridge and to do the required studies. This is the right thing
to do from a scientific, fiscal, and practical perspective. With the
aforementioned in mind, no additional bridging should be authorized or
appropriated by the Congress for the Florida Everglades. We strongly
recommend using the Culverts Approach first while simultaneously
performing all the necessary studies. Thank you for allowing me this
opportunity to share the thoughts of the Miccosukee people with you.
There is much good work to be done. The Miccosukee people and I look
forward to working with you.
______
Prepared Statement of the Montana Wildlife Federation
Mr. Chairman and honorable members of the subcommittee: I
appreciate the opportunity to present this testimony in support of the
Forest Legacy Program (FLP) in the fiscal year 2012 Interior,
environment, and related agencies appropriations bill. FLP works with
landowners, the States, and other partners to protect critical
forestlands with important economic, recreation, water quality, and
habitat resources through conservation easement and fee acquisitions.
The program has protected more than 2 million acres in 43 States and
territories, consistently with a 50 percent non-Federal cost share,
double the required 25 percent cost share. For several years this
important conservation program has been funded under the umbrella of
the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF).
In an historic embrace of conservation, the President's budget
request includes full funding of LWCF in fiscal year 2012. The proposed
$900 million is the congressionally authorized amount for the program
and seeks to renew focus on the promise of the LWCF: that it is right
and wise to reinvest proceeds from offshore drilling receipts in the
protection of natural resources and recreational access for all
Americans. Of that $900 million, the President requested $135 million
for FLP.
I recognize that this subcommittee will face many demands in this
tight fiscal climate. However, far-sighted investment in FLP is one
that will permanently pay dividends to the American people and to our
great natural and historical heritage. As LWCF is funded from Outer
Continental Shelf revenues, not taxpayer dollars, these funds should go
to their intended and authorized use.
As part of the full commitment to LWCF and FLP in fiscal year 2012,
the U.S. Forest Service included $6.5 million for the Stimson
Forestland Conservation project in Montana in the President's budget. I
am pleased that this funding was included in the request and urge the
Congress to provide the full President's budget amount for FLP so that
this important project can receive this needed funding.
Montana's FLP is dedicated to maintaining working forests while
conserving and enhancing natural and public values including land,
water, wildlife, and timber resources. The State of Montana has
participated in the program since 1999 and has successfully protected
more than 173,350 acres of forestland through 15 projects across the
State. This year, Montana has identified the Stimson Forestlands
Conservation Project-lands that support remarkable public resources and
face very real development and conversion pressures--as its top--ranked
FLP.
The Stimson Forestlands Conservation Project will permanently
conserve approximately 28,000 acres of highly productive forestlands in
the lower Kootenai River watershed of northwest Montana for wildlife
and fisheries habitat protection, continued sustainable forest
management activities, water quality protection, and public recreation.
The project lands consist of various parcels stretching from the south
end of Bull Lake, north through the Lake Creek drainage to the city of
Troy, and then northwest along both sides of the Kootenai River all the
way to the Idaho border. The parcels range in size from 70 to 7,200
acres, and share more than 70 miles of common boundary with adjoining
National Forest System (NFS) lands. The landowner, Stimson Lumber
Company, has agreed to convey a conservation easement over the entire
28,000 acres to Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks if timely funding for
the purchase can be identified and secured.
The Stimson project area contains some of the best wildlife and
fisheries habitat in Montana. The area supports a wide range of
signature wildlife species including elk, mule deer, moose, gray wolf,
black bear, bighorn sheep, mountain goat, fisher, and wolverine. It
also serves as a core recovery area for the federally listed threatened
Canada lynx and bull trout and an endangered population of grizzly
bear. Grizzly bear populations south of Canada are currently listed as
``threatened'' under the Endangered Species Act, except for the
Cabinet/Yaak population, which is listed as ``endangered''. The Stimson
project area represents the largest block of privately owned land in
the Cabinet-Yaak recovery zone and includes four grizzly bear linkage
zones identified by the FWS as critical to the survival of this
population of bears.
Native fish species on the property include westslope cutthroat
trout, interior redband rainbow trout, and a remnant population of
white sturgeon. Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks has identified almost
10 miles of ``outstanding'' bull trout habitat and just more than 4
miles of ``substantial'' westslope cutthroat trout habitat on the
Stimson project lands alone. Further, the interior redbands in this
area represent Montana's only native rainbow trout population.
Importantly, Trout Unlimited scientists have reviewed the coldwater
habitat areas on this property for future security from climate change
impacts, and consider much of the project area to be on the breaking
point between serving as climate refugia for westslope cutthroat and
bull trout versus being lost as effective habitat. The property
contains some areas of core refugia, but climate-driven threats from
elevated winter flooding are high. The proposed conservation easement
will enhance opportunities for needed restoration activities that will
improve overall watershed health and function, and thereby increase the
resilience of this area to climate change.
The area also supports a wide range of wetlands and forest-
dependent birds, many of which are listed as priority species in the
Montana Partners In Flight Bird Conservation Plan, including bald
eagle, peregrine falcon, trumpeter swan, and flammulated owl.
The entire Kootenai drainage is widely regarded as one of the best
timber growing regions in Montana. With its modified Pacific maritime
climate and abundant rain and snowfall, the region grows trees faster
and in greater volume than almost any other place in the State. By
keeping 28,000 acres in active forest management, the Stimson project
will help to support the timber industry and forest products
infrastructure in Montana (and nearby north Idaho) while prohibiting
subdivision and development activities that would further fragment the
forest landscape. Recent trends in Lincoln County indicate that the
Stimson-owned lands near Bull Lake and in the Lake Creek and Kootenai
River corridors would be highly susceptible to development if they were
ever sold off. The proposed conservation easement would permanently
remove this risk and prevent habitat fragmentation and fire management
costs resulting from increased development within and expansion of the
wildland-urban interface.
Outdoor recreation opportunities in the Stimson project area
abound. Hunting and angling are favorite activities given the area's
superb fisheries and wildlife values. Deer and elk hunting alone
generate approximately 31,000 hunter days per year in the area,
contributing an estimated $600,000 to the local economy. The area's
healthy populations of black bear, mountain goat, moose, mountain lion,
diverse upland game birds, and its robust trout fisheries make it a
popular destination for other sportsmen as well. Hiking, mountain
biking, camping, skiing, snowmobiling, ATV use, floating, wildlife
viewing, horse-back riding, and other outdoor recreational pursuits are
also very popular. The Kootenai River, which is today eligible for wild
and scenic designation, flows through the Stimson project lands for
almost 20 miles as it cascades down from the famous Kootenai Falls.
Highway 2 follows the river through rugged canyons all the way to the
Idaho border and is truly one of the most scenic routes in the State.
Recreational activities not only provide enjoyment for residents and
visitors but also contribute significantly to the local economy,
allowing local outfitters, guides, and other outdoor recreation
businesses to thrive and prosper. Making the Stimson project lands
permanently accessible to the general public will enhance local
recreational opportunities and improve access to thousands of acres of
adjoining NFS lands.
The total cost for the overall 28,000-acre Stimson Forestlands
Protection Project is estimated to be $16 million. An allocation of
$6.5 million from FLP is needed in fiscal year 2012 and would be
matched with a 25 percent in-kind contribution from Stimson in the form
of donated easement value. Additional funding is being sought from the
Federal Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) Land Acquisition Program; the
Bonneville Power Administration (BPA); and possibly the National Fish
and Wildlife Foundation (NFWF). Successfully protecting the Stimson
project lands will conserve critical habitat and scenery, while greatly
enhancing public access and recreational opportunities in this
exceptional natural resource area.
I want to thank the chairman and the members of the subcommittee
for this opportunity to testify on behalf of this nationally important
protection effort in Montana, and I appreciate your consideration of
this funding request.
______
Prepared Statement of Morey Zuber
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee: We have volunteered
at four different National Wildlife Refuges during the last 2 years and
are scheduled to volunteer at two more in 2011. These hours are not
paid and allow us to give back to our beautiful country's wildlife and
habitat. There are many areas of the budget, especially defense, where
you can eliminate waste and maintain your support for this area of the
economy, which will benefit us here at home. We respectfully request
that you consider the following in your appropriations:
--Increase the funding levels for the National Wildlife Refuge System
(NWRS) by $8 million more than the fiscal year 2010 funding
levels bringing the funding to $511 million for fiscal year
2012.
--Fully fund the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) at $900
million.
--Fund the State Wildlife Grants (SWG) program at $95 million for
fiscal year 2012.
--Fund the North American Wetlands Conservation Act (NAWCA) grants at
$50 million for fiscal year 2012.
NWRS needs a budget of at least $900 million annually in operation
and maintenance funding in order to properly administer its 150 million
acres as mandated in the Refuge Improvement Act. The current budget is
far short of the amount actually required to effectively operate and
maintain the Refuges. An $8 million increase more than fiscal year 2010
levels for the fiscal year 2012 appropriation will allow the refuges to
maintain status quo without drastic cuts. This is a reduced amount from
the $15 million minimum increase each year that the NWRS actually
requires just for management capabilities. In this time of tight
budgets, we feel that an $8 million increase to $511 would be
appropriate and appreciated.
The LWCF was created in 1965 and authorized at $900 million. These
funds are used for land acquisition to protect wildlife and their
habitats. With the effects of a changing climate, it is more important
now than ever to establish key wildlife corridors between protected
areas so wildlife can migrate to more suitable habitat as their
historic ones changes. The price of real estate is low at this time and
the $900 million can go much further in protecting habitats than it can
in a higher market. When we start to lose species due to lack of food,
water, shelter, or space, we are changing the balance of nature. We
urge you to pass legislation to permanently fund the LWCF at $900
million per year as it was originally authorized.
Through partnerships including SWGs the Fish and Wildlife Service
(FWS) is able to work together with the States to protect wildlife.
This increases the amount of protection that can be afforded to
wildlife. By increasing the SWG program to $95 million, you are helping
fulfill the responsibility to keep our wildlife from becoming
endangered or extinct.
NAWCA grants will also help create space, clean water, food, and
shelter for wildlife by acquiring and restoring critical wetlands.
Funding of this program at $50 million in fiscal year 2012 will create
additional habitat for wildlife. This partnership through acquisition
and restoration of critical wetlands also improves water quality and
carbon sequestration.
In conclusion, we, as full time volunteers, believe the NWRS can
meet its important conservation objectives only with strong and
consistent funding leveraged by the valuable work of refuge staff and
volunteers. We again extend our appreciation to the subcommittee for
its ongoing commitment to our NWRS. We encourage you to approve a $511
million for the fiscal year 2012 NWRS operations and maintenance budget
managed by FWS and to approve $900 millions for fiscal year 2011 for
LWCF land acquisition budget as well as funding the SWG program at $95
million and NAWCA grants at $50 million.
______
Prepared Statement of the National Association of Abandoned Mine Land
Programs
My name is Michael Garner and I am director of Maryland's Abandoned
Mine Land program. I also serve as president of the National
Association of Abandoned Mine Land Programs (NAAMLP). NAAMLP represents
30 States and tribes with federally approved abandoned mine land
reclamation (AML) programs authorized under title IV of the Surface
Mining Control and Reclamation Act (SMCRA). Title IV of SMCRA was
amended in 2006 and significantly changed how State AML grants are
funded. State AML grants are still based on receipts from a fee on coal
production, but beginning in fiscal year 2008, the grants are funded
primarily by mandatory appropriations. As a result, the States should
receive $498 million in fiscal year 2012. We adamantly oppose the
Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement's (OSM) proposed
budget amount of $313.8 million for State AML grants, a reduction of
$184.2 million, and reject the notion that a competitive grant process
would improve AML program efficiency. The proposed spending cuts would
eliminate funding to States and tribes that have ``certified''
completion of their highest-priority coal reclamation sites. OSM has
also proposed a $6.8 million reduction in discretionary spending that
would eliminate the Federal emergency program under section 410 of
SMCRA. I appreciate the opportunity to testify before the subcommittee
and outline some of the reasons why NAAMLP opposes OSM's proposed
fiscal year 2012 budget.
SMCRA was passed in 1977 and set national regulatory and
reclamation standards for coal mining. The act also established a
reclamation fund to work toward eliminating the innumerable health,
safety and environmental problems that exist throughout the Nation from
the mines that were abandoned prior to the act. The Fund generates
revenue through a fee on current coal production. This fee is collected
by OSM and distributed to States and tribes that have federally
approved regulatory and AML programs. The promise the Congress made in
1977, and with every subsequent amendment to the act, was that, at a
minimum, half the money generated from fees collected by OSM on coal
mined within the boundaries of a State or tribe, referred to as ``State
Share'', would be returned for uses described in title IV of the act if
the State or tribe assumed responsibility for regulating active coal
mining operations pursuant to title V of SMCRA. The 2006 amendments
clarified the scope of what the State share funds could be used for and
reaffirmed the promise made by the Congress in 1977.
If a State or tribe was successful in completing reclamation of
abandoned coal mines and was able to ``certify'' under section 411 of
SMCRA, then the State share funds could be used to address a myriad of
other abandoned mine issues as defined under each State or tribes
approved Abandoned Mine Reclamation Plan. These Abandoned Mine
Reclamation Plans are approved by OSM and they ensures that the work is
in accordance with the intent of SMCRA. Like all abandoned mine
reclamation, the work of certified States and tribes eliminates health
and safety problems, cleans up the environment, and creates jobs in
rural areas impacted by mining.
This reduction proposed by OSM in certified State and tribal AML
grants not only breaks the promise of State and tribal share funding,
but upsets the balance and compromise that was achieved in the
comprehensive restructuring of SMCRA accomplished in the 2006
amendments following more than 10 years of discussion and negotiation
by all affected parties. The funding reduction is inconsistent with the
administration's stated goals regarding jobs and environmental
protection. We therefore respectfully ask the subcommittee to continue
the funding for certified States and tribes at the statutory authorized
levels and turn back any efforts to amend SMCRA in this regard.
In addition to the $184.2 million reduction, the proposed fiscal
year 2012 budget would terminate the Federal AML emergency program,
leaving the States and tribes to rely on funds received through their
nonemergency AML grant funds. This contradicts the 2006 amendments,
which require the States and tribes to maintain ``strict compliance''
with the nonemergency funding priorities described in section 403(a),
while leaving section 410, Emergency Powers, unchanged. Section 410 of
SMCRA requires OSM to fund the emergency AML program using OSM's
``discretionary share'' under section (402)(g)(3)(B), which is entirely
separate from State and tribal nonemergency AML grant funding under
sections (402)(g)(1), (g)(2), and (g)(5). SMCRA does not allow States
and tribes to administer or fund an AML emergency program from their
nonemergency AML grants, although, since 1989, 15 States have agreed to
implement the emergency program on behalf of OSM contingent upon OSM
providing full funding for the work. As a result, OSM has been able to
fulfill their mandated obligation more cost effectively and
efficiently. Ten States and 3 tribes continue to rely solely on OSM to
operate the emergency program within their jurisdiction.
Regardless of whether a State/tribe or OSM operates the emergency
program, only OSM has the authority to ``declare'' the emergency and
clear the way for the expedited procedures to be implemented. In fiscal
year 2010, OSM made 153 emergency declarations in Kentucky and
Pennsylvania alone, States where OSM had operated the emergency
program. In fiscal year 2011, OSM issued guidance to the States that
the agency ``will no longer declare emergencies''. OSM provided no
legal or statutory support for its position. Instead, OSM has
``transitioned'' responsibility for emergencies to the States and
tribes with the expectation that they will utilize nonemergency AML
funding to address them. OSM will simply ``assist the States and tribes
with the projects, as needed''. Of course, given that OSM has proposed
to eliminate all funding for certified States and tribes, it begs the
question of how and to what extent OSM will continue to assist these
States and tribes.
If the Congress allows the elimination of the emergency program,
States and tribes will have to adjust to their new role by setting
aside a large portion of their nonemergency AML funds so that they can
be prepared for any emergency that may arise. Emergency projects come
in all shapes and sizes, vary in number from year to year and range in
cost from thousands of dollars to millions of dollars. Requiring States
and tribes to fund emergencies will result in funds being diverted from
other high-priority projects and delay certification under section 411,
thereby increasing the backlog of projects on the Abandoned Mine Land
Inventory System. For minimum program States and States with small AML
programs, large emergency projects will require the States to redirect
all or most of their AML resources to address the emergency, thereby
delaying other high-priority reclamation. With the loss of stable
emergency program funding, minimum program States will have a
difficult, if not impossible, time planning, budgeting, and prosecuting
the abatement of their high-priority AML problems. In a worst-case
scenario, a minimum program State would not be able to address a costly
emergency in a timely fashion and would have to ``save up'' multiple
years of funding before even initiating the work to abate the
emergency, in the meantime ignoring all other high-priority work.
OSM's proposed budget suggests addressing emergencies, and all
other projects, as part of a competitive grant process whereby States
and tribes compete for funding based on the findings of the proposed
AML Advisory Council. OSM believes that a competitive grant process
would concentrate funds on the highest-priority projects. While a
competitive grant process may seem to make sense at first blush,
further reflection reveals that the entire premise is faulty and can
only undermine and upend the deliberate funding mechanism established
by the Congress in the 2006 amendments. Since the inception of SMCRA,
high-priority problems have always taken precedence over other
projects. The focus on high priorities was further clarified in the
2006 amendments by removing the lower-priority problems from the act
and requiring ``strict compliance'' with high-priority funding
requirements. OSM already approves projects as meeting the definition
of high priority under its current review process and therefore an AML
Advisory Council would only add redundancy and bureaucracy instead of
improving efficiency.
We have not been privy to the particulars of OSM's legislative
proposal, but there are a myriad of potential problems and implications
for the entire AML program based on a cursory understanding of what OSM
has in mind. They include the following:
--Has anyone alleged or confirmed that the States/tribes are not
already addressing the highest-priority sites? Where have the
2006 amendments faltered in terms of high-priority sites being
addressed as envisioned by the Congress? What would remain
unchanged in the 2006 amendments under OSM's proposal?
--If the current AML funding formula is scrapped, what amount will be
paid out to the noncertified AML States and tribes over the
remainder of the program? What does OSM mean by the term
``remaining funds'' in its proposal? Is it only the AML fees
yet to be collected? What happens to the historic share
balances in the Fund, including those that were supposed to be
re-directed to the Fund based on an equivalent amount of
funding being paid to certified States and tribes each year?
Would the ``remaining funds'' include the unappropriated/prior
balance amounts that have not yet been paid out over the 7-year
installment period?
--Will this new competitive grant process introduce an additional
level of bureaucracy and result in more funds being spent
formulating proposals and less on actual AML reclamation? The
present funding formula allows States and tribes to undertake
long-term strategic planning and efficiently use available
funds.
--How long will OSM fund a State's/tribe's administrative costs if it
does not successfully compete for a construction grant, even
though the State/tribe has eligible high-priority projects? How
will OSM calculate administrative grant funding levels,
especially since salaries and benefits for AML project managers
and inspectors predominantly derive from construction funds?
Would funding cover current staffing levels? If not, how will
OSM determine the funding criteria for administrative program
grants?
--How does OSM expect the States and tribes to handle emergency
projects under the legislative proposal? Must these projects
undergo review by the Advisory Council? Will there be special,
expedited procedures? If a State/tribe has to cut back on
staff, how does it manage emergencies when they arise? If
emergency programs do compete for AML funds, considerable time
and effort could be spent preparing these projects for review
by the Advisory Council rather than abating the immediate
hazard. Again, how can we be assured that emergencies will be
addressed expeditiously?
--One of the greatest benefits of reauthorization under the 2006
amendments to SMCRA was the predictability of funding levels
through the end of the AML program. Because State and tribes
were provided with hypothetical funding levels from OSM (which
to date have proven to be quite accurate), long-term project
planning, along with the establishment of appropriate staffing
levels and project assignments, could be made accurately and
efficiently. How can States/tribes plan for future projects
given the inherent uncertainty associated with having to
annually bid for AML funds?
Given these uncertainties and the negative implications for the
accomplishment of AML work under title IV of SMCRA, the Congress should
reject the proposed amendments to SMCRA as being counterproductive to
the purposes of SMCRA and an inefficient use of funds. We request that
the Congress continue mandatory funding for certified States and tribes
and provide funding for AML emergencies. A resolution to this effect
adopted by the NAAMLP at its recent winter meeting is attached, as is a
more comprehensive list of questions concerning the legislative
proposal. We ask that they be included in the record of the hearing.
One of the more effective mechanisms for accomplishing AML
restoration work is through leveraging or matching other grant
programs, such as the Environmental Protection Agency'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 an ongoing, and often expensive, problem, especially in
Appalachia. NAAMLP therefore requests the subcommittee to once again
include language in the fiscal year 2012 appropriations bill that would
allow the use of AML funds for any required non-Federal cost-share
required by the Federal Government for AMD treatment or abatement.
We also urge the subcommittee to support funding for OSM's training
program and TIPS, including moneys for State/tribal travel. These
programs are central to the effective implementation of State and
tribal AML programs, as they provide necessary training and continuing
education for State/tribal agency personnel, as well as critical
technical assistance. Finally, we support funding for the Watershed
Cooperative Agreements in the amount of $1.55 million because it
facilitates and enhances State and local partnerships by providing
direct financial assistance to watershed organizations for acid mine
drainage remediation.
______
Prepared Statement of the National Association of Clean Air Agencies
The National Association of Clean Air Agencies (NACAA), an
association of air pollution control agencies in 51 States and
territories and more than 165 metropolitan areas across the country who
have the primary responsibility under the Clean Air Act (CAA) for
implementing our Nation's clean air program, appreciates this
opportunity to provide testimony on the fiscal year 2012 proposed
budget for the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The
NACAA supports the President's request for a $78.9 million increase
more than fiscal year 2010 levels in Federal grants for State and local
air pollution control agencies under sections 103 and 105 of the CAA--
part of the State and Tribal Assistance Grant (STAG) program. This
would raise to $305.5 million the total amount of section 103/105 air
grants to State and local air agencies.
air pollution threatens public health
Simply put, air pollution kills people. In the United States,
exposure to dirty air causes tens of thousands of premature deaths each
year and results in serious health problems, such as the aggravation of
respiratory and cardiovascular diseases; difficulty breathing;
increased susceptibility to respiratory infections; adverse effects on
learning, memory, IQ, and behavior; and cancer. Air pollution also
harms vegetation and land and water systems, impairs visibility and
causes other adverse impacts.
There are few places, if any, where one can escape dirty air in
this country. According to the EPA, approximately 127 million people
lived in counties that exceeded at least one of the health-based
National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) in 2008.\1\ With a new
health-based standard for ozone, this number will likely be higher.
With respect to hazardous air pollutants, or ``air toxics'', the EPA
data show that everyone in the United States has an increased cancer
risk of more than 10 in 1 million (1 in 1 million is generally
considered ``acceptable'').\2\ We doubt this subcommittee addresses any
other issues that cause more preventable deaths each year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Our Nation's Air: Status and Trends Through 2008 (February
2010), EPA, www.epa.gov/airtrends/2010/.
\2\ National Air Toxics Assessment for 2005--Fact Sheet,
www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/nata2005/05pdf/sum_results.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
substantial funding increases for state and local air quality programs
are essential
State and local air quality agencies have been faced with
insufficient budgets for many years. Section 105 of the CAA authorizes
the Federal Government to provide grants for up to 60 percent of the
cost of State and local air programs, while States and localities must
provide a 40 percent match. But the truth is that State and local air
programs, on average, supply 77 percent of their budgets (not counting
permit fees under the Federal title V program), while Federal grants
equal only 23 percent. State and local agencies provide far more than
their fair share of the funding. The graph below illustrates this
funding disparity.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Due to the budget crisis, State and local governments are
increasingly strapped for resources and finding it ever more difficult
to carry the Federal Government's share of the funding responsibility.
According to data from the Environmental Council of the States (ECOS),
State environmental budgets are declining significantly, decreasing
11.6 percent from fiscal year 2009 to fiscal year 2011.\3\ From a
survey of 37 States, ECOS found that 2,112 environmental agency
positions have been eliminated or held vacant due to budget limitations
in fiscal year 2010.\4\ Because of the continuing adverse impact of the
recession on States and localities, air agencies will continue to make
more painful decisions, such as reducing or cutting air programs that
protect public health.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ ECOS Green Report--Status of State Environmental Agency Budget,
2009-2011 (August 2010), Environmental Council of the States, http://
ecos.org/files/4157_file_August_2010_Green_Report.pdf.
\4\ ECOS Green Report--Impacts of Reductions in FY 2010 on State
Environmental Agency Budgets (March 2010), Environmental Council of the
States, http://ecos.org/files/
4011_file_March_2010_ECOS_Green_Report.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As a result of these funding woes, States and localities must
increasingly rely on Federal contributions. Unfortunately, Federal
grants to State and local air agencies (as the graph shows) have been
relatively stagnant and the purchasing power has actually decreased due
to inflation. In fact, Federal grants decreased by nearly 10 percent in
purchasing power between fiscal year 2000 and fiscal year 2010. At the
same time, the responsibilities air agencies face have increased
dramatically.
A 2009 NACAA funding study showed that there is an annual shortfall
of $550 million in Federal grants for State and local air programs.\5\
While the proposed increase would not solve all our funding problems,
it would be very helpful in our efforts to obtain and maintain
healthful air quality. Because State and local agencies already provide
77 percent of their budgets, meeting the 40 percent match associated
with this increase nationally should not be a problem.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Investing in Clean Air and Public Health: A Needs Survey of
State and Local Air Pollution Control Agencies, (April 2009), NACAA,
http://www.4cleanair.org/Documents/Reportneeds survey042709.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We recognize that the Congress must choose among many worthy
programs in determining how to appropriate scarce resources. But we
also note that air quality programs are extremely cost effective and
improvements in public health advance the health of our economy. Fewer
sick days, less spending for healthcare costs and a healthier and more
productive workforce have great economic benefits. An EPA analysis from
March 2011 shows that the benefits of the CAA since 1990 have exceeded
the cost by more than 30 to 1.\6\ This is a substantial return on our
investment. Additionally, a University of Massachusetts/Ceres study
showed that upcoming CAA rules will create almost 1.5 million new
jobs.\7\ The additional grants will also stimulate the economy by
creating new jobs within air quality agencies across the country. While
not all grants will be used for personnel, they could fund up to 700
new jobs, averaging 14 per State. Finally, well-funded and well-run air
agencies are better able to serve the community, including through more
effective permitting and compliance assistance. These services help
fuel the recovery of our local economies. Considering this and the fact
that the public's health and welfare are at stake, we simply cannot
afford to underfund these important programs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ The Benefits and Costs of the Clean Air Act Amendments from
1990 to 2020 (March 1, 2011), EPA, http://www.epa.gov/air/sect812/
feb11/summaryreport.pdf.
\7\ New Jobs--Cleaner Air: Employment Effects under Planned Changes
to the EPA's Air Pollution Rules (February 2011), Ceres and the
Political Economy Research Institute of the University of
Massachusetts, Amherst, http://www.peri.umass.edu/fileadmin/pdf/
other_publication_ types/green_economics/CERES_PERI_Feb11.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
the administration's request includes increases for essential programs
The President's proposed budget includes increases over fiscal year
2010 levels in four primary areas: core activities, increasing capacity
for greenhouse gas permitting, monitoring, and support for the
greenhouse gas reporting rule. These are all extremely important
efforts in need of increased financial support.
Core Activities ($37.4 million).--The President's request
rightfully recognizes the importance of State and local air agencies'
core programs by calling for additional grant funds to support them.
Without a doubt, new and innovative efforts are necessary, but ongoing
core programs are critical as well, including the day-to-day activities
that are the foundation of our programs. The additional funds will
support continuing program responsibilities and the increased workload
that State and local air agencies face as the EPA updates its health-
based NAAQS. Agencies must update or prepare new State Implementation
Plans (SIPs) for ozone, nitrogen dioxide (NO2), sulfur
dioxide (SO2), lead and fine particulates. For example, SIPs
for the 2006 PM2.5 standard are due in December 2012, for
the new lead standard in late 2011, 2012 and 2013, and for the new
SO2 and NO2 standards in 2013 and 2014. State and
local agencies must develop these plans, which require complex tasks,
such as compiling emission inventories, carrying out sophisticated
modeling, significantly expanding and operating monitoring networks,
adopting and enforcing regulations and addressing multi-pollutant and
multi-State transport issues, among other things.
Increasing Capacity for Greenhouse Gas Permitting ($25 million).--
State and local agencies must continue to expand their capacity to
issue greenhouse gas (GHG) permits for new and modified sources under
the ``Prevention of Significant Deterioration'' Program and title V
operating permits for existing sources. The increase would be used as
States take on these tasks by supporting staff development and
training, program planning and analysis, source identification,
outreach to industry and responding to the public.
Support for the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule ($1.5 million).--The
President's proposed budget includes funding to assist State and local
agencies in the collection, review, analysis, and use of greenhouse gas
registry emissions data and linking State-based reporting systems to
the EPA's new system.
Monitoring ($15 million).--State and local agencies must increase
monitoring activities to address new and revised standards for ozone,
lead, NO2, and SO2. Additionally, more monitoring
of hazardous air pollution is needed in locations where the public
lives, works, attends school, and carries out daily activities. These
efforts require purchasing additional ambient air monitoring equipment
that provides essential information about the levels of pollutants in
the air, and later, the success of control measures. While the
President's request for increased grants to acquire new monitoring
equipment in fiscal year 2012 is not sufficient to address all the
additional monitoring needs, it will be very helpful as State and local
agencies expand their monitoring capabilities to address the new and
revised standards and hazardous air pollutants. The increases are
especially critical since they were needed in fiscal year 2011 but have
not been appropriated, putting State and local agencies behind in their
schedules for acquiring and deploying this equipment.
The EPA is once again recommending that fine particulate monitoring
funds be shifted from section 103 authority, where no match is needed,
to section 105, which would require additional matching funds. We
request that these funds remain under section 103 authority, as they
have in the past, rather than the EPA beginning a phased-in shift of
these funds to section 105 authority. For individual agencies that have
concerns about the matching requirements, this will ensure that they
can continue receiving these monitoring funds.
diesel retrofit funding should be restored
The NACAA is a member of a broad coalition representing public-
interest, environmental, business and governmental organizations, among
others, supporting funds for diesel retrofits. The coalition is
disappointed that the President did not request grant funds authorized
by the Diesel Emissions Reduction Act (DERA). The DERA programs have a
successful record of substantially decreasing harmful particle
pollution from diesel exhaust. We ask that the Congress provide $50
million in fiscal year 2012 for the DERA funding. Of course, funding
for the DERA should supplement, and not come at the expense of, State
and local air agency grants.
conclusion
The President's budget request calls for essential increases in
grants for State and local air quality programs at a time when these
agencies must handle both continuing and significant new
responsibilities. While the proposed increases would not fully address
the enormous deficit that these programs face, they would provide
additional support when it is desperately needed.
The NACAA recommends, therefore, that the Congress appropriate the
President's fiscal year 2012 request for Federal grants to State and
local air quality agencies under sections 103 and 105 of the CAA, which
is $305.5 million ($78.9 million above fiscal year 2010 levels).
Additionally, the NACAA recommends that the DERA programs be funded in
the amount of $50 million.
Thank you for this opportunity to testify and for considering the
efforts of State and local air quality programs as they improve and
protect public health.
______
Prepared Statement of the National Assembly of State Arts Agencies
The National Assembly of State Arts Agencies (NASAA), representing
the State and special jurisdictional government arts agencies, is
pleased to submit testimony in support of funding at $167.5 million for
the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) in fiscal year 2012. The
President's budget request would reduce current NEA support to $146.255
million in 2012. Funding the NEA at $167.5 million would hold the
agency at its 2010 level and would provide support to help sustain a
healthy nonprofit arts sector contributing to communities nationwide.
Appropriations Request.--We are encouraged that the Congress has
voted in recent years for incremental increases in funding for the NEA.
We urge the Congress to maintain those gains at $167.5 million for the
NEA in the fiscal year 2012 Interior, environment, and related agencies
appropriations bill to continue the critical level of funds to the
State arts agencies, working with the NEA to extend the reach of
Federal arts dollars and broaden public access to the arts in every
State, translating national leadership into local benefit.
the federal-state partnership
It is through State arts agencies that the NEA is able to reach
beyond its own direct grants into communities throughout the Nation.
The NEA funds granted to State arts agencies ensure that every State
receives a significant share of Federal arts support. By statute, the
NEA allocates 40 percent of its annual grant making dollars to State
arts agencies. These Federal funds combine with State legislative
appropriations and other dollars to ensure that Federal funding reaches
far, broadening access to the arts for communities throughout the State
and strengthening the State's arts infrastructure.
States help the NEA achieve its own goals, especially in arts
education, reaching underserved constituencies, strengthening the
cultural infrastructure, and preserving America's cultural heritage.
Proposals in the administration's 2012 budget request, discussed
below, include a disregard for the congressional mandate that the NEA
allocate 40 percent of program funds to the State and regional arts
agencies. This departure from the mandate poses negative financial
consequences for the States and compromises the capacity of State arts
agencies to fulfill the Federal mission.
State arts agencies work to address the objectives of the NEA and
help Government to achieve broad public policy goals, such as promoting
education excellence, expanding access to the arts, stimulating
economic growth and strengthening communities. State arts agencies use
Federal funds to increase access to the arts and support the arts
programs and artists in their communities, greatly extending the NEA's
reach and benefits.
The funding from State arts agencies reaches broader and deeper
than the NEA direct program grants, greatly enhancing the impact and
effectiveness of the Federal arts funding. Each year in partnership
with the NEA, State arts agencies support more than 22,000 projects,
almost 10 times the number of grants awarded directly by the NEA. Funds
go to 17,500 organizations, schools, and artists in nearly 5,000
communities across the United States, and in every congressional
district. State arts agencies will manage $346 million in Federal,
State, and other funds for distribution in 2011.
Communities across the Nation benefit deeply from this Federal-
State relationship. Combined Federal and State funds--distributed
through State arts agency grants and services--bring the benefits of
the arts to many more communities than the NEA is able to reach
directly. State arts agencies fund the arts in small towns and rural
communities untouched by direct NEA grants, enabling arts organizations
and programs in those communities to receive the benefits of public
support otherwise unavailable to them.
State Arts Agency Grant Making.--Through services and grant making,
State arts agencies, enabled by Federal dollars, increase citizen
access to the arts and help each State to recognize, cultivate, and
promote its unique creative assets. State arts agency grant
requirements encourage local investment in the arts. Applicants match--
and usually exceed--the funds granted by the State with funds from
local government, the private sector, or earned-income activities.
Arts in Education.--Supporting lifelong learning in the arts, with
assistance from the NEA, is a top priority for State arts agencies.
State arts agencies invest more than $74 million in arts education
grants to more than 2,800 communities. More than one-third of all State
arts agency grants (about 8,500 grants) have a significant arts
education component. These grants support a wide range of activities,
including performances, exhibitions, residencies (both school and
nonschool), instruction, and curriculum development. Other types of
grants--unique to State government--support the design of assessment
and evaluation tools and fund professional development programs. State
arts agencies also support after-school/out-of-school arts programs,
early childhood arts learning, the arts in higher education, and many
programs that teach the arts to adults and seniors. In 2010, State arts
agencies awarded more than 8,900 grants in arts education, compared
with 255 direct grants from the NEA.
Access to the Arts.--State arts agencies use their funds to broaden
and diversify participation in a wider variety of art forms through
support for touring and presentation of more than 7,000 exhibits and
performances within their States. Public arts spending is especially
important, for example, in rural areas which are often artistically
underserved due to geographic and economic isolation. In 2009, State
arts agencies invested more than $32 million in programs to widen the
availability of the arts. With 16 percent of the U.S. population
residing in rural, nonmetropolitan areas, State arts agencies award 24
percent of grants to these areas; the NEA awards 7 percent of its
grants outside of metropolitan areas.
support for local arts agencies
Local arts agencies--nonprofit organizations and municipal or
county governmental agencies--are important State arts agency partners.
State arts agencies invest more than $39 million--14 percent of all
State arts agency grant dollars--in local arts agencies. About one-
third of the dollars awarded to local arts agencies by State arts
agencies is operating support--flexible dollars that can be used to
support community arts activities and operations in accordance with
local needs and circumstances.
Supporting the Cultural Infrastructure.--Public spending on the
arts is a good investment in the economic growth of every community.
State arts agencies recognize that cultural development is a vital part
of economic development strategies, attracting businesses and new
residents and generating jobs.
Individual Artists.--State arts agencies recognize the vital role
that professional artists and traditional artists have in their
communities, and the importance of supporting the creativity of
individual artists in their States. Through fellowship grants and
residencies, State arts agencies help artists further their work,
encourage the excellence of individual artists in their States, promote
and showcase the artistic creations of their artists, and acknowledge
the diversity of cultural and artistic expression throughout their
States.
Cultural Heritage Preservation.--State arts agencies help to
document and preserve cultural heritage by investing more than $7
million in 2009 in the preservation of cultural traditions to support
the work of master folk artists and folklorists; apprenticeships in the
traditional arts; and supporting festivals, online sites, and heritage
trails. In 2010, the States awarded 1,326 grants for heritage and
traditional arts, compared with 142 directly awarded from the NEA.
2012 Budget Request: Implications for State Arts Agencies.--The NEA
has proposed in the President's 2012 budget a number of changes that
we, the NASAA and our member State agencies, consider ill-advised.
These changes directly affect the work of State arts agencies in every
State and jurisdiction. It is through State arts agencies that the NEA
is able to reach beyond its own direct grants into communities
throughout the Nation. Any action that hampers the capacity of State
arts agencies should be examined in cooperation with the field.
Allocation of Program Funds to States.--The NEA budget requests $5
million for the Our Town initiative to be funded in 2012 in a new
category not considered part of program funds. In 2011, funding for Our
Town at $5 million is included in the total amount of program funding.
The proposal to exempt Our Town funding from the State allocation
violates the current policy that was established consistent with
congressional directives to allocate 40 percent of program funds to the
State arts agencies. This budgetary shift in funding effectively
reduces support to State arts agencies by $2 million. This shift from
established policy is inconsistent with the NEA's own stated budget
priority that ``State funding will be adjusted commensurate with the
overall program reduction.'' It is through State arts agencies that the
NEA is able to reach beyond its own direct grants into communities
throughout the Nation. The NASAA urges the Congress to include any
funding for Our Town with program funds for allocation of the full 40
percent share of program funds to State arts agencies.
Matching Requirements.--The NEA is seeking statutory clarification
regarding the allowed matching requirements of State arts agencies. The
administration's intention is to ``clarify that match must come from
funds controlled and managed by the State and that funds from third
parties not directly controlled and managed by the State are not
eligible (such as subgrant match.)'' The proposed clarifying language
would allow States to match with such funds as appropriated funds,
donated funds, and trust funds. Clarification of matching requirements
is desirable, provided some flexibility is provided to States during
the short term. The NASAA requests that the Congress require the NEA to
consult with the NASAA and the State arts agencies about how to craft
this language for the appropriate identification of eligible matching
funds.
Match Waivers.--The administration's 2012 budget document seeks
permission from the Congress to develop criteria on the ``waive-of-
match'' provision for States and regions. The administration explains
that while States may seek a waiver authority, it does not appear to be
the intent of the NEA's authorizing legislation ``to allow waiver of
match in perpetuity,'' and guidance is desirable as to the
circumstances around the ability of States and regions to seek a waiver
of match. Again, the NASAA requests that the Congress require the NEA
to consult with the NASAA and the State arts agencies about how to
develop these criteria for waiver of matching funds.
Poetry Out Loud!.--The NEA proposes to reduce funding to Poetry Out
Loud!--the national poetry recitation contest. The program was
initiated by the NEA and made a national competition with cooperation
of State arts agencies. Poetry Out Loud! is worthy of maintaining at
its current budget level. The NEA should first seek other sponsors for
this event before considering any reductions to State arts agencies. If
any reduction is to be made, Poetry Out Loud! grants to States should
not be reduced by a percentage greater than the overall agency cut to
program funds.
Arts in Education.--Similarly, the NEA is proposing to reduce its
support to State arts agencies for arts in education. Prior to the cuts
in the NEA budget in the 1990s, the NEA invested an amount of $5
million for arts education. This amount has been reduced over the years
to an amount of $1.7 million in fiscal year 2010. Any reduction taken
in support to the States for arts in education should be no greater
than proportional to funding cuts taken in other NEA programs.
Heritage and Jazz Awards.--The NEA proposes to replace national
honors in Jazz and Folk/Traditional Arts with combined awards that
address all art forms. The NASAA supports the position to maintain the
National Heritage Awards and the Jazz Masters Awards. These singular
awards are vitally important to promoting the continued health of these
efforts, which are typically outside the mainstream of the arts. Many
State arts agencies consider their folk and traditional arts programs
to be among their highest priorities. Jazz has been called America's
classical music and is arguably Americas' most important original
contribution to the arts.
______
Prepared Statement of the National Association of State Energy
Officials
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I am Phil Giudice of
Massachusetts, and Chair of the National Association of State Energy
Officials (NASEO). The NASEO represents the energy offices in the
United States, its territories, and the District of Columbia. The 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). The
NASEO supports funding of at least $55 million, including specific
report language directing that the funds be utilized only for the
ENERGY STAR program. The ENERGY STAR program is voluntary, successful
and cost-effective. 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 business to achieve these
goals in a cooperative manner. The NASEO has worked very closely with
the EPA and more than 40 States are ENERGY STAR partners. In 2005, the
EPA and the NASEO announced a State partnership program, which has many
State members. We are also working closely with the EPA on home
performance with ENERGY STAR. With very limited funding, the 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 the
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 14,000
voluntary partners including more than 2,000 manufacturers using the
label, more than 1,000 retail partners, more than 5,000 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. We are
also working closely with the 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
the EPA and in our States to promote programs to make schools more
energy efficient, in addition to an expanding ENERGY STAR business
partners program. Hopefully, this expansion will continue. The 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 the EPA to
address these issues. The level of cooperation from the agency has been
extraordinary and we encourage these continued efforts.
conclusion
The ENERGY STAR program saves consumers billions of dollars every
year. The payback is enormous. The NASEO supports robust program
funding in fiscal year 2012. Funding for the ENERGY STAR program is
justified. The NASEO endorses these activities and the State energy
offices are working very closely with the EPA to cooperatively
implement a variety of critical national programs without mandates.
______
Prepared Statement of the National Association of State Foresters
fiscal year 2012 appropriations recommendations for the united states
department of agriculture forest service
The National Association of State Foresters (NASF) appreciates the
opportunity to submit written public testimony to the Senate
Appropriations Subcommittee on the Interior, Environment, and Related
Agencies regarding our fiscal year 2012 appropriations recommendations.
Our priorities center on appropriations for the USDA Forest Service
(USFS) State and Private Forestry (S&PF) programs. As States face the
most challenging fiscal environment since the Great Depression, the
NASF fully appreciates the difficult choices that come with spending
decisions. We therefore recommend that fiscal year 2012 appropriations
for S&PF be held at $306 million, representing similar funding levels
enacted in fiscal year 2010.
The NASF delivers technical and financial assistance and forest
health, water, and wildfire protection for more than two-thirds of
America's forests. The USFS S&PF mission area provides vital support
for delivering these services alongside other socioeconomic and
environmental health benefits in both rural and urban areas. The S&PF
programs provide a significant return on the Federal investment by
leveraging the boots-on-the-ground and financial resources of State
agencies to deliver assistance to forest landowners, tribes, and
communities. As States and the Federal Government face extremely tight
fiscal conditions, the NASF, in partnership with the S&PF mission area
of the USFS, are best positioned to maximize the effectiveness of the
limited resources available to respond to priority forest issues and
focus efforts in those areas where they are needed most.
responding to priority forest issues, trends, and threats
The NASF has completed the Statewide Forest Resource Assessments
and Strategies called for in the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of
2008 (2008 farm bill). Management activities are underway to implement
these ``forest action plans'' and respond to the following trends,
issues, and priorities:
Forest Pests and Invasive Plants
Among the greatest threats identified in the forest action plans
are exotic forest pests and invasive species. The growing number of
damaging pests is often a result of the introduction and spread by way
of wooden shipping materials, movement of firewood and through various
types of recreation. A new damaging pest is introduced every 2 to 3
years. These pests have the potential to displace native trees, shrubs
and other vegetation types in forests. Estimates indicate that 138
alien tree and shrub species have invaded native U.S. forest and shrub
ecosystems while more than 20 alien species of plant pathogens attack
woody plants. Plant pathogens alone have been estimated to result in
the loss of $7 billion of forest products each year. These losses do
not account for the value of clean and abundant water, wildlife
habitat, clean air, and other environmental services that may be lost
or impacted due to insect and disease infestation.
In response, the Cooperative Forest Health Management Program
(CFHP) provides technical and financial assistance to States and
territories to maintain healthy, productive forest ecosystems on non-
Federal forest lands. The CFHP treated native pest species on more than
150,000 acres and non-native invasive species on more than 500,000
acres in fiscal year 2010. Funding for the CFHP supports activities
related to prevention, suppression, and eradication of insects,
diseases, and plants as well as conducting forest health monitoring
through pest surveys.
The NASF supports funding the CFHP at the fiscal year 2010 enacted
level of $60 million (i.e. $49 million through S&PF and $11 million
through Wildland Fire Management). We believe the proposed reduction
included in the President's fiscal year 2012 budget will expose more of
the Nation's forests to exotic and invasive pests such as the emerald
ash borer, hemlock woolly adelgid, thousand cankers disease,
goldspotted oak borer and others that--in some cases--are already
eliminating certain tree species. This request is supported by a strong
diversity of organizations including members of the Continental
Dialogue on Non-native Forest Insects and Diseases (see letter of
support at www.stateforesters.org).
Fuel Loads and Wildland Fire
More people in fire-prone landscapes, high fuel loads, drought, and
unhealthy landscapes are among the factors that have led the NASF to
identify wildland fire as a significant priority issue in their State
forest action plans. These factors have created a wildland fire
situation that has become increasingly expensive and complex and, in
many cases, threatens human life and property. The NASF alongside many
other organizations in the forestry, conservation and environmental
community agree that the USFS State Fire Assistance (SFA) Program and
the Wildfire Suppression Reserve Fund established under the Federal
Land Assistance, Management and Enhancement (FLAME) Act are key tools
in addressing the threat of wildland fire (see letter of support at
www.stateforesters.org).
The SFA is the fundamental Federal assistance mechanism that States
and local fire departments use to develop preparedness and response
capabilities for wildland fire management on non-Federal lands. The
program has helped more than 11,000 communities prioritize their
preparedness and mitigation efforts through the development of
Community Wildfire Protection Plans (CWPPs); yet, the threat of
wildfire to life and property remains in more than 69,000
communities.\1\ The NASF recommends $39 million for Cooperative Fire
Protection SFA and $71 million for Wildland Fire Management SFA to
address the mitigation and preparedness backlog in communities at risk
from wildland fire.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ NASF FY2009 Communities at Risk Report, February 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 2009, the FLAME Act established two funds--one for the USFS and
another for the Department of the Interior (DOI)--to reduce the need
for the agencies to transfer funds to wildfire suppression from other
agency programs, which had historically led to considerable disruptions
to important program functions. The Congress included specific
instructions that FLAME should be funded with improved estimates and
that funding should not come at the expense of other agency programs.
For fiscal year 2010, the USFS received $413 million. The NASF and its
partners support funding at equivalent levels for fiscal year 2012.
Working Forest Landscapes
Working forest landscapes are a key part of the rural landscape and
provide jobs, clean water, wood products, and other essential services
to millions of Americans. For instance, 80 percent of renewable biomass
energy comes from wood, 53 percent of all freshwater in the United
States originates on forest land and more than $200 billion in sales of
consumer products and services are provided through the Nation's
forests each year.\2\ Working forest landscapes contribute to a healthy
forest products industry that employs more than 1 million people.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Society of American Foresters. The State of America's Forests.
2007.
\3\ American Forest and Paper Association. ``Our Industry: Economic
Impact.'' http://afandpa.org (accessed Friday April 1, 2011)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Private forests make up two-thirds of all the forestland in the
United States. Totaling 423 million acres, private forests support an
average of eight jobs (per 1,000 acres) and provide 92 percent of trees
harvested for wood products.\4\ The ability of working forests to
continue providing jobs, renewable energy, clean and abundant water and
other important services is in jeopardy as private forests are lost to
development. The USFS estimates that 57 million acres of private
forests in the United States are at risk of conversion to urban
development over the next two decades. The Forest Stewardship Program,
Forest Legacy Program (FLP), and other programs within USDA are key
tools identified in the forest action plans to keep working forests
intact.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Forest2Market. The Economic Impact of Privately-Owned Forests.
2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Forest Stewardship Program (FSP) is the most extensive family
forest-owner assistance program in the country. Planning assistance is
delivered in cooperation with State forestry agencies primarily through
the development of the FSP Plans. The program provides information to
private landowners to help them manage their land for wildlife,
recreation, aesthetics, timber production, and many other purposes. The
technical assistance provided through the FSP is a gateway to other
effective USDA, State and private sector programs designed to help keep
working forests intact. For instance, the FSP enables landowners to
participate in the FLP, Environmental Quality Incentives Program, and
the Biomass Crop Assistance Program. The FSP also increasingly serves
as the gateway to participating in forest certification programs and
accessing renewable energy and carbon markets. The NASF recommends $29
million for the FSP in fiscal year 2012.
Urban and Community Forest Management Challenges
Urban forests include the tree canopy cover above every
neighborhood, town and city in America. They provide environmental,
social and economic benefits to more than 80 percent of the Nation's
population. The forest action plans identified a number of benefits
associated with urban forests including energy savings, improved air
quality, neighborhood stability, aesthetic values, reduced noise, and
improved quality of life for communities across the country. At the
same time, the forest action plans reported a number of threats to
urban and community forests including fire in the Wildland Urban
Interface (WUI), urbanization and development, invasive plants and
insects, diseases and others.
Since its expansion under the Cooperative Forestry Assistance Act
of 1990 (CFAA), the USFS's Urban & Community Forestry (U&CF) Program
has provided technical and financial assistance to promote stewardship
that is critically important green infrastructure. The program is
delivered in close partnership with the NASF and leverages existing
local efforts that have helped thousands of communities and towns
manage, maintain, and improve their tree cover and green spaces. For
instance, the program leveraged an additional $40 million in State and
local support and provided 1,250 small grants to local communities in
fiscal year 2010 to help communities manage risk, respond to storms and
disturbances, and contain threats from invasive pests. The NASF and the
broad urban forestry community support an appropriation of $32 million
in fiscal year 2012 for the Urban and Community Forestry Program (see
letter of support at www.stateforesters.org).
flexibility for states to apply resources where they are needed most
As part of the development of the forest action plans, each State
underwent a comprehensive process that involved a wide range of
partners and interagency cooperation to examine issues, structure
priorities, and provide direction for those programs authorized under
the CFAA. The NASF is now in the operational phase of this process that
includes implementation of the respective CFAA Programs consistent with
national and State-specific priorities identified in forest action
plans. While there is some consistency among States in program
direction, the mix and configuration of CFAA programs and services that
can deliver the greatest public value varies among States.
With completed forest action plans, States are now in a position to
maximize the total public value from Federal investment across the
Nation. The NASF supports providing increased flexibility within CFAA
program implementation through the States in order to ensure States
collectively maximize their contributions to achieving the national
priorities expressed in the 2008 farm bill. We would like to see
continued discussion and guidance from the subcommittee on possible
alternative approaches to this matter that meet our shared desire to
maximize the public's return on the investment of Federal funds. Strong
performance metrics for both the States and the USFS should be part of
this effort.
importance of forest inventory data in monitoring forest issues
The Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA) Program, managed by Forest
Service Research, is the Nation's only comprehensive forest inventory
system for assessing the health and sustainability of the Nation's
forests across all ownerships. The FIA provides essential data related
to forest species composition, forest growth rates, and forest health
data and is the baseline inventory estimates used in State forest
action plans. The program provides unbiased information that serves as
the basis for monitoring trends in wildlife habitat, wildfire risk,
insect and disease threats, predicting spread of invasive species and
for responding to priorities identified in the forest action plans.
The Agricultural Research, Extension, and Education Reform Act of
1998 (Public Law 105-85) mandated the USFS to partner with the States
and nongovernmental interests to implement a nationally consistent,
annual inventory program in all States, ensuring timely availability of
data and developing State-level reports every 5 years. Unfortunately,
the President's fiscal year 2012 budget proposes an overall $10 million
reduction to the FIA that will disrupt the inventory cycle length and
otherwise dismantle program delivery. A solid inventory is essential to
responding to contemporary forest issues such as estimating sustainable
woody biomass supplies for renewable energy production, forest carbon
inventories, and determining the timber supply available to support
local mills and local jobs. The NASF and many others in the forestry,
conservation, and environmental community recommend $72 million for the
FIA Program in fiscal year 12, with $67 million funded through Forest
and Rangeland Research and $5 million through the S&PF (see letter of
support at www.stateforesters.org).
______
Prepared Statement of the National Congress of American Indians
On behalf of the National Congress of American Indians (NCAI),
thank you for the opportunity to testify on tribal programs in the
fiscal year 2012 budget under the Interior, environment, and related
agencies appropriations bill. This testimony will address programs in
the Department of the Interior, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA),
and Indian Health Service (IHS).
Despite reductions for many Federal agencies and programs, the
President's fiscal year 2012 budget proposal largely protects funding
for many Indian programs, and even contains some proposed increases for
Indian health and public safety. NCAI commends the administration for
these proposed increases, especially given diminished Federal
resources. But as the Congress deliberates over the fiscal year 2012
budget, we ask that you remember that funding for Indian programs
supports the trust responsibility--and that trust responsibility is not
a line item--it is a solemn duty.
Although the Congress will begin deliberations on the fiscal year
2012 Federal budget in a very tight budget atmosphere, it also follows
one of the most significant years of bipartisan accomplishments for
Indian country in recent memory. As you know, in 2010, the U.S.
Government took historic steps to address numerous long-standing
challenges faced by tribal nations. The Congress made permanent the
Indian Health Care Improvement Act (IHCIA) and President Obama signed
into law the Tribal Law & Order Act (TLOA). But, like other laws, TLOA
and IHCIA will not mean much if they are not implemented, and effective
implementation is contingent upon adequate Federal funding for
authorized programs. This moment presents the Federal Government with
an extraordinary opportunity to further tribal self-determination and
honor the promises of the Federal trust responsibility.
A key theme of the last election was that the Congress and the
Federal budget should focus on programs that are undeniably part of the
Federal Government's constitutional role. Federal obligations to tribal
citizens--largely funded by the Federal budget--are the result of
centuries-old treaties negotiated and agreements made between Indian
tribes and the United States in exchange for land and resources.
Together, these obligations make up the trust responsibility. The
authority to fund programs that help fulfill this responsibility is
founded in the Constitution, specifically the Indian Commerce Clause,
the Treaty Clause, and the Property Clause.
Meeting this constitutional responsibility and empowering citizens
and communities to meet the challenges that they face is a priority
tribal nations share with many new Members of Congress. In this
context, NCAI commends the administration for including language for
the Carcieri fix in the fiscal year 2012 budget request and urges
immediate passage of a clean Caricieri fix.
NCAI has compiled recommendations on many specific programs and
agencies that affect Indian country, but, in general, NCAI urges the
Congress to hold Indian programs harmless in the fiscal year 2012
appropriations process and exempt them from across-the-board
rescissions. Tribal programs have endured tremendous fluctuations in
recent decades, making it difficult for tribes to achieve community
stability. Each year, tribes should receive resources at least equal to
those appropriated to State and local governments so that tribes, too,
may meet the critical needs of their citizens and so that the Federal
Government may fulfill its sacred trust responsibility. As Members of
Congress begin considering the Nation's Federal budgetary priorities,
the debate should acknowledge the solemn agreements made with Indian
tribes that are backed by the Constitution.
bureau of indian affairs (bia)--public safety
The recent passage of TLOA is proof that the calls of tribal
leaders have not fallen on deaf ears. The Congress and the Obama
administration have heard the concerns of Indian people and attempted
to address them in this new law. The intended ends of the TLOA cannot
be achieved unless tribes have the means to implement them. This
requires adequate Federal funding for TLOA-authorized programs, as well
as full funding of other critical tribal justice programs that will
support the overarching TLOA vision of comprehensive law enforcement
reform.
Under Public Safety and Justice activities in the Bureau of Indian
Affairs, the President has proposed a net $25.8 million increase from
the fiscal year 2010 level, which includes $20 million in programmatic
increases and $10.6 million for fixed costs. NCAI supports increases
for BIA Public Safety and Justice programs.
ihs
The fiscal year 2012 request for IHS is $4.6 billion in
discretionary budget authority--a significant increase of $571 million,
or 14.1 percent, more than the fiscal year 2010 enacted level. Indian
country won a substantial victory in 2010 with the passage and
permanent reauthorization of the Indian Health Care Improvement Act
(IHCIA) as part of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act
(PPACA). American Indians and Alaska Natives realized a number of
positive provisions in the overall PPACA legislation. As such, Indian
country seeks to ensure that the Indian healthcare delivery system is
strengthened so that Indian people and Indian health programs benefit
from reformed systems. In order to achieve these results, fundamental
components are necessary to fully implement IHCIA and PPACA in Indian
country. In the current fiscal environment, NCAI and tribal leaders are
encouraged to see strong support in the fiscal year 2012 budget request
for IHS and urge the Congress to enact the 14.1 percent increase for
IHS overall.
Contract Support Costs (CSC).--The fiscal year 2012 request for IHS
contract support costs is $461.8 million, an increase of $63.3 million
and 16 percent. The IHS recently projected that the shortfall in fiscal
year 2012 will be $153 million, which would result in a cut of $153
million in tribally contracted programs, not IHS-administered programs.
NCAI recommends the IHS CSC line item be increased to $615 million.
epa
The President's fiscal year 2012 budget request for EPA includes
proposed funding for a Multimedia Tribal Implementation Grants program
to support on-the-ground implementation of environmental protection on
tribal lands. These grants, for which $20 million is requested, are
tailored to address an individual tribe's most serious environmental
needs. This new grant program will advance negotiated environmental
plans, measures, and results as agreed upon by tribes and EPA, thus
ensuring that tribal environmental priorities are addressed to the
fullest extent possible. An additional $2.9 million is requested for
tribal capacity building and implementation of this new grant program.
NCAI supports this initiative and the proposed fiscal year 2012 levels
for grants and implementation.
The Multimedia Tribal Implementation Grants program will complement
the environmental capacity developed under EPA's Indian Environmental
General Assistance Program, for which the administration requests an
$8.5 million increase, for a proposed fiscal year 2012 level of $71.4
million. This requested increase will assist tribal environmental
programs that have the capacity to take on additional responsibilities.
NCAI supports this requested increase.
bia--natural resources
After years of natural resources program cuts, several meaningful
increases were provided in fiscal year 2010. An increase of $12 million
was provided for rights protection implementation and $4 million for
fish hatchery operations and maintenance.
Several modest but helpful increases are requested in the fiscal
year 2012 budget request. These include $1 million for rights
protection implementation; $1 million for tribal management/
development; $1 million for forestry; $1 million for water management
planning and pre-development; $1 million for wildlife and parks; $1
million for wildlife and parks fish hatchery maintenance projects; and
$500,000 for invasive species. Yet, even with these increases, the base
TPA programs that fund tribes' day-to-day conservation
responsibilities:
--Tribal management/development;
--Natural resources TPA;
--Wildlife and parks TPA; and
--Forestry would still remain at funding levels lower than they were
a decade ago.
NCAI supports the requested increases, and urges sustained,
increased funding in future years, especially given the level funding
for BIA natural resources programs over a number of years.
In fiscal year 2012, there is a provision of $200,000 for
Cooperative Landscape Conservation to address climate change adaptation
in the Northwest. Compared to the $131 million provided to Interior in
fiscal year 2010 and the $175 million requested in fiscal year 2012 for
climate change adaptation, the $200,000 is woefully inadequate. This
amount of funding must be increased as it is well established that
tribes are disproportionately impacted by climate change, and tribal
lands make up 4 percent of the entire land area of the United States,
and 16 percent of the lands managed by Interior. NCAI supports a
significant increase proportionate to the climate impacts on tribal
lands and the size of the Indian country land base to enable tribes to
address the impacts of climate change.
support for tribal governments
Every tribe in the United States, directly or through intertribal
consortia, operates one or more contracts with the IHS or the BIA under
the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (ISDA,
Public Law 93-638). The statute requires that IHS and BIA fully
reimburse every tribal contractor for CSCs' that are necessary to carry
out the transferred Federal activities. Cost-reimbursable government
contracts similarly require payment of ``general and administrative''
costs. Full payment of fixed contract support costs is essential.
Without this support, offsetting program reductions must be made,
vacancies cannot be filled, and services must be reduced--all to make
up for the shortfall.
BIA reports that its CSC shortfall exceeded $62 million in fiscal
year 2010, meaning full contract support cost requirements that year
totaled $228 million. Yet, the fiscal year 2012 budget requests only
$195.5 million, which would result in a $33 million cut to tribally
operated BIA programs next year. Based on this data, NCAI recommends
the BIA CSC line item be increased to $228 million.
tribal grant support costs (tgsc) for tribally operated schools
The operation of schools by tribes or locally elected tribal school
boards is a major exercise of tribal self-determination, encouraged by
Federal Indian policy for the last 35 years. Tribes and tribal
organizations that exercise this option are entitled by law to receive
TGSC (formerly known as Administrative Cost Grants) to cover the
administrative or indirect costs incurred when they take over a school.
In fiscal year 2010 the funding available for TGSC met only 60 percent
of need, the lowest rate to date. For current contract and grant
schools, $70.3 million should be appropriated to fully fund TGSC need,
with an additional $2 million to fund the administrative needs of those
schools that convert to contract or grant status in fiscal year 2012,
to avoid diverting funds from existing tribally operated schools.
bia, overall
The administration and the Congress have listened to the calls from
tribes to provide meaningful increases to BIA overall in fiscal year
2010. Efforts have also been made to address tribal priorities in the
fiscal year 2012 budget in the face of overall budget constraints. The
fiscal year 2012 budget request includes increases for natural
resources, law enforcement and courts, and contract support costs.
However, from a broader view, BIA and tribes continue to receive less
funding in the President's budget requests (and in reality) relative to
other bureaus and agencies in the Department of the Interior. For
instance, the President's fiscal year 2012 budget requests an increase
of $138 million for the National Park Service (NPS), an increase of $48
million for the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), and a decrease of $119
million for the BIA. Additionally, over the last nine fiscal years the
budget for the FWS has grown by 30 percent; NPS by 28 percent; U. S.
Geological Survey by 19 percent; Bureau of Land Management by 13
percent. Meanwhile, BIA has seen an increase of only 8 percent. NCAI
and tribal leaders recognize and appreciate that reductions to Indian
Affairs funding could have been steeper, but urge this committee and
appropriators to reverse this disproportionate funding trend (relative
to other agencies) and provide an increase to the overall BIA budget to
support tribal self-determination and communities throughout Indian
country.
Indian Guaranteed Loan Program.--The President's budget includes a
reduction to this program of $5.1 million. The Indian Guaranteed Loan
program is a very successful program. It is leveraged money so it makes
no sense to cut money that represents a ten to one financing for
tribes. Cutting $1 million is the same as cutting $10 million. These
are guarantees which went unused; however, the issue was not with
tribes not utilizing the funds but with Interior not getting them out.
The individual business program utilizes a 10:1 funding ratio, meaning
a $10 million investment could guarantee $100 million in business
loans. This has worked well for individuals; however, tribes with
limited resources willing to develop community-wide businesses and grow
their local economies have to turn to the bond market for financing.
The market, along with the rating agencies, has not gauged tribal risk
effectively, making capital expensive or nonexistent. Guaranteed
financing is needed for tribal development projects. This applies to
loans and surety or performance guarantees, which have a lower 3:1
ratio. The surety guarantees are needed because the surety bond
industry excludes tribally owned construction companies in
underwriting. NCAI requests that the Congress restore funding for the
Indian Guaranteed Loan program for fiscal year 2012.
Prepared Statement of the National Cooperators' Coalition
summary
The National Cooperators' Coalition (NCC) urges the Subcommittee on
the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies to increase the funding
of the U.S. Geological Survey's (USGS) Cooperative Fish and Wildlife
Research Units (CFWRUs) by $2.7 million more than the amount in the
fiscal year 2010 continuing resolution to fill vacant scientist
positions. At a time when Federal spending needs to be reduced, the
CFWRUs are precisely the type of program that should receive greater
support because they successfully leverage $3 for every $1 of Federal
funds appropriated for the program. With typically just three Federal
scientists, each of the 38 CFWRUs is lean and highly productive and
uses partnerships to avoid the need for Federal spending on
administrative personnel, building space, and much of the operating
expenses. This cost-effective program, however, is in jeopardy unless
funds are provided to replace its retiring scientists.
The NCC also recognizes the efforts of several States that want to
establish new unit capacity. Contingent on full funding of the base
CFWRU Program, it is vital to these efforts that an additional $2.5
million be appropriated for the new capacity which will add units in
Nevada, New Jersey, and North Dakota, and complete the wildlife mission
at existing units in Hawaii and California.
The NCC is an alliance of non-Federal CFWRU Program cooperators and
other supporters. Its members include State fish and wildlife agencies,
universities, and nongovernmental organizations. The mission of the NCC
is to build a stronger and more coordinated base of support to serve
research, education, and technical assistance needs of the non-Federal
CFWRU program cooperators.
continue to build on this subcommittee's efforts
We greatly appreciate your leadership in adding funding in fiscal
years 2008, 2009, and 2010 for the CFWRU research and training
partnership, which for more than 75 years has brought together State
fish and wildlife agencies, State universities, and Federal agencies
around a local, applied research agenda. As a result, to provide the
capacity in the CFWRU Program that existed a decade ago, the fiscal
year 2012 USGS appropriation now needs just $2.7 million more than the
fiscal year 2010 enacted level.
Each of the CFWRUs in 38 States is a true Federal/State/university/
private partnership among the USGS, a State natural resource agency, a
host university, and the Wildlife Management Institute. The CFWRUs
build on these partner contributions to leverage more than $3 for every
$1 appropriated to the program by the Congress. The CFWRUs have
established a record of educating new natural resource professionals
who are management-oriented, well-versed in science, grounded in State
and Federal agency experience, and able to assist private landowners
and other members of the public. Restoration of funding support would
ensure that the Interior Department provides the Federal scientist
staffing agreed to with the CFWRU partners so that the return on the
continuing investment in the program by those partners is realized and
fully leveraged. At a time when Federal spending needs to be reduced,
the role of the CFWRU Program in facilitating solutions to natural
resources management challenges and training the fish and wildlife
managers of tomorrow should be expanded rather than compromised by
funding shortfalls that result in the absence of scientist leaders.
State and Federal natural resources agencies are facing
unprecedented challenges posed by energy development needs, invasive
species, infectious diseases, wildfire, and increased demand for
limited water resources. These agencies also face the challenge of
replacing an extraordinary number of natural resource professionals who
are retiring. Finding workable solutions to these challenges requires
the kind of approaches to research emphasized by the CFWRUs, which rely
on leveraging Federal dollars through collaborative, interdisciplinary
efforts to help resolve emerging issues at scales that transcend
individual State boundaries.
With appropriation of $22 million for the CFWRUs for fiscal year
2012, a sound foundation will exist on which new capacity should be
built. With appropriation of an additional $2.5 million will add CFWRUs
in Nevada, New Jersey and North Dakota, and complete the wildlife
mission at existing CFWRUs in Hawaii and California. Rutgers
University, University of Nevada--Reno, North Dakota State University,
The University of North Dakota, University of Hawaii--Hilo, and
Humboldt State University bring a wealth of research, education, and
innovative technology to address contemporary conservation issues at
regional and national scales. The respective State agency partners
bring an extensive history of successful fish and wildlife management
skills and resources that complement those existing at the
universities. The State agency and university partners are well-
equipped to collaborate with the CFWRUs to help resolve natural
resources management challenges that transcend State boundaries.
We urge you to make greater use of the CFWRUs and to expand this
program in five States. The program's efficient and cost-effective
research and training partnership brings together State fish and
wildlife agencies, State universities, and Federal agencies around a
local, applied research agenda. With your assistance, this program can
make the best use of limited Federal funds to become even more
effective in using science and collaboration to address the natural
resources challenges facing the Interior Department, other Federal,
State and local agencies and this country's citizens.
______
Prepared Statement of the National Conference of State Historic
Preservation Officers
Thank you Chairman Reed, Ranking Member Murkowski, and members of
the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on the Interior, Environment,
and Related Agencies for the opportunity to provide testimony. On
behalf of all 57 SHPOs, I extend our appreciation for this opportunity
to provide the following testimony which details our fiscal year 2012
appropriations request, the State Historic Preservation Offices (SHPOs)
responsibilities under the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA)
and how Preservation Makes centsent$ through job creation, economic
development, and heritage preservation.
Request.--$50,000,000 for SHPOs.
Funded through withdrawals from the Historic Preservation Fund (16
U.S.C. 470h) Department of the Interior's (DOI) National Park Service
Historic Preservation Fund (HPF).
fiscal year 2012 hpf funding request makes centsent$
The National Conference of State Historic Preservation Officers
requests a total $70 million withdrawal from the HPF for fiscal year
2012 with funding distribution amounts of $50 million for SHPOs, $11
million for Tribal Historic Preservation Officers and a total of $9
million for the Save Americas Treasures and Preserve America grant
programs. This request is 10 percent less than the cumulative amount
the four programs received in fiscal year 2008.
preservation makes centsent$--federal-state partnership
In 1966, the Congress recognized the importance of preserving and
building upon our past by passing the National Historic Preservation
Act (NHPA, 16 U.S.C. 470), which established historic preservation as a
Federal Government priority. Instead of using Federal employees to
carry out the act, the DOI and the Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation partner with the States and use SHPOs to:
--locate and record historic resources;
--nominate significant historic resources to the National Register of
Historic Places;
--foster historic preservation programs at the local government level
and promote the creation of preservation ordinances;
--provide funds for preservation activities;
--comment on Federal preservation tax projects;
--review all Federal projects for their impact on historic
properties; and
--provide technical assistance to Federal agencies, State and local
governments, and the private sector. And, States contribute
half the cost of the Federal program.
preservation makes centsent$--job creation
Historic preservation creates jobs. Whether it is through the
historic tax credit program, preservation grants, or other
rehabilitation avenues, preservation creates skilled, principally
local, jobs.
--In 2010, while still in a national recession, there were nearly
1,000 new historic tax credit projects started, averaging 47
jobs per project. The private investment in the approved and
completed projects in 2010 totaled $3.42 billion.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ ``Federal Tax Incentives for Rehabilitating Historic
Buildings--Statistical Report and Analysis for Fiscal Year 2010.''
National Park Service.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
--The mixed-use redevelopment of the Hathaway Mill in Waterville,
Maine, resulted in the investment of approximately $31 million
in rehabilitation and related new construction costs. The
project supported 185 construction jobs and approximately 315
people are currently employed in the building.
Mississippi's $27.5 million Hurricane Relief Grant Program for
Historic Preservation has rehabilitated nearly 300 historic buildings
and created 4,198 full-time and part-time jobs.
preservation makes centsent$--economic development
From Providence, Rhode Island to Milwaukee, Wisconsin, and all
around the country, historic preservation plays a key role in creating,
maintaining, and growing communities while preserving their historical
significance. The Federal Rehabilitation Tax Credit (FRTC) Program is
an important driver in economic development. Program benefits and
examples include:
--Increasing the value of the rehabilitated property and returning
underutilized structures to the tax roles.
--Encouraging protection of landmarks through the promotion,
recognition, and designation of historic structures.
--Upgrading downtowns and neighborhoods and often increasing the
amount of available housing within the community.
--In Rhode Island, from 2001 to 2010, the FRTC leveraged $1.291
billion in private investment.
--The Blue Ribbon Loft Apartments in Wisconsin is the first building
to be redeveloped on the 21-acre Pabst Brewery site. The three-
story, 140,000-square-foot brick building (known as the Keg
House) was converted into a 95-unit loft style apartment
community. The $15.8-million development has 69 units for low-
and moderate-income wage earners.
In 2010, still in the midst of a recession, the Federal
rehabilitation tax credit spurred $3.42 billion in private investment,
created more than 41,600 skilled, local jobs and more than 5,500
moderate and low-income housing units. All of which brings in both
short- and long-term economic opportunities for the community.
Heritage tourism also creates jobs, new businesses, builds
community pride, and can improve quality of life. The SHPOs are
essential, ground-level partners in identifying historic places and
providing research for tourism interpretation. According to a 2009
national research study on U.S. Cultural and Heritage travel by Mandela
Research, 78 percent of all U.S. leisure travelers participate in
cultural and/or heritage activities while traveling. Cultural and
heritage travelers also spend on average $994 per trip compared to $611
for all U.S. travelers.
preservation makes centsent$--america's heritage
Preservation honors the significant places of American history at
the local, State, and Federal levels through creating historic
districts and listing resources in National and State Historic
Registers. The SHPOs, through the authority of the NHPA are there to
assist, support, and encourage communities with their efforts. National
Register recognition by the Secretary confirms citizens' belief in the
significance of their community. That recognition, in turn, builds
community pride and stable, livable neighborhoods such as Natchez,
Mississippi; Cambridge, Maryland; and Rockland, Maine. Further, this
neighborhood improvement comes from individual, private investment, not
from Federal programs.
The National Historic Preservation Program is one of assistance,
not acquisition. The Federal Government does not own, manage, or
maintain responsibility for the historic assets in the National
Historic Preservation Program. Instead, the program, through the SHPOs,
provides individuals, communities, and local and State governments the
tools they need to preserve and utilize their historic heritage for the
betterment of their community and the Nation.
The Washington Post recently posted a video ``Preserving History as
Population Changes.'' The video shows several people who live and/or
work in the historic Washington, DC U Street corridor neighborhood.
Central to the reasons these folks became involved in the neighborhood
was the history, sense of place, and utilization of historic resources
such as the renowned Lincoln Theatre. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/
local/preserving-history-as-population-changes/2011/03/26/
AF7LV7dB_video.html?hpid=z3).
While the population change to the U Street neighborhood has
brought challenges, Mazi Mutafa states in the video:
``The same people who saw value in buying less expensive real
estate for theatres and businesses also thought--well why don't I live
here since I work here or why don't I live here since I play here? I
think the real challenge is not the fact that it's changed, it's the
fact that one of the dangers of losing people who are from a community
is that the history of it becomes less meaningful. And so I think
that's why places like Lincoln Theatre are really important, to not
just tell the story of what's happened today, but to tell the story of
what's happened in the past so that the people who move to this
neighborhood realize that as new residents they are a part of a
history, though the people who made that history may not look like
them, they lived in these very houses, they walked these same streets.
So they need to see themselves as a part of that same history and a
continuation of that history, not as a kind of replacement of that
history.''
preservation makes centsent$--money well spent
Federal funding for SHPOs is money well spent. Under the
administration's Program Assessment Rating Tool, management of historic
preservation programs received a score of 89 percent, indicating
exemplary performance of mandated activities. Reinforcing this finding
is the December 2007 National Academy of Public Administration (NAPA)
report ``BACK TO THE FUTURE: A Review of the National Historic
Preservation Program'' and the 2009 National Parks Second Century
Report, which called for fully funding the HPF.
The NAPA, a nonprofit, independent coalition of top management and
organizational leaders, found that the National Historic Preservation
Program ``. . . stands as a successful example of effective Federal-
State partnership and is working to realize Congress' original vision
to a great extent. However, the panel concluded ``that a stronger
Federal leadership role, greater resources, and enhanced management are
needed to build upon the existing, successful framework to achieve the
full potential of the NHPA on behalf of the American people.'' \2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ NAPA, ``BACK TO THE FUTURE: A Review of the National Historic
Preservation Programs'' December 2007, p. 29.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2010 shpo's accomplishments
The SHPOs used their HPF allocations well in 2010. While virtually
every State continues to experience staffing and operation reductions,
SHPOs are still charged with implementing the requirements of the NHPA
to the fullest extent. Highlights of 2010 historic preservation
accomplishments include:
--Reviewing 242,000 Federal undertakings, a 126 percent increase from
2009.
--More than $3.42 billion of private investment in the rehabilitation
of commercial historic properties under the FRTC Program.
--An estimated 41,641 jobs created by the FRTC Program in 2010.
--5,514 low- and moderate-income housing units created through the
FRTC.
--Approximately 24.5 million acres surveyed for cultural resources
and more than 168,000 properties evaluated for their historical
significance.
--1,214 new listings in the National Register of Historic Places.
--112,000 National Register eligibility opinions.
--49 new communities became Certified Local Governments (CLGs).
--Under local law, CLG's newly designated 53,700 properties, and
67,300 properties took part in local preservation review,
programs, and incentives.
conclusion
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 years from now. I
would like to thank the subcommittee for their commitment to historic
preservation. The Federal Government plays an invaluable role in
preserving our Nation's history and through our partnership, the SHPOs
stand committed to identify, protect, and maintain our Nation's
historic heritage. Thank you.
______
Letter From the Northern Forest Center
May 11, 2011.
Hon. Jack Reed,
Chairman, Subcommittee on the Interior, Environment, and Related
Agencies,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Lisa Murkowski,
Ranking Member, Subcommittee on the Interior, Environment, and Related
Agencies,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Reed and Senator Murkowski: This testimony is from
the Northern Forest Center, a nonprofit organization based in Concord,
New Hampshire, in support of a fiscal year 2012 appropriation of $5
million for the Community Forest and Open Space Conservation Program
(Community Forest Program) under the United States Forest Service
(USFS). This would match the level of funding proposed for the program
in the President's fiscal year 2012 budget.
The Community Forest Program will provide 50-50 matching grants to
local governments, Indian tribes, and nonprofit organizations to
acquire forestlands under threat of development. The program was
established in the 2008 farm bill to give these local entities the
ability to keep important forests as forests while exerting strong
local control over management and directing timber revenues to local
budgets and economic development. The program also provides a small
amount of technical assistance funding to State forestry agencies so
that those agencies may help interested grantees plan for and implement
outstanding forest management.
As noted by the recent USFS report, ``Private Forests, Public
Benefits'', communities across America are threatened with loss of
access to forest values through accelerating conversion of private
forests. These threatened forestlands are often needed for essential
community and tribal purposes, including water supply protection, the
timber-based economy, wildlife habitat, youth outdoor education, and
recreational opportunities, including hunting and fishing.
The economic opportunities that can be created from these locally
owned forests are particularly compelling. According to a recent study,
``The Impact of Privately-Owned Forests'' (2009), private forests
currently support eight jobs per every 1,000 acres, and each acre of
private forest generates an average of $733 in forest products sales.
When private forests are lost to development, those forest jobs and
revenues are lost. Across the country local governments, tribes, and
nonprofits are stepping up to conserve their forest land base in active
forestry to help support a strong and diversified economy. Because
these lands are kept in local hands, they can be managed efficiently to
help generate economic opportunities in the woods.
The Northern Forest Center advocates for the Northern Forest region
of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, and New York, and helps its
communities benefit from forest based economic development and
conservation initiatives. Our organization has been involved in the
creation of several community forests, including in the town of Errol,
New Hampshire, which formed a community nonprofit to purchase 5,200
acres to help local foresters retain access to the woods. This
acquisition created seven new forest jobs--a substantial impact on this
rural community. In the West similar efforts are springing up, often
led by local wood producer cooperatives like the Mount Adams Resource
Stewards in Washington State. These local groups seek funding from the
Community Forest Program to purchase threatened forestlands in their
communities so that they remain open for forestry.
It is important to note that restoration forestry can also create
jobs. A study by Garrett-Peltier and Pollin (2009) found that watershed
restoration and other kinds of forest restoration create 39.7 jobs for
every $1 million invested--the most of any economic sector they
examined. Local governments, tribes, and nonprofits often are uniquely
positioned to purchase impaired forests and to work patiently over time
to restore them to full health and productivity. Many of these entities
are very eager to use the Community Forest Program to acquire lands so
that they may implement this kind of long-term restoration forestry for
continued output of timber and biomass while also achieving other
natural resource objectives.
Among other important purposes, this program can help meet the need
to reconnect Americans, especially young people, with our forests. It
is well established that in many parts of America, young people are
losing this connection--a Kaiser Family Foundation study found that the
average young American spends 44 hours per week staring at some kind of
electronic screen.
Community forests are often located in places where young people
would otherwise have few chances to choose more time in the outdoors.
The Jefferson Memorial Forest in Louisville, Kentucky is a great
example. This 6,000-acre forest on the edge of the city provides
endless opportunities from youth outdoor education to cultural events.
It is a place where urban residents can connect to Kentucky's forest
heritage and culture. The city of Louisville is interested in using the
Community Forest Program to help add land to the Jefferson Memorial
Forest where development is encroaching.
The Community Forest Program has a broad base of support. The
program was established with the support of a large and diverse
national alliance of forestry, landowner, industry, land conservation,
and wildlife groups. More than 130 groups have endorsed the program
since 2008, including hunters and anglers from the Association of Fish
and Wildlife Agencies; Florida Wildlife Federation; Georgia Wildlife
Federation; Izaak Walton League of America--National and Iowa Division;
Minnesota Conservation Federation; Mississippi Wildlife Federation;
National Wildlife Federation; New Jersey State Federation of
Sportsmen's Clubs; New York State Conservation Council; South Carolina
Wildlife Federation; Texas Conservation Alliance; Vermont Federation of
Sportsmen's Clubs; and Wildlife Mississippi. Tribes including the
Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians have offered support, as well local
governments from the city of Louisville, Kentucky to the Town of
Arcata, California. Land trusts, wildlife groups, and other interests
have also offered support. This broad and diverse support is a reminder
of how effectively community and tribal forests truly can advance the
public interest.
The Congress allocated $1 million in fiscal year 2010 to finish
rulemaking for the program with an eye toward opening the program to
begin awarding grants in fiscal year 2011 or fiscal year 2012 at the
latest. That rulemaking is nearly complete. The comment period on the
Proposed Rule closed in early March, and the Final Rule is expected
soon. The President included $5 million in his fiscal year 2012 budget
in recognition of the diverse needs that this program could fulfill,
and its readiness to begin making grants.
Through this testimony, we respectfully encourage the Senate
Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Committee to
allocate $5 million in fiscal year 2012 to the Community Forest
Program. This funding will help America's local governments, tribes,
and nonprofits become even more active leaders for conservation of our
forests, and to provide a boost to America's economic recovery through
the forest-based economy.
Joe Short,
Program and Policy Director.
______
Prepared Statement of the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee: Thank you for the
opportunity to submit testimony regarding fiscal year 2012 funding for
the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation (NFWF). The NFWF's fiscal
year 2012 appropriations request will be matched dollar-for-dollar with
non-Federal funds to conserve fish, wildlife, and their habitats
through local partnerships. We believe that the NFWF is a sound
investment in a time of constrained budgets because of our proven track
record and statutory requirement to leverage Federal funding with
private contributions to maximize conservation benefit. We appreciate
the subcommittee's past support and respectfully request your approval
of funding at the following levels:
--$8.537 million through the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's (FWS)
resource management general administration appropriation;
--$3 million through the Bureau of Land Management's (BLM) management
of lands and resources appropriation; and
--$3 million through the Forest Service's (USFS) National Forest
System appropriation.
Since its inception, the NFWF has leveraged nearly $530 million in
Federal funds into $1.8 billion in on-the-ground and in-the-water
conservation with less than 5 percent aggregate overhead to the Federal
Government and fewer than 100 staff nationwide.
The NFWF was established by the Congress in 1984 to foster public-
private partnerships to conserve fish, wildlife, and their habitats.
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 average ratio while
building consensus and emphasizing accountability, measurable results,
and sustainable conservation outcomes.
Last summer, the NFWF was able to immediately respond to the gulf
disaster through our existing partnerships and grantee network. We
provided assistance to our Federal agency partners and began
fundraising for projects to safeguard the populations of species most
at risk from the gulf oil spill. Through philanthropic contributions by
BP and Walmart, the NFWF provided nearly $10 million in non-Federal
funds for projects to reduce the losses and bolster populations of
migratory birds and sea turtles in the gulf region. In addition, as an
in-kind donation, the NFWF worked with FedEx to transfer 25,000 sea
turtle eggs and their nests from gulf beaches to the east coast of
Florida. The NFWF will announce an additional $10 million of gulf
projects in April 2011 that focus on migratory birds, sea turtles,
oysters, and other marine species and their habitats.
With your support, fiscal year 2012 funds will support our long-
standing partnerships and new initiatives with the FWS, the BLM, and
the USFS. Several of our priority initiatives for fiscal year 2012 are
described below.
fish habitat restoration
In cooperation with the FWS, the BLM, and the USFS, the NFWF
provides community-based grants to assist rural communities, farmers,
ranchers, and other private landowners with restoring habitats that are
essential for native fish species and their migration corridors. To the
extent possible, the NFWF is also partnering with the National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the USDA's Natural Resources
Conservation Service on these efforts, and successfully leveraging
Federal support with corporate contributions for fish habitat
conservation on private and public lands. The NFWF is building on our
long history in fish habitat restoration to strategically target our
partnership efforts toward specific species of concern and this will
continue in fiscal year 2012 and beyond. Focal species for the NFWF's
grants include: eastern brook trout, Apache trout, Colorado cutthroat
trout, and coho salmon.
path of the pronghorn and sage grouse
In 2009, the NFWF and our partners identified the Green River Basin
of Wyoming as a priority area for coordinated conservation efforts. The
Basin supports significant populations of sage grouse, mule deer,
pronghorn, and elk. These species are threatened by habitat
fragmentation, subdivision and fencing of key areas that the wildlife
move through, mortality along increasingly busy local roads and
highways, and potential conflicts with expanding energy production
infrastructure on their wintering range. In partnership with the FWS,
the BLM, and the USDA's Natural Resources Conservation Service, the
NFWF has focused its grant-making on work to improve fencing so that
pronghorn and other wildlife can migrate more easily, reducing the
effects of roads on wildlife, and protecting key parcels where
subdivision and development will imperil the entire migration corridor.
the chesapeake bay, great lakes, and long island sound
Watershed health plays an important role in fish and wildlife
conservation and has been a feature of the NFWF's grantmaking since
establishing our partnership with the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) in 1998. In the last decade, the NFWF has formed strategic
public-private partnerships to restore and protect fish and wildlife
habitat while improving water quality in the Chesapeake Bay, Great
Lakes, and Long Island Sound. Federal partners in the programs include
the EPA, the Department of the Interior (DOI) agencies, the USFS, the
USDA's Natural Resources Conservation Service, the NOAA, and others.
The NFWF leveraged various Federal funds for these partnerships but,
more importantly, attracted private contributions from corporations and
other private foundations. The NFWF's watershed grant programs
continued positive results in 2010 with priority project requests far
exceeding available funds.
youth in natural resources
The DOI's fiscal year 2012 budget request includes $2 million,
split between the FWS and the BLM, for the NFWF to establish a
competitive grant program for youth conservation job programs. With the
movement of Americans to urban areas and more indoor recreational
pursuits, America's youth are developing a gap in their knowledge of
fish and wildlife and the need for natural resource conservation.
Through this unique initiative, local organizations will develop
employment programs that foster a conservation ethic, expose youth to
career opportunities in the conservation community, and ultimately
cultivate future generations of wildlife professionals.
The NFWF will work with the FWS and the BLM to develop a public-
private partnership by leveraging the Federal funding with at least an
equal amount of privately financed contributions. Funds will be awarded
to refuges, fish hatcheries, Friends groups, the BLM field offices,
Youth Conservation Corps, nongovernmental organizations and others who
seek to develop innovative conservation employment opportunities for
youth. Wildlife habitat conservation education will be an integral
aspect of this grant program and the NFWF will partner with the DOI's
National Conservation Training Center to develop learning goals,
curricula, and other training material that can be integrated into job
programs.
conclusion
The NFWF has a 27-year history with the DOI and has been successful
in bringing together public and private partners to build strategic
partnerships to address the most significant threats to fish and
wildlife populations and their habitats. The NFWF has partnerships with
14 Federal agencies and more than 50 corporations and private
foundations. We have a successful model of coordinating and leveraging
Federal funds and attracting support from the private sector to form
public-private partnerships for fish and wildlife conservation.
We are working directly with the Federal agencies and our other
partners to maximize results and produce sustainable conservation
outcomes. To that end, the NFWF is incorporating monitoring and
evaluation into our programs to measure progress, promote adaptive
management, demonstrate results, and continuously learn from project
investments. We look forward to building on our partnerships with the
FWS, the BLM, and the USFS in fiscal year 2012 and appreciate the
subcommittee's continued support of these collaborative efforts.
background on the nfwf
As of fiscal year 2010, the NFWF has awarded more than 11,000
grants to national and community-based organizations through successful
partnerships with the DOI agencies, the USDA's USFS and Natural
Resources Conservation Service, the EPA, the NOAA, and others. This
collaborative model brings together multiple Federal agencies with
State, tribal, and local governments and private organizations to
implement coordinated conservation strategies in all 50 States.
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. Mr. Chairman, we greatly appreciate your continued
support and hope the subcommittee will approve funding for the NFWF in
fiscal year 2012.
______
Prepared Statement of the National Ground Water Association
The National Ground Water Association (NGWA) requests that $10
million be included in the U.S. Geological Survey's (USGS) Groundwater
Resources Program account to begin implementation of a national
groundwater monitoring network. The NGWA is the world's largest
association of groundwater professionals, representing public and
private sector engineers, scientists, water well contractors,
manufacturers, and suppliers of groundwater-related products and
services.
Water is one of the most critical natural resources to human,
ecosystem and economic survival. In the United States, 78 percent of
community water systems, nearly all of rural America's private
household wells, and 42 percent of agricultural irrigation water are
supplied by groundwater. While the Nation's people, food supply,
economy and ecosystems depend on groundwater, no systematic nationwide
monitoring network is in place to measure what is currently available
and how groundwater levels and quality may be changing over time. As
with any valuable natural resource, our groundwater reserves must be
monitored to assist in planning and minimizing potential impacts from
shortages or supply disruptions. Just as one cannot effectively oversee
the Nation's economy without key data; one cannot adequately address
the Nation's food, energy, economic, and drinking water security
without understanding the extent, availability and sustainability of a
critical input--groundwater.
In the face of current and anticipated water supply shortages,
public and private sector water professionals have put out the call
over the years for increased groundwater monitoring, and the
dissemination of the resulting data to the Nation.\1\ And the need to
take action continues to this day.\2\ \3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ U.S. Government Accountability Office. Freshwater Supply:
States' Views of How Federal Agencies Could Help Them Meet the
Challenges of Expected Shortages. (GAO-03-514). July 2003. Page 1.
\2\ White House Council on Environmental Quality. Progress Report
of the Interagency Climate Change Adaptation Task Force: Recommended
Actions in Support of a National Climate Change Adaptation Strategy.
October 5, 2010. Page 11.
\3\ U.S. Government Accountability Office. Energy-Water Nexus: A
Better and Coordinated Understanding of Water Resources Could Help
Mitigate the Impacts of Potential Oil Shale Development. (GAO-11-35).
October 2010. Page 39.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Congress listened and responded to these requests for enhanced
groundwater monitoring by authorizing a national groundwater monitoring
network with passage of Public Law 111-11 (Omnibus Public Land
Management Act) in 2009. In 2010, six States \4\ voluntarily pilot
tested concepts for a national groundwater monitoring network as
developed by the Federal Advisory Committee on Water Information's
(ACWI) Subcommittee on Ground Water (SOGW). If this effort moves
forward, consistent, comparable nationwide data would become accessible
through a Web portal for Federal, State, local government, and private
sector users. In these tight fiscal times, the proposed network would
build on existing State and Federal investments, maximizing their
usefulness and leveraging current dollars to build toward systematic
nationwide monitoring of the groundwater resource.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ The six pilot States were Illinois, Indiana, Minnesota,
Montana, New Jersey, and Texas. Additionally, Idaho, North Carolina,
South Carolina, Washington and Wyoming volunteered as pilots but were
not included given limited oversight resources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unfortunately, the administration's fiscal year 2012 budget request
proposes to reduce the USGS's Ground Water Resources Program by 25
percent and delay implementation of a national groundwater monitoring
network. We ask that instead of the proposed delay, the subcommittee
redirect $10 million above the fiscal year 2012 USGS's Ground Water
Resources Program budget request to:
--Provide grants to regional, State, and tribal governments to cost
share increased expenses to upgrade monitoring networks for the
50 States to meet the standards necessary to understand the
Nation's groundwater resources. The shared funding arrangements
should be modeled after highly successful cooperative programs
(e.g. STATEMAP) that already exist between the USGS and the
States; and
--Support the additional work necessary for USGS to manage a national
groundwater monitoring network and provide national data access
through an Internet Web portal.
The redirection of an appropriation of $10 million for groundwater
monitoring that is being requested here is small in comparison to the
entirety of the Department of the Interior's appropriations. But the
$10 million appropriation is vital when we understand that for a small
investment we can begin finally to put in place adequate monitoring of
the hidden resource that provides nearly 40 percent of the Nation's
drinking water supply. Thank you for your consideration of this
request.
______
Prepared Statement of the National Humanities Alliance
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee: On behalf of the
National Humanities Alliance (NHA) and its 104 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. For fiscal
year 2012, we respectively urge the subcommittee to continue funding
for NEH at the fiscal year 2010 enacted level of $167.5 million.
overview
As you know, the President's fiscal year 2012 budget proposes
$146.3 million in funding for NEH, including $118.2 million for program
funds and $28 million for administration. This represents an overall
cut of $21.2 million (about 13 percent) from the NEH's fiscal year 2010
budget level. For NEH program funds (which support grants at the
national and State levels), the President's budget represents an even
deeper decrease of $21.8 million (about 16 percent) from the fiscal
year 2010 level of $140 million. We do not support the cuts proposed by
the administration, and are especially concerned about the deep erosion
of funds that the President's budget represents for NEH competitive
grants nationwide.
In recent years, NHA has proposed significant new funding to help
rebuild and expand NEH programs, that were cut dramatically in the mid-
1990s. We recognize the seriousness of the fiscal situation faced by
the Congress and the administration, and understand that now is not the
time to request an increase for this agency. However, we do not believe
that cutting a relatively small discretionary program like NEH--which
represents a tiny fraction of the Federal budget and plays such an
important role--is the solution to the current crisis.
--While much smaller than many of its counterparts in the Federal
Government, such as the National Science Foundation, NEH is the
lead Federal agency tasked with advancing and preserving
knowledge in a broad range of academic fields, and it plays a
central role in supporting the Nation's education and research
infrastructure.
--NEH grants support high-quality resources, materials, and programs
that reach individuals and communities in every State and
district in this country.
--NEH funding is an extremely efficient investment of taxpayer funds,
with most NEH grants leveraging significant direct or indirect
non-Federal support.
A $22 million cut to NEH will have a significant and detrimental
impact on the ability of this agency to fulfill its mission to the
American people, without resolving the deficit in any meaningful way.
Moreover, these cuts will deprive the American people of critical
resources at a time when they are needed more than ever.
importance of the humanities
The public value of the humanities is unquestioned. They enrich
individual lives, they bring communities together, they underpin our
civic institutions, they bring forth our history and our shared values,
they make possible how our heritage is understood and preserved, and
they support a broadly educated and competitive workforce.
The humanities encompass a broad range of fields--including the
study of languages, linguistics, literature, history, law, government,
philosophy, archaeology, comparative religion, ethics, and more. From
the basic building blocks of early education, to the highest levels of
academic attainment, humanities fields provide essential skills and
competencies, and support critical modes of thought. Students who get a
sound humanities education, focused on careful reading and disciplined
writing, do better in all fields of study, and are sought after by
employers. Study and knowledge of the humanities prepare us to become
active and informed citizens, as well as to succeed in the increasingly
competitive, and global workforce.
Almost all sectors and trades depend on a U.S. workforce with
access to high-quality education in humanities fields across the
educational continuum. But the humanities workforce itself is
significant, with more than 2.5 million Americans directly engaged in a
broad range of humanities professions--K-12 teachers, college/
university faculty, museum curators, librarians, translators, news
analysts, and others. This figure does not include the many trades that
require professionals with advanced aptitude or training in the
humanities, such as:
--advertising;
--marketing;
--public administration;
--law;
--national security;
--intelligence,
--international trade;
--arts;
--entertainment;
--science;
--engineering; and
--health.
Finally, the humanities represent areas of expertise vital to
addressing complex policy challenges--from informing medical ethics, to
understanding the root causes of world hunger, to fighting illiteracy.
And they support capacities especially relevant to the 21st century:
--knowledge of world cultures, religions, and languages;
--understanding of U.S. history and democratic traditions; and
--humanistic perspectives to evaluate the implications of scientific
and technological advances.
national needs
As the NEH founding legislation recognizes, there is a clear
Federal role in supporting the humanities, just as there is for the
sciences and other fields:
``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.''
At a time of rapid globalization, technological development, and
severe economic challenges, the wisdom of this statement is as evident
today--if not more so--than it was almost 50 years ago.
According to many corporate executives, higher education leaders,
and other experts, the U.S. liberal arts curriculum in our Nation's
schools, colleges, and universities is at risk. The United States has a
long tradition of fostering broad access to education that integrates
learning across the sciences, mathematics, and the humanities. Even as
we move away from this approach, it is aggressively being emulated by
China and other nations around the world who have identified this
aspect of our educational system as a unique driver of United States
economic leadership and innovation in the last century.
In recent studies, employers rank reading and writing as top
deficiencies in new hires, with more than one-third of employers ending
high school graduates ``deficient'' in reading comprehension, and
``written communications'' topping the list of applied skills found
lacking in high school and college graduates. This comes at a real
cost--with annual spending on remedial writing courses estimated at
more than $3.1 billion for large corporations and $221 million for
State employers.
As the impact of the recession continues to be felt around the
country, many Americans are turning to further education, and local
resources like libraries, museums, and State humanities councils as a
means of finding jobs, and connecting with their communities at a time
of crisis. While demand for their services increases, many nonprofit
humanities institutions and organizations are struggling to maintain
access to programs, due to continued constriction of traditional
revenue sources (e.g., endowments, private giving, State and local
funding). School districts are cutting back on teachers and course
offerings, and many colleges and universities--especially public
institutions--have closed humanities departments or cut back on full-
time instructors, despite growing wait-lists for basic courses like
writing and history.
the neh role
NEH is the lead Federal agency with the mission to create,
preserve, and disseminate knowledge in the humanities that is essential
for the achievements described above. Each year, NEH awards hundreds of
competitive, peer-reviewed grants to a broad range of nonprofit
educational organizations and institutions, and to individual scholars,
throughout the country. Grantees include:
--universities;
--2- and 4-year colleges;
--humanities centers;
--research institutes;
--museums;
--historical societies;
--libraries;
--archives;
--scholarly associations;
--K-12 schools;
--local education agencies; and
--public television/film/radio producers.
These grants help support educational advancement, professional
development, jobs and institutional activities for thousands of
students, teachers, faculty, and others engaged in the humanities in
communities across the United States every year.
As noted above, we are especially concerned about the decline in
funding for NEH competitive grants. From the community's perspective,
NEH competitive grants fall into two categories:
Core Programs.--Research, education, preservation, digital
humanities, challenge grants, and public programs;
Special Initiatives.--Bridging cultures, we the people.
NEH grants are known for their quality, and their ability to
leverage significant non-Federal funding for humanities projects
nationwide. They are also extremely competitive. Annually, demand for
humanities project support through NEH far exceeds funding available.
In fiscal year 2010, NEH received 5,205 competitive grant applications
representing more than $515 million in requested funds (a 20 percent
increase in the number of applications submitted for the previous
year). Of these, NEH was able to fund only 16.6 percent of the
proposals submitted. This is too low, when compared to recent rates as
high as 32 percent reported by grantmaking agencies like the National
Science Foundation (NSF), and means that excellent work vital to the
humanities is unable to go forward.
Examples of underfunded NEH grant programs include:
--fellowships and collaborative research;
--digital humanities projects;
--professional development for teachers and faculty; preservation of
historically significant collections;
--public film;
--radio;
--television and digital media projects; and
--challenge grants to build institutional capacity and leverage non-
Federal support.
impact of the president's budget request
Competitive Programs.--Unfortunately, the President's budget for
fiscal year 2012 would deeply and disproportionately cut NEH
competitive grants. Collectively, total funding provided for
competitive grants through the NEH Core Programs (listed above) would
decrease from $79.6 million in fiscal year 2010 to $70.8 million in
fiscal year 2012--an $8.7 million (or 11 percent) cut. In addition, the
President's budget terminates We the People, an initiative launched in
2004 to advance understanding of U.S. history and culture (funded at
$14.5 million in fiscal year 2010). Since its inception, We the People
has been structured to redirect funds across NEH programs and
divisions. But by cutting We the People, rather than allocating its
resources to the NEH programs that underpin it, the budget proposal
further weakens NEH core programs. While amounts have varied annually,
in recent years, NEH core programs have received, on average, roughly
half of We the People funds ($7.4 million in fiscal year 2010).
Factoring in termination of We the People, we estimate the total impact
of the President's budget on NEH competitive grants would be a
reduction of at least $16 million (or 18 percent).
Looked at over a longer timeframe, the situation is even more
difficult. Funding for NEH competitive grants through the national core
programs is very low compared to past years, and we cannot let it fall
further behind. In fiscal year 1994 (the nominal funding peak for the
NEH), collectively, funding for these programs was provided at $116.4
million. Adjusted for inflation, this would be equivalent to $173.7
million in today's dollars--more than double the current level.
Special Initiatives.--The President's budget would provide modest,
new funding of $4 million for the agency's Bridging Cultures
initiative, a program developed by NEH Chairman Jim Leach to enhance
Americans' understanding of the Nation's rich cultural heritage, as
well as the cultural complexity of the world in which we live. NHA has
advocated for many years for expansion of the agency's programmatic
coverage in areas of international education, global competency, and
cultural understanding, and we welcome this effort.
NEH Federal/State Partnership.--NEH extends its reach through
annual operating grants to State humanities councils located in every
State and U.S. territory. For fiscal year 2012, the administration has
requested $40.1 million, a nominal decrease of $270,000 from the fiscal
year 2010 enacted level. There is a significant decrease, however, when
also factoring in the termination of We the People, of a total of
roughly $7 million (or 15 percent).
conclusion
This subcommittee stands as steward to many of our Nation's
greatest shared natural and cultural resources. We recognize that the
Congress faces unprecedented and difficult choices in this and coming
years. Nevertheless, we ask the subcommittee to consider the
demonstrated contributions of the NEH, and the importance of continued
funding for the humanities through NEH as an investment in the Nation's
long-term economic recovery and competitiveness, the strength and
vitality of our civic institutions, the preservation and understanding
of our diverse cultural heritage, and the lives of our citizens. Thank
you for consideration of our request, and for your past and continued
support for the humanities.
Founded in 1981, NHA is a coalition of nonprofit organizations and
institutions dedicated to the advancement of education, research,
preservation and public programs (www.nhalliance.org).
______
Prepared Statement of the New Hampshire Fish and Game Department
Mr. Chairman and honorable members of the subcommittee: I
appreciate the opportunity to present this testimony in support of
conserving land at the Umbagog National Wildlife Refuge in northern New
Hampshire. This year presents an opportunity to continue the
conservation of the 31,300-acre Androscoggin Headwaters property from a
willing landowner with appropriations from the Land and Water
Conservation Fund (LWCF) and the Forest Legacy Program (FLP).
For fiscal year 2012 the President's budget includes funding
requests for two phases of the larger Androscoggin Headwaters
conservation project. First, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS)
recommends $1.5 million for acquisitions in the Umbagog National
Wildlife Refuge. Second, the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) recommends $5
million for the project from the FLP. I am pleased that this funding is
included in the request and urge the Congress to provide the full
amount in the President's budget for LWCF and FLP so that these
important projects can receive necessary funding. The first two phases
in fiscal year 2011 had funding recommended in that year's President's
budget, and the Congress is still working on finishing the fiscal year
2011 budget. The provision of sufficient funding to LWCF and FLP in
fiscal year 2011 will improve the opportunity to provide funding in
fiscal year 2012.
Supporting the Androscoggin Headwaters Conservation Project is a
good fit for the New Hampshire Fish and Game Department. Our mission
states that as guardian of New Hampshire's fish, wildlife and marine
resources, we work in partnership with the public, nongovernmental
organizations and other agencies to conserve, manage and protect these
resources and their habitats, to inform the public about the resources,
and to provide opportunities for the public to use and appreciate these
resources. The Androscoggin Headwaters project implements strategies
identified in our New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan that will conserve
habitats and species of greatest conservation need. It also advances
the objectives of New Hampshire's Forest Resource Plan, and its
strategies promoting forest stewardship and sustainable forest
economies. The project directly contributes to the priorities of the
New England Governors, who at their September 2009 conference passed a
resolution establishing a New England Forest Initiative to ``Keep
Forests as Forests''. In addition, the project is a signature effort of
the Mahoosuc Initiative, a coalition of local, regional, and national
nonprofits that have formed an alliance to promote land conservation;
tourism and forestry-related economic development; and enhanced quality
of life for residents in the region. The Eastern Brook Trout Joint
Venture has also offered their support for the Androscoggin Headwaters
Project.
Covering 31,300 acres of remote forests, streams, and ponds, the
Androscoggin Headwaters property is one of the largest unprotected
ownerships remaining in the State of New Hampshire. The property is
located at the headwaters of the Androscoggin River adjacent to Umbagog
National Wildlife Refuge, and features a variety of wildlife and
fishery resources that are of regional and national significance. The
property is an important source of forest products and jobs for the
region's timber economy, and is a popular destination for hunting,
fishing, snowmobiling, and other outdoor pursuits. The Trust for Public
Land (TPL) is working with the landowner, New Hampshire Fish and Game,
the New Hampshire FLP, and the Umbagog National Wildlife Refuge to
bring the most critical wildlife habitat into public ownership while
retaining the balance of the property in private ownership subject to a
State-held FLP conservation easement.
Situated at the southern range of the boreal forest zone and near
the northern range of the deciduous zone, the region provides habitat
for species of both forest types. Many of these species are identified
as priorities in the New Hampshire State Wildlife Action Plan. The
Umbagog Refuge encircles much of Lake Umbagog, with 8,700 acres of open
water, many miles of shoreline, protected coves and backwaters, and
diverse wetland complexes. The Refuge protects unique habitat for many
wetland-dependent and migratory species, including bald eagle, Canada
warbler, wood thrush, and American black duck; as well as many species
of State concern, including common loon, northern harrier, American
woodcock, and others. For the common loon and osprey, Lake Umbagog is
considered the best breeding habitat in New Hampshire. Lake Umbagog and
its associated wetlands have been listed by both Maine and New
Hampshire as a priority site under the Atlantic Coast Joint Venture of
the North American Waterfowl Management Plan. The Refuge includes a
very large and exemplary native bog community that is designated as a
National Natural Landmark.
Located along the border of northern New Hampshire and western
Maine in the Mahoosuc Mountains, Lake Umbagog is the westernmost link
in the chain of Rangeley Lakes, famed for their excellent recreational
opportunities. Anglers, kayakers and canoeists explore numerous coves
and bays on Lake Umbagog and the dozens of rivers, streams, and smaller
ponds around the Lake. Hunters, hikers, nature photographers, and
wildlife watchers all find extensive opportunity in the Refuge and the
Androscoggin Headwater property's remote expanses. The region is a
well-known and sought-after fishery that offers anglers the opportunity
to fish for warm water species such as smallmouth bass, perch, and
pickerel in Lake Umbagog and for cold water species, notably eastern
brook trout, in the feeder streams and surrounding ponds.
LWCF Request
Available for acquisition in fiscal year 2012 is the second phase
(4,532 acres) of the larger, 31,300 acre five-phase Androscoggin
Headwaters Conservation Project. At its successful conclusion, this
project will conserve 15 undeveloped ponds and 38 miles of streams with
some of the finest cold-water fisheries in the Northeast. The project
will add a total of 7,450 acres in fee ownership to the Umbagog NWR,
which currently owns 21,650 acres. The target property lies entirely
within the authorized refuge acquisition boundary. It is also part of a
much larger 63,000 acre conserved working forest landscape that
includes the existing refuge, a community forest owned by the Town of
Errol, and FLP conservation easements held by the State.
The Phase II 4,532-acre portion contains Mollidgewock Brook, an
undeveloped tributary to the Androscoggin River, and smaller streams
that total more than 11.5 miles. Along the Mollidgewock Brook are
significant wetland complexes that are utilized by waterfowl for
nesting and breeding. All told there are 546 acres of prime wetlands on
the Phase II tract. New Hampshire Audubon has designated approximately
1,100 acres of the property as part of the Umbagog Important Bird Area
and Audubon has ongoing field research into Rusty Blackbird habitat on
the parcel.
The allocation of $1.5 million from LWCF as proposed in the fiscal
year 2012 President's budget will begin the second phase of the
Androscoggin Headwaters project, allowing the refuge to conserve
important habitat for Federal trust species and link it to other
protected lands. The appropriation will ensure shoreline protection,
public access for recreation, and wetland habitat preservation.
FLP Request
Available for acquisition in fiscal year 2012 through the FLP is a
12,637-acre phase of the Androscoggin Headwaters Conservation Project.
At its successful conclusion, the project will conserve 23,000 acres as
privately owned working forest through FLP conservation easements held
by the State of New Hampshire.
The Androscoggin Headwaters South parcel is comprised of upland and
lowland forest noted for its excellent soils and mix of hardwood and
softwood stands. The property contains two completely undeveloped
tributaries to the Androscoggin River, Mollidgewock Brook and Bog
Brook. These streams and associated wetland complexes support nesting
habitat for a diversity of waterfowl and a wild brook trout fishery.
This parcel also includes several popular snowmobile trails that
connect Errol, New Hampshire to Berlin, New Hampshire. The required
match for the appropriated funds will be met through the conservation
of a 938-acre parcel that contains Greenough Pond and Little Greenough
Pond, which are 2 of only 3 ponds in New Hampshire that sustain native,
nonstocked brook trout populations.
Northern New Hampshire has relied on forest products as the fuel
for the region's economic engine for more than 200 years. Traditionally
that has meant pulp and papermaking. As the northern New England paper
industry has declined, jobs have been leaving the region. Our northern
forest, however, is poised for a new source of economic activity. There
are several proposals for utility-scale biomass energy plants that will
take wood chips from the region's forests to produce renewable energy.
In addition to jobs in logging, trucking, and value-added forest
products, the conservation of this property will support good jobs in
the tourism industry. Businesses catering to hunters, anglers,
snowmobilers, kayakers, wildlife viewers, and other outdoor enthusiasts
will benefit from the guarantee of public access for recreation that
will be created through the conservation of this large block of
forestland.
The property is threatened with significant second home development
along the waterfront parcels. The remote ponds are scenic, have
tremendous recreational opportunities, and are highly valued for
development of waterfront vacation homes. This kind of development
would seriously undermine habitat for loons and other waterfowl,
degrade water quality for the wild trout populations, and limit public
recreational access. The Androscoggin Headwaters conservation strategy
will protect the entire waterfront.
The Androscoggin Headwaters Project also will help wildlife adapt
to the impacts of climate change. At 31,300 acres, the project will
conserve ecological systems from valley bottom to ridge top. The
property is located in the northeast corner of New Hampshire close to
the Mahoosuc Mountains and Rangeley Lakes, a region that is forecast to
retain consistently cold winters and a deep snow pack under high carbon
emission scenarios. Numerous species adapted to northern New England's
long cold winters will find refuge here as suitable habitat to the
south warms and fragments. Among these are snowshoe hare, American
marten, three-toed woodpecker, and the federally threatened/State-
endangered Canada Lynx.
Protection of the Androscoggin Headwaters property will connect
large blocks of conservation land, adding to more than 100,000 acres.
The property's proximity to other conserved lands--including Umbagog
National Wildlife Refuge, 13-Mile Woods Community Forest, and State-
owned and easement lands around Maine's Richardson Lake, Grafton Notch,
and Rapid River--will significantly advance the creation of landscape-
scale habitat connectivity in this region.
An allocation of $5 million--as proposed in the fiscal year 2012
President's budget--from the amounts appropriated to the New Hampshire
will complete the second easement phase of the Androscoggin Headwaters
Conservation Project and will ensure continued sustainable forestry,
public access for recreation, and protect upland and wetland habitats
recognized as some of the most important in the Eastern United States.
I thank the chairman and the members of the subcommittee for this
opportunity to testify on behalf of this nationally important
conservation effort in New Hampshire, and I appreciate your
consideration of this funding request.
______
Prepared Statement of the National Indian Health Board
Mr. Chairman, and members of the subcommittee, my name is Lester
Secatero. I serve as the Albuquerque Area Representative to the
National Indian Health Board (NIHB) \1\ and the chairman of the
Albuquerque Area Indian Health Board. The NIHB offers the following
comments regarding the President's proposed fiscal year 2012 budget for
the Indian Health Service (IHS).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Established in 1972, NIHB serves all federally recognized
tribal governments by advocating for the improvement of healthcare
delivery to AI/ANs, as well as upholding the Federal Government's trust
responsibility to AI/ANs. We strive to advance the level and quality of
healthcare and the adequacy of funding for health services that are
operated by the IHS, programs operated directly by tribal governments,
and other programs. Our board members represent each of the 12 areas of
IHS and are elected at-large by the respective Tribal governmental
officials within their area. NIHB is the only national organization
solely devoted to the improvement of Indian healthcare on behalf of the
tribes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NIHB was pleased to learn that, for the fiscal year 2012 IHS
budget, the administration recommends a $571 million increase more than
the fiscal year 2010 enacted the IHS appropriations. This 14.1 percent
increase is quite significant. It acknowledges the critical health
needs of our tribal communities and represents the continued commitment
to honor the Federal Government's legal obligation and scared
responsibility to provide healthcare to American Indians and Alaska
Natives (AI/AN).
National Tribal Budget Formulation Workgroup's Recommendations
The trust obligation to provide healthcare is paramount, and it is
upon this foundation that the IHS National Tribal Budget Formulation
Workgroup built its recommendations for the fiscal year 2012 IHS
budget. Each year, this Workgroup consolidates all the IHS areas'
budget formulation recommendations; develops a consensus national
tribal budget and health priorities document; and presents the
recommendation to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
(HHS).\2\ NIHB supports this Government-to-government process and the
final recommendations developed by the Workgroup.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ For copies of previous Workgroup recommendations, please visit
the NIHB Budget Formulation page athttp://www.nihb.org/legislative/
budget--formulation.php.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Workgroup's recommendations for fiscal year 2012 were formally
presented to the HHS on March 4, 2010, 11 months before the President
presented his fiscal year 2012 budget proposal to the Congress. Since
the release of the Workgroup's recommendation, the Patient Protection
and Affordable Care Act (ACA), which includes the permanent
reauthorization of the Indian Health Care Improvement Act (IHCIA), was
also passed and enacted. Although not included in the Workgroup's
fiscal year 2012 recommendations, we know that funding the new
opportunities now available under the reauthorized IHCIA is important
to Indian country.
The Workgroup's recommendations focus on two types of needed
increases:
Current Services Increases.--Preserving basic healthcare programs
currently being funded. Increases in current services are the
budget increments needed to enable the Indian healthcare
delivery system to continue operating at its current level.
These increases are more importantly than ever. This category
contains such items as Federal and tribal pay cost increases;
inflation; contract support costs (CSC); funding for population
growth; and facilities construction and staffing. Without these
increases to base funding, the Indian health system would
experience a decrease in its ability to care for the service
population.
Program Increases.--Significant program increases are required to
address the overwhelming health needs in Indian country. The
recommended increases are made in key IHS budget accounts to
enable programs to improve and expand the services they provide
to Indian patients. IHS has long been plagued by woefully
inadequate funding, which has made it impossible to supply
Indian people with the level of care they need and deserve, and
to which they are entitled by treaty obligation.
Below is a highlight of a few programs targeted by the Tribal
Workgroup for vital increases.
Current Services.--Federal and tribal pay costs. The Workgroup
recommended a $12 million increase for Federal pay costs and a $13
million increase for tribal pay costs. However, the President's
proposal contains a 1.4 percent pay raise for Commissioned Officers
that are $4.1 million and notes that the Federal and tribal pay costs
are subject to the pay freeze enacted by the Congress. NIHB recommends
that tribal and Federal IHS employees should be exempted from any
Federal employee pay freeze.
Current Services: CSC--Shortfall.--Tribes in all areas operate one
or more such contracts. The ability of tribes to successfully operate
their own healthcare systems, from substance abuse programs to entire
hospitals, depends upon the proper appropriation of CSC. Full CSC
funding honors the legal duty to pay these costs, and protects
healthcare resources intended for service delivery. A year ago, the
projection to fully fund CSC was $145 and today, IHS projects an fiscal
year 2012 shortfall in CSC payments of $153 million. NIHB supports the
Workgroup's goal of full funding CSC, and urges that the CSC line item
be increased by $153 million for fiscal year 2012.
Program Increases: Contract Health Services.--The contract health
service (CHS) program serves a critical role in addressing the
healthcare needs of Indian people. The CHS program exists because the
IHS system lacks the capacity to provide directly all the healthcare
needed by the IHS service population. In theory, CHS should be an
effective and efficient way to purchase needed care--especially
specialty care--which Indian health facilities are not equipped to
provide. In reality, CHS is so grossly underfunded that Indian country
cannot purchase the quantity and types of care needed. As a
consequence, many of our Indian patients are left with untreated and
often painful conditions that, if addressed in a timely way, would
improve quality of life at lower cost. The Workgroup proposes an
increase of $118 million for CHS.
Program Increase: Sanitation Facilities Construction.--Currently 12
percent of AI/AN homes do not have adequate potable water supply in
comparison to 1 percent of homes for the U.S. general population.\3\
The IHS Sanitation Facilities Construction (SFC) program provides
potable water and waste disposal facilities and IHS reported that for
every $1 IHS spends on sanitation facilities to serve eligible existing
homes, at least a twentyfold return in health benefits is achieved.\4\
Due to the remaining need and success of this investment, the Workgroup
recommends $14 million increase.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ IHS Fact Sheets: Safe Water and Waste Disposal Facilities
(January 2011) at http://info.ihs.gov/SafeWater.asp.
\4\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additional Budget Recommendations
In addition to the Workgroup's recommendations, NIHB would like to
provide additional recommendations regarding the IHS budget.
Projected Savings in the IHS budget
There is a critical need for more funding for basic healthcare
services to go directly to all of our facilities and if the President's
14 percent increase is realized, that will help; however, the proposed
cuts to the ``small grant'' programs hold a small price tag ($7 million
collectively, as articulated in the President's budget request), but,
the impact of these programs in Indian country is enormous. All of
these small grants serve and target very vulnerable Native populations,
such as children, elders and women, and their purpose is to strengthen
and build capacity for the long-term health of the tribes in such areas
as public health; wellness; fighting childhood obesity and working to
end domestic violence against Native women. In addition, the proposal
includes cutting the small grant to the tribes' primary healthcare
resource for information and coordination of the national tribal voice:
the NIHB. We ask that you do not implement any cuts to this
organization, which is vital to improving the health status of all
tribal People.
Protect IHS Budget From Rollbacks, Freezes, and Rescissions
As a discretionary budget line, the IHS budget falls target to the
across the board cuts to discretionary funding. Indian country is
thankful for the support of the Congress and the administration during
the previous 2 fiscal years for significant increases to the IHS
budget. However, the IHS budget has been subject to proposed budget
cuts in the past. This was detrimental not only to an agency budget,
but on the lives and well being of AI/ANs. Today, the IHS budget is
funded approximately at half the level of need. Any budget cuts, in any
form, will have harmful affects on the healthcare delivery to AI/ANs.
The NIHB asks the committee to exempt the IHS from any cuts, freezes,
or rescissions.
Create a long-term investment plan to fully fund IHS Total Need
Tribes have long asked for full funding of the IHS. Developing and
implementing a plan to achieve funding parity is critical to the future
of Indian health and to fulfilling the United Status's trust
responsibility to AI/AN people. The funding disparities between the IHS
and other Federal healthcare expenditures programs still exists and in
2010, IHS spending for medical care was $2,741 per user in comparison
to the average of Federal healthcare expenditure of $6,909 per
person.\5\ Tribes and NIHB ask the Federal Government to design and
implement a true full funding plan for the IHS budget.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ IHS Fact Sheets: IHS Year 2011 Profile (January 2011) available
at http://info.ihs.gov/Profile2011.asp.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
the indian health service's fiscal year 2012 budget recommendations
CURRENT SERVICES INCREASES
------------------------------------------------------------------------
President's
Fiscal year fiscal year
2012 proposal 2012 request
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tribal workgroup:
Federal pay costs................... $12,000,000 $4,102,000
Tribal pay costs.................... 13,000,000 ..............
Inflation........................... 63,300,000 155,308,000
Additional medical inflation........ 54,800,000 ..............
Population growth................... 42,900,000 96,550,000
Staffing for new/replacement 35,000,000 71,533,000
facilities.........................
CSC--shortfall...................... 145,000,000 ..............
-------------------------------
Total, Current services........... $366,000,000 $327,493,000
Program increases:
Hospitals and clinics............... $90,000,000 ..............
Indian Health Care Improvement Fund. 15,000,000 54,000,000
Information technology.............. .............. 4,000,000
Chronic diseases.................... .............. 2,529,000
Dental.............................. 5,000,000 ..............
Mental health....................... 4,000,000 0
Alcohol and substance abuse......... 10,000,000 4,000,000
Contract health services............ 118,000,000 89,635,000
Urban indian health................. 9,000,000 1,000,000
Direct operations................... .............. 3,404,000
Business operations support......... .............. 6,033,000
CSC (new and expanded).............. .............. 50,000,000
IHCIA implementation................ .............. 2,000,000
Facilities maintenance and 10,000,000 ..............
improvement........................
Sanitation facilities construction.. 14,000,000 (19,619,000)
Healthcare facilities construction.. 84,000,000 53,958,000
Small ambulatory program............ 10,000,000 ..............
Equipment........................... 5,000,000 ..............
Proposed grants savings............. .............. (7,000,000)
-------------------------------
Total, program expansion.......... $374,000,000 $243,940,000
-------------------------------
Total, increases.................. $730,000,000 $571,433,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Items not considered by the National Tribal Budget Workgroup.
\2\ The National Tribal Budget Workgroup based their recommendations on
the President's proposed budget for fiscal year 2011 and released
their recommendations in March 2010. The tribal figures for current
services may need to be adjusted to ensure full funding of current
services.
\3\ Funding for IHS programs has not kept pace with inflation, while
Medicaid and Medicare have accrued increase of 5 to 10 percent per
year.
______
Prepared Statement of the New Mexico Interstate Stream Commission
summary
This statement is submitted in support of fiscal year 2012
appropriations for Colorado River Basin salinity control activities of
the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). I urge that at least $5.2 million
be appropriated for the BLM within the soil, water, and air management
program for activities that help control salinity in the Colorado River
Basin, and of that amount, $1.5 million be marked specifically for
identified salinity control related projects and studies.
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 the features needed to control the salinity of the Colorado
River. These include activities by the States, the Bureau of
Reclamation (BOR), 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.
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 land manager in the Colorado River Basin, and manages public
lands that are heavily laden with naturally occurring salt. When salt-
laden soils erode, the salts dissolve and enter the river system,
affecting the quality of water used from the Colorado River by the
Lower Basin States and Mexico.
The proposed BLM budget calls for five principal priorities within
the soil, water, and air management program. One priority is reducing
saline runoff in the Colorado River Basin, which will help achieve the
goals of interstate, Federal, and international agreements concerning
the salinity of the Colorado River. Accordingly, the BLM needs to
target at least $5.2 million for activities in fiscal year 2012 that
benefit salinity control in 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 2012. Consequently, I request that $1.5 million
of the $5.2 million be marked specifically for these identified
Colorado River Basin salinity control activities.
I support past Federal legislation that declared that the Federal
Government has a major and important responsibility with respect to
controlling salt discharge from public lands. The 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 are 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.
BOR studies show that quantified damages from Colorado River
salinity to United States water users are about $353 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 cost sharing with BOR and Department of Agriculture
salinity control programs. It is vitally important that the BLM pursue
salinity control projects within its jurisdiction to maintain the cost
effectiveness of the program and the timely implementation of salinity
control projects that will help 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. BLM's budget justification documents have stated that
BLM continues to implement on-the-ground projects, evaluate progress in
cooperation with the BOR and USDA, and report 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 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.
I request the appropriation of at least $5.2 million in fiscal year
2012 for Colorado River salinity control activities of the BLM within
the soil, water, and air management program, and that $1.5 million of
that amount be marked specifically for identified salinity control
related projects and studies. I appreciate consideration of these
requests. I fully support the statement of the Colorado River Basin
Salinity Control Forum submitted by Don Barnett, the Forum's Executive
Director, in request of appropriations for BLM for Colorado River
salinity control activities.
______
Prepared Statement of the Northwest Portland Area Indian Health Board
Good morning Chairman Simpson, Ranking Member Moran, and members of
the subcommittee. On behalf of the 43 federally recognized tribes that
the Northwest Portland Area Indian Health Board (NPAIHB) represents, we
thank you for this opportunity to provide testimony on the Indian
Health Service (IHS) budget to the subcommittee.
Established in 1972, the NPAIHB is a Public Law 93-638 tribal
organization that represents 43 federally recognized tribes in the
States of Idaho, Oregon, and Washington on healthcare issues. Over the
past 21 years, our board has conducted a detailed analysis of the IHS
budget. Our Annual IHS Budget Analysis and Recommendations report has
become the authoritative document on the IHS budget. It is used by the
Congress, the administration, and national Indian health advocates to
develop recommendations on the IHS budget. It is indeed an honor to
present you with our recommendations.
indian health disparities
The Indian Health Care Improvement Act declares our Nation's policy
is to elevate the health status of the American Indian/Alaska Native
(AI/AN) people to a level at parity with the general U.S. population.
Over the last 30 years, the IHS and tribes have made great strides to
improve the health status of Indian people through the development of
preventative, primary-care, and community-based public health services.
Examples are seen in the reductions of certain health problems between
1972-1974 and 2000-2002: gastrointestinal disease mortality reduced 91
percent, tuberculosis mortality reduced 80 percent, cervical cancer
reduced 76 percent, and maternal mortality reduced 64 percent; with the
average death rate from all causes dropping 29 percent.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Fiscal year 2000-2001 Regional Differences Report, Indian
Health Service, available at: www.ihs.gov.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While tribes have been successful at reducing the burden of certain
health problems, there is strong evidence that other types of diseases
are on the rise for Indian people. For example, national data for
Indian people compared to the U.S. all races rates indicate they are
638 percent more likely to die from alcoholism, 400 percent greater to
die from tuberculosis, 291 percent greater to die from diabetes
complications, 91 percent greater to die from suicide, and 67 percent
more likely to die from pneumonia and influenza.\2\ In the Northwest,
stagnation in the data indicates a growing gap between the AI/AN death
rate and that for the general population might be widening in recent
years. These data document the fact that despite the considerable gains
that tribes have made at addressing health disparities, that in some
instances these gains are reversing themselves that the health of
Indian people could be getting worse.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Ibid.
\3\ Please note findings in, The Health of Washington State: A
Statewide Assessment of Health Status, Health Risks, and Health Care
Services, December 2007. Available at: http://www.doh.wa.gov/hws/
HWS2007.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
recommendation: maintain current services
The fundamental budget principle for Northwest tribes is that the
basic healthcare program must be preserved by the President's budget
request and the Congress. Preserving the IHS base program by funding
the current level of health services should be a basic budget principle
by the Congress. Otherwise, how can unmet needs ever be addressed if
the existing program is not maintained?
Current services estimates' calculate mandatory costs increases
necessary to maintain the current level of care. These ``mandatories''
are unavoidable and include medical and general inflation, Federal and
tribal pay act increases, population growth, and contract support
costs.
Our analysis of the IHS budget indicated that it would have taken
at least $474 million to maintain current services in this current
fiscal year. The President's request in fiscal year 2011 (an increase
of $354 million) would come close to funding the mandatory costs of
current services. Unfortunately, the IHS and tribal health programs
will now suffer the consequences of the current budget debate despite
the duty and obligation of the United States to provide health
services. The current budget debate to curtail discretionary spending
will have a severe effect on the IHS and tribal programs if they are
not adequately funded. Respectfully we request that the subcommittee
recommend that the IHS and tribal health programs be exempt from any
reductions in discretionary spending. This request should be honored in
recognition of the duty and obligation that the United States has to
provide healthcare to Indian people. It is further compelling when one
considers the severe health disparities that AI/AN people suffer.
per capita spending comparisons
The most significant trend in the financing of Indian health over
the past 10 years has been the stagnation of the IHS budget. With
exception of a notable increase of 9.2 percent in fiscal year 2001 and
last year's 14 percent increase, the IHS budget has not received
adequate increases to maintain the costs of current services
(inflation, population growth, and pay act increases). The consequence
of this is that the IHS budget is diminished and its purchasing power
has continually been eroded over the years. As an example, in fiscal
year 2009, we estimated that it would take at least $513 million to
maintain current services.\4\ The final appropriation for the IHS was a
$235 million increase, falling short by $278 million. This means that
tribes must absorb unfunded inflation and population growth by cutting
health services.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Fiscal year 2009 IHS Budget Analysis and Recommendations,
Northwest Portland Area Indian Health Board, March 17, 2008; available
at: www.npaihb.org.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The IHS Federal Disparity Index (FDI) is often used to cite the
level of funding for the Indian health system relative to its total
need. The FDI compares actual healthcare costs for an IHS beneficiary
to those costs of a beneficiary served in mainstream America. The FDI
uses actuarial methods that control for age, sex, and health status to
price health benefits for Indian people using the Federal Employee
Health Benefits (FEHB) plan, which is then used to make per capita
health expenditure comparisons. It is estimated by the FDI, that the
IHS system is funded at less than 60 percent of its total need.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Level of Need Workgroup Report, Indian Health Service,
available at: www.ihs.gov.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
fiscal year 2012 ihs budget recommendations
The NPAIHB supports the level of funding requested in the
President's fiscal year 2012 budget request. The President's request is
$571 million more than the fiscal year 2010 enacted level. While this
might seem like a sizable increase, it is only $217 million more than
the President's fiscal year 2011 request. These increases in fiscal
year 2011 and fiscal year 2012 taken together are still less than
adequate to cover the costs of maintaining current services. We urge
the subcommittee to fund the levels in the President's request.
We also recommend that the subcommittee provide additional funding
to cover the IHS Contract Support Cost (CSC) now estimated to be at
least $153 million. The CSCs cover the administrative cost of tribes
carrying out the IHS Federal trust responsibilities. The benefits of
tribes operating the IHS programs are well documented. For years the
administration failed to request adequate funding for the CSC
obligations, and the resulting shortfalls grew. In 2010, with the
assistance of this subcommittee, the Congress and the President
supported a $116 million increase to reduce the IHS contract support
cost shortfall by about one-half. It is estimated that the CSC increase
will restore an estimated 2,000 to 3,000 jobs in Indian country. We
recommend that the subcommittee provide additional funding to cover the
CSC obligations owed to tribes.
additional recommendations
The NPAIHB recommends that the subcommittee restore funding
eliminated in the President's request for tribal pay costs. We estimate
this funding to be $13.4 million based in the fiscal year 2011 IHS
congressional justification. These costs were eliminated in the
President's fiscal year 2012 request.
The NPAIHB recommends that at least an additional $50 million be
provided for the IHS Contract Health Service Program (CHS). The CHS
Program is extremely important for Northwest tribes since the NPAIHB
does not have any hospitals and must rely on the CHS Program for all
specialty and inpatient care. Other parts of the IHS system have access
to hospitals for specialty and inpatient care. Because of this, the CHS
Program makes up 34 percent of the NPAIHB budget and when less than
adequate inflation and population growth increases are provided, the
NPAIHB tribes are forced to cut health services to absorb these
mandatory costs. Those IHS areas that have inpatient care can absorb
CHS funding shortfalls more easily the CHS dependent areas with their
larger size staffing packages and infrastructure. The Senate Committee
on Indian Affairs' 2011 Views and Estimates letter highlights the fact
that the unmet need in the CHS Program is at least $1 billion and
certainly an additional $80.2 million is justified.
We recommend that the subcommittee provide an additional $53
million to fund past year's CSC shortfalls that are owed to tribes
under Public Law 93-638. The well-documented achievements of the Indian
self-determination policies have consistently improved service
delivery, increased service levels, and strengthened tribal
governments, institutions, and services for Indian people. Every
administration since 1975 has embraced this policy and the Congress has
repeatedly affirmed it through extensive amendments to strengthen the
Indian Self-Determination Act in 1988 and 1994.
We understand that our recommendations may seem unreasonable in
current fiscal environment, however when you consider the significant
health needs of Indian country they are realistic. We hope that you
will be able to fund our recommendations and look forward to working
with the subcommittee on our request.
Thank you for this opportunity to provide our recommendations on
the fiscal year 2012 IHS budget.
______
Prepared Statement of the National Parks Conservation Association
Chairman Reed, Ranking Member Murkowski, and members of the
subcommittee, I am Tom Kiernan, president of the National Parks
Conservation Association (NPCA). I appreciate the opportunity to submit
testimony on behalf of NPCA's more than 345,000 members to present our
views regarding appropriations for the National Park Service (NPS) for
fiscal year 2012.
Mr. Chairman, we truly understand and appreciate the enormity of
the challenge you face in attempting to set reasonable, responsible
spending priorities when the imperative of significantly reducing the
overall level of Federal expenditures is driving the Nation's political
discourse and agenda. We want to thank you for the care you have taken
with the national parks so far, and especially the money they need to
operate and meet basic, fixed operating costs. We know and appreciate
that you will do the best you can for the parks under the
circumstances; and you know we probably will say it is not enough. I
would like to take this opportunity to re-articulate the arguments and
bolster the record as to why providing sufficient and even increased
levels of funding for the National Park System must continue to be a
national priority.
Ronald Reagan called America's national parks, ``the envy of the
world.'' Franklin Roosevelt said, ``there is nothing so American as our
national parks.'' Created by the Congress for the benefit and use of
all our citizens, national parks are--like national defense--inherently
and fundamentally a Federal responsibility. While park friends groups
and private philanthropy contribute a good deal for the benefit of
several specific parks and units in the system, there is simply no
viable alternative to Federal appropriations to maintain these places
that the Congress itself determined to be the most precious and
important to America's story and way of life, intact, and operating.
The annual budget of NPS amounts to less than one-thirteenth of 1
percent of the overall budget of the United States. Clearly, NPS must
re-examine its priorities and very carefully manage its financial
resources to address new budget realities. We very much appreciate that
the national park operations account has not received as large a cut as
other programs. However, we were very disappointed that the final
fiscal year 2011 continuing resolution did cut park operations by more
than $10 million and cut NPS programs more broadly by more than $130
million--reductions to beneficial, worthy, and needed endeavors. At
this point, there simply is no fat to cut out before starting to remove
muscle and bone.
Park Operations.--Adequate funding for park operations remains the
top priority for NPCA.
The Federal budget and appropriations process has been a roller-
coaster ride for the parks over the past 12 years. The operations
budget for NPS was short-changed by multiple administrations and
congresses until the annual operating shortfall reached more than $800
million in fiscal year 2007. The result:
--a growing crisis with missing rangers, shuttered visitor centers,
dirty or un-operational restrooms, deteriorating landscapes and
historic artifacts, dangerous or crumbling roads and trails,
and
--reduced interpretive and educational programs--in short, eroding
resources and diminishing services for millions of park
visitors.
For fiscal year 2008, with the 100th anniversary of NPS and the
creation of the modern National Park System approaching in 2016, the
Bush administration heeded our call and initiated what was envisioned
as a sustained, 10-year program of incremental, $100 million annual
operations increases intended to erase the operating shortfall and to
put the national parks in their best possible condition in time for the
centennial. This Centennial Initiative was supported by both parties in
the Congress--particularly the members of this subcommittee--and was
continued through the next two budget and appropriations cycles, which
included the transition to a new administration. Some adjustments were
made in other sections of NPS budget to accommodate the operations
increases, but things were still underway for putting the parks in
healthy shape by 2016. While this infusion enabled parks to re-employ
thousands of people needed for resource protection, maintenance, law
enforcement, and visitor services, it still leaves an annual operations
shortfall today of more than $600 million. That shortfall allows
virtually no room for error or unforeseen natural catastrophes or
circumstances such as unexpectedly large increases in the price of fuel
and other fixed costs.
NPCA strongly believes the trajectory begun in fiscal year 2008--
annual operations increases of $100 million plus fixed costs, carried
forward by two Presidents and recommended by the National Parks Second
Century Commission--should be continued. While the operations increases
the Congress approved for fiscal year 2008-fiscal year 2010 have made a
difference, the gains that were made can easily be lost. It is also
important to put them in context. As significant as they were, by
fiscal year 2011, overall NPS funding had reached the same level in
real dollars as had been appropriated in fiscal year 2002.
A National Park System that is well managed, with park personnel
who are well-trained, park resources that are protected, and visitors
who are safe and well-served, requires investments by the Congress. It
is, of course, not a perfect world. We understand the reality of
maintaining that trajectory in this fiscal climate, but at a bare
minimum, we need to keep up with fixed costs so the hard-won progress
of the last few years is not erased, and so we don't find ourselves,
once again, in the kind of crisis our parks and their visitors saw only
a few short years ago.
Multiple studies show that every $1 invested in the national parks,
at least $4 is generated in economic value to the public. These
reliable economic engines contribute $13.3 billion annually in local,
private-sector economic activity and support nearly 270,000 private
sector jobs. For example, on March 14, the Idaho Statesman published an
article citing a new study by Headwaters Economics of Bozeman, Montana,
that shows the local areas around Yellowstone have 5,155 jobs tied to
the park, with visitors spending $302 million in 2009. City of Rocks
creates 86 jobs, and generated $6.4 million in visitor spending in the
local area for 2009. Craters of the Moon supports 104 jobs and created
$5.8 million in visitor spending in Idaho in 2009. In short, spending
on the national parks creates American jobs.
There is a lot of talk on Capitol Hill these days about what the
American people want and what the American people expect. Those phrases
are thrown around on both sides of the aisle, often without much
empirical evidence. The American people are visiting our national parks
more than ever, with more than 280 million visitors last year. That is
more than 4 million above the average of the previous 5 years. The
American people's great love affair with their national parks spans
time, region, economic status, and political persuasion. It is not
diminished by the condition of the economy. A recent Harris poll found
NPS to be the Federal entity most admired by the American people, even
edging out the Armed Forces and Social Security. Another recent poll
shows that 9 out of 10 Americans have visited a national park and more
than 6 out of 10 have done so in the past 2 years. A bipartisan
majority of Americans (73 percent) believe it is important that the
parks are fully restored and ready to serve the country for another 100
years in time for the national park centennial in 2016. Despite
concerns about the economy and the Federal budget, 88 percent of
Americans say it is extremely or quite important to protect and support
the national parks. Few issues enjoy such widespread agreement and
bipartisan support among the American people.
Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF).--NPCA supports full
funding for LWCF, though we understand how difficult it would be for
this subcommittee to achieve this when faced with a shrinking
allocation. We believe in the healthy, rewarding recreational
opportunities and the completion of existing national park units the
LWCF was envisioned to provide. Though we respect that the subcommittee
may not view full funding as realistic in this fiscal climate, LWCF
should not be drastically reduced to the point recommended, for
example, in H.R. 1. Arguing that no funds for land acquisition under
LWCF should be provided to the NPS until the maintenance backlog is
eliminated is comparing apples to oranges.
Removing privately owned inholdings from within park boundaries and
completing parks will actually make their administration and resource
management more efficient and cost effective, thereby freeing up money
for other needs. Removing inholdings often improves things like
invasive species control and water quality, reduces wildfire risks,
removes obstacles to recreation and to wildlife management, and
facilitates conservation of historical resources. In most instances,
completion of specific parks by purchasing certain inholdings has been
directed by the Congress. Right now, there are many willing sellers and
with real estate prices at rock bottom, this is an ideal time for NPS
to acquire critical inholdings before they are lost forever to
incompatible development. The longer we wait and the more pressure for
incompatible development, the more expensive the land becomes. It is a
far more complicated proposition than simply opposing or supporting the
expansion of Federal holdings or the size of the Federal Government;
LWCF is part of successful management of our national parks.
The Deferred Maintenance Backlog.--The backlog is attributable to
chronic funding deficiencies in several categories, including
operations, construction, and transportation. These deficiencies have
forced park managers to make unfortunate choices between what needs to
be done and what absolutely must be done immediately to keep the parks
up and running and visitors satisfied and safe. It would be one thing
if the Congress specifically required revenue that would otherwise
legally be directed to the LWCF to be used for a period of time to
eliminate the maintenance backlog, but that is not the tradeoff that is
offered. Unfortunately, new funding reductions and prudent management
decisions necessitated by budget uncertainty over the recent past have
resulted in an increase in the maintenance backlog from roughly $9
billion last year to nearly $11 billion today. Clearly that is a move
in the wrong direction, and at current levels of investment, the
backlog will continue to increase in perpetuity. The longer needed
repairs and maintenance to facilities is put off, the more expensive
and difficult they become.
With our Nation facing deficits, identifying savings is an
important priority, but is not the only priority. Even if the Congress
were to eliminate every $1 of discretionary spending tomorrow, the
deficit would continue to grow. The National Park System is about more
than America's past; it's about our future, as the story of this great
nation and our experiment in democracy continues to unfold.
One-thirteenth of 1 percent! If even this fundamental Federal
responsibility cannot be met, it may mean nothing less than losing some
of these national resources--resources important to understanding where
we came from, how we got here and where we are going--forever. The
future of our way of life and the shared values that define it will be
diminished.
Is it important for the next generation of Americans to know what
happened at Gettysburg? Should they understand the hardships faced at
Valley Forge by the volunteer militia fighting to give birth to a new
nation? Should they have a chance to see--really see, not just in
cyberspace--what a buffalo looks like in the wild, or know the wonder
of Old Faithful erupting, or learn to catch a fish? Should they still
remember those who bravely died at Pearl Harbor or on Flight 93? Is it
important that the lofty Lamp of Liberty shines on in New York Harbor,
a beacon of freedom and opportunity, reminding of our values, for
generations to come? The responsibility for that future lies with this
subcommittee, and future generations are depending on you and your
colleagues to leave them a future enriched by these American treasures.
______
Prepared Statement of the National Recreation and Park Association
Thank you Chairman Reed, Ranking Member Murkowski, and other
honorable members of the subcommittee for this opportunity to submit
written testimony on the fiscal year 2012 Interior, environment, and
related agencies 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. Park and recreation agencies touch the lives of every
American in every community. Through our network of approximately
20,000 citizen and professional members we represent park and
recreation departments in cities, counties, townships, special park
districts, regional park authorities, and citizens concerned with
ensuring close-to-home access to parks and recreation opportunities in
their communities.
As your subcommittee works to craft the fiscal year 2012
appropriations bill, we request that you do not zero out funding for
the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF). While we recognize that
these are tough economic times, funding for the LWCF is a budget
neutral item because the program is authorized for this amount to be
paid for with oil and gas leasing revenue. Additionally, the LWCF is
much more than a Federal land acquisition program. It also provides
grants to States and local communities, grants that must be matched
dollar-for-dollar, for the construction of outdoor recreation projects
which create jobs and build healthy communities We, therefore,
specifically request that you to invest in the Nation's local
communities by allocating a minimum of 40 percent of total LWCF
appropriations to the State Assistance Program (SAP) in fiscal year
2012.
By ensuring an allocation of 40 percent, the subcommittee has the
opportunity to make a worthwhile contribution to the economy since
every State in the Nation annually receives funding through the LWCF
SAP, which has funded projects in 98 percent of counties in the United
States. The LWCF SAP provides critical investments in close-to-home
parks and outdoor recreation infrastructure in urban population centers
as well as rural areas. This funding is used for capital projects and
cannot be used for operations.
In a report prepared by the National Park Service (NPS) in March
2011, it is documented that in fiscal year 2010 the $40 million
appropriated to the LWCF SAP made a direct impact on park and
recreation facilities in or near 221 local communities and helped
``encourage active participation to strengthen the health and vitality
of the citizens of the United States pursuant to the original intent of
the Act.''
Finally, beyond the Program's direct assistance to develop and
enhance facilities, every assisted site is protected against conversion
to nonrecreation use to ensure the Federal and State/local investment
remains available for recreational use, not just for today's citizens,
but for all future generations of Americans.
According to a 2010 report by the NPS, our country faces $18.5
billion in unmet need relative to outdoor recreational resources. For
example, according to the NPS:
--Rhode Island has a total of $2,332,548 or 86 percent in unmet need.
--South Dakota struggles with the balance of satisfying the demand
for new recreation with repair and upgrade needs, totaling
$22,284,226 in unmet need.
--Alaska has $47,531,509 or 99 percent in unmet need.
--Kansas State parks saw a 32 percent increase in 2009 visitation,
which contributed to an increase in unmet needs of $101 million
for the State's parks and outdoor recreation facilities.
--Washington's estimated unmet need of $227.4 million represents a
diverse portfolio of outdoor recreation projects, including new
construction, and the renovation of aging recreational sites.
There is undoubtedly need for a continued robust investment.
Funding provided through LWCF SAP not only provides necessary community
resources for outdoor recreation opportunities, community health
resources, and environmental stewardship, it also stimulates State and
local economies, and job creation.
It is obvious that LWCF SAP funds are vital to many States and
literally determines whether local, regional, or State park recreation
facilities are available for public use.
lwcf sap stimulates jobs creation and local economies
Projects funded through the LWCF SAP stimulate outdoor recreation
and local economies. Close-to-home recreation has become increasingly
important as a result of the current economic downturn. The National
Association of State Park Directors reports that America's State park
system contributes $20 billion to local and State economies.
Additionally, The Outdoor Industry Association reports that recreation
contributes $730 billion annually to the U.S. economy, supports 6.5
million jobs across the country (this equates to 1 in every 20 jobs),
generates $49 billion in annual national tax revenue, produces $289
billion annually in retail sales and services across the United States,
and provides sustainable growth in rural communities.
As you can see from the examples below, the LWCF SAP has an
incredible impact on job creation in States throughout the country.
In Idaho, the LWCF SAP has funded projects such as the Modie
Wildlife Park and Riverfront Park which ensure the citizens of Idaho
stay connected with nature, active, and healthy. The Idaho Active
Outdoor Recreation Economy supports 37,000 jobs across Idaho, generates
$154 million in annual State tax revenue, and produces $2.2 billion
annually in retail sales and services across Idaho--more than a 5
percent of gross State product.
Arizonans also recreate close-to-home in local parks and venues.
Parks like the De Anza Trail help the Arizona Active Outdoor Recreation
Economy support 82,000 jobs across Arizona, generate nearly $350
million in annual State tax revenue, and produce almost $5 billion
annually in retail sales and services.
Without the continued support for the Nation's treasured parks and
recreation sites through the LWCF SAP, the Congress would effectively
contribute to State unemployment rates and budget deficits.
public health
The LWCF SAP plays a critical role in advancing parks and
recreation that directly contributes to fighting our Nation's obesity
and ``Type 2'' diabetes epidemics. Several medical studies have shown
that there is a strong correlation between proximity to recreational
facilities and parks and physical activity. It is estimated that
obesity costs the United States Government about $344 billion in
medical-related expenses by 2018, accounting for approximately 21
percent of healthcare spending. The Centers for Disease Control (CDC)
currently estimates 65 percent of adults and 16 percent of children are
overweight or obese, and even small improvements in the lifestyles of
Americans would yield marked health improvements and contribute
substantially to decreasing the Nation's rising healthcare costs. 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 SAP would provide a significant return on investment
through the reduction in healthcare costs.
environmental benefits
The LWCF SAP 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.
LWCF SAP projects have a historical record of contributing to reduced
and delayed storm water runoff volumes, enhanced groundwater recharge,
storm water pollutant reductions, reduced sewer overflow events,
increased carbon sequestration, urban heat island mitigation and
reduced energy demands, resulting in improved air quality, increased
wildlife habitat, and increased land values on the local level.
lwcf sap: addressing national issues on the local level
The following examples, provided by the NPS:
Focal Points of Close-to-Home Access to Health and the Outdoors
In Anne Arundel County, Maryland, LWCF funding will be used to
acquire 54 acres of forest and meadow land with 650 feet of waterfront
on the Magothy River. This park will offer spectacular views of the
river, walking and fitness trails and picnic areas.
The Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management (DEM)
completed the construction of a new beach facility at Salty Brine State
Beach in Narragansett, Rhode Island. One of Rhode Island's most popular
beaches, the new fully accessible facility is LEED Certified to the
Silver Standard. According to DEM Director W. Michael Sullivan, the new
bathhouse will generate more energy than it will use, making it the
first State facility that is self-sufficient. Also in Rhode Island,
$4.4 million in LWCF SAP funds are being used for a construction and
renovation project at the East Matunuch State Beach.
In Clark County, Washington, LWCF funding enabled the Salmon Creek
Greenspace to acquire uplands and riparian wetlands at the confluence
of Salmon Creek and Morgan Creek will provide new trail access for
hiking, walking and trail running. The 64-acre acquisition protects
critical open space within the city of Battle Ground.
In Juneau, Alaska, LWCF SAP funding was used to construct a ski
lift, lodge, warming hut, trails, and maintenance buildings at The
Eaglecrest Recreation Area.
In Kern County, California, Annin Avenue Recreation Park received
LWCF funding to acquire approximately 12 acres of land, previously
slated for industrial use, to develop a vital green space for sports
activities in a low-income agricultural community. Annin Avenue
Recreation Park will add nine American Youth Soccer Organization-
regulation soccer fields and two baseball fields.
Mr. 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's SAP, which has proven itself
invaluable to addressing national issues, the Congress 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. Because this investment has a positive impact on the
national economy in the areas through job creation and local economic
stimulation, now is the ideal time to ensure that a minimum of 40
percent of LWCF funding is provided to the SAP in fiscal year 2012.
Thank you for this opportunity to present testimony.
______
Prepared Statement of the Northern Sierra Partnership
Mr. Chairman and honorable members of the subcommittee: I
appreciate the opportunity to present this testimony in support of the
Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) in the fiscal year 2012
Interior, environment, and related agencies appropriations bill. In an
historic embrace of conservation, the President's budget request
includes full funding of LWCF in fiscal year 2012. The proposed $900
million is the congressionally authorized amount for the program and
seeks to renew focus on the promise of the LWCF: that it is right and
wise to reinvest proceeds from offshore drilling receipts in the
protection of natural resources and recreational access for all
Americans.
I recognize that this subcommittee will face many demands in this
tight fiscal climate. However, far-sighted investment in LWCF is one
that will permanently pay dividends to the American people and to our
great natural and historical heritage. As LWCF is funded from OCS
drilling revenues, not taxpayer dollars, these funds should go to their
intended and authorized use.
As part of the full commitment to LWCF in fiscal year 2012, the
U.S. Forest Service (USFS) included $2 million for the acquisition of
land in Tahoe National Forest in California in the President's budget.
I am pleased that this funding was included in the request and I urge
the Congress to provide the full President's budget amount for LWCF so
that these important projects can receive this needed funding.
Furthermore, Federal investment helps nonprofits attract private money,
multiplying the conservation benefit of this LWCF request many times
over.
The Northern Sierra Partnership (NSP), of which I am President, is
a ground-breaking partnership of five local, national, and
international conservation organizations:
--The Nature Conservancy;
--the Trust for Public Land;
--Truckee Donner Land Trust;
--Feather River Land Trust; and
--the Sierra Business Council.
Since our formation in 2007, we have protected more than 10,000
acres and raised more than $30 million in pledges and gifts. We
approach conservation on a landscape scale, focusing only on the
projects with the highest-water quality, recreation, and habitat values
in the entire region. NSP invests millions of dollars in conservation
projects in the Northern Sierra, ensuring that any Federal money is
highly leveraged with nongovernmental funds. Since 2005, LWCF
investments in the region have been leveraged with private money at a
1.5 to 1 ratio.
Once referred to by John Muir as the ``Range of Light'',
California's Sierra Nevada mountains provide some of the country's most
inspiring landscapes. They are also the sole source of drinking water
for millions of Californians and constitute one of the largest and most
important hotspots of biodiversity in the United States. The Sierra
Nevada extends for more than 400 miles along eastern California, from
the Mojave Desert in the south to the Feather River Basin in the north.
The sapphire shimmer of Lake Tahoe--the Nation's largest and deepest
alpine lake--is the hub of the north-central Sierra Nevada, and the
Tahoe and Eldorado national forests extend deep into the mountains
north and west of the lake. Elevations climb from about 1,500 feet in
the forest's western foothills to more than 9,000 feet at the Sierra
crest. Landscapes range from dry woodlands in the west to whitebark
pines and primrose-dotted meadows at the higher elevations.
In the 19th century, the Sierra was a major physical obstacle to
the completion of the transcontinental railroad, and the Federal
Government granted lands to railroad companies in alternating square
miles along the route as an incentive to extend the tracks across the
plains and mountains to the Pacific Ocean. The Sierra ``checkerboard''
of alternating Federal and private ownership is a legacy of these
Federal land grants and presents numerous challenges. The forest
habitat that is home to many birds and animals may be pristine in one
area, yet severely degraded in another. Likewise, public recreation
areas are limited in size and often are affected by nearby privately
owned sections. In addition, it is difficult and costly for both
private and public landowners to manage their segmented lands as
productive and healthy forests.
To meet these challenges, the USFS has sought to consolidate these
checkerboard lands, thereby improving management of and access to
existing federally owned lands. In addition, this effort affords
greater protection to the rivers and streams of California's Sierra
Nevada, fulfilling another important mission of the USFS, which ranks
watershed protection and improvement as primary strategic goals of land
acquisition. The checkerboard pattern of ownership also makes it
difficult to maintain sufficient habitat for spotted owls and for
species such as the American marten and the Sierra Nevada red fox--both
sensitive species.
According to a climate study conducted by The Nature Conservancy,
the northern Sierra Nevada is projected to see dramatic future changes
in climate. These include an increase in average temperatures by as
much as 4 degrees in the next 50 years, and projected reductions in
total precipitation of 12 to 24 percent. This level of change will
impose greater stress on forest systems and threaten the timing and
flow of water that sustains human communities and coldwater fisheries.
Consolidation of checkerboard lands and other fragmented holdings, as
will be achieved by this project, can help address these climate
challenges. Assuring connectivity of habitats will allow for species
migration in response to changing conditions and food availability. In
addition, consolidating Federal ownership can facilitate more
integrated forest management and watershed restoration. This will help
maintain the health of forests and forest habitats, and will enhance
watershed function to stabilize water levels, flow, and timing under a
new and more variable precipitation regime.
Available and proposed for acquisition in fiscal year 2012 are
three properties totaling 1,849 acres in the Tahoe National Forest.
These lands are entirely or substantially surrounded by national forest
lands, and consolidation of these properties will give the USFS an
improved ability to manage its lands for climate change, wildfire,
recreation, and habitat protection. These proposed tracts include the
890-acre Hole in the Ground property adjacent to the proposed Castle
Peak Wilderness, the 480-acre White Rock Lake property that is a short
distance from the Pacific Crest Trail, and the 479-acre Big Avalanche
property contains a rare limestone cave network that has evidence of
seasonal presence of the imperiled Plecotus townsendii (Townsend's big-
eared bats).
If the USFS is unable to acquire these properties, the result would
likely be cabin construction, parcel splitting, and other activities
that further complicate land management. The President's fiscal year
2012 USFS budget request includes $2 million for Sierra Nevada
Inholdings, and protection of these important lands can go forward with
congressional approval of the budget request for the LWCF.
I want to thank the chairman and the members of the subcommittee
for this opportunity to testify on behalf of this nationally important
protection effort in California, and I appreciate your consideration of
this funding request.
______
Prepared Statement of the National Tribal Contract Support Cost
Coalition
My name is Lloyd Miller and I am a partner in the law firm of
Sonosky, Chambers, Sachse, Endreson & Perry, LLP, of Washington, D.C. I
appear here today as counsel to the National Tribal Contract Support
Cost Coalition, comprised of 20 tribes and tribal organizations
situated in 11 States and collectively operating contracts to
administer more than $400 million in Indian Health Services (IHS) and
Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) facilities and services on behalf of
more than 250 Native American tribes.\1\ I am here to discuss the legal
duty and urgent need to fully fund the contract support costs (CSC)
that are owed these and other tribes performing contracts and compacts
in fiscal year 2012 on behalf of the United States pursuant to the
Indian Self-Determination Act--specifically $615 million for IHS CSC
requirements and $228 million for BIA CSC requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The NTCSCC is comprised of the:
-- Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium (Alaska);
-- Arctic Slope Native Association (Alaska);
-- Central Council of the Tlingit & Haida Indian Tribes (Alaska);
-- Cherokee Nation (Oklahoma);
-- Chippewa Cree Tribe of the Rocky Boy's Reservation (Montana);
-- Choctaw Nation (Oklahoma);
-- Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes (Montana);
-- Copper River Native Association (Alaska);
-- Forest County Potawatomi Community (Wisconsin);
-- Kodiak Area Native Association (Alaska);
-- Little River Band of Ottawa Indians (Michigan);
-- Pueblo of Zuni (New Mexico);
-- Riverside-San Bernardino County Indian Health (California);
-- Shoshone Bannock Tribes (Idaho);
-- Shoshone-Paiute Tribes (Idaho, Nevada);
-- SouthEast Alaska Regional Health Consortium (Alaska);
-- Spirit Lake Tribe (North Dakota);
-- Tanana Chiefs Conference (Alaska);
-- Yukon-Kuskokwim Health Corporation (Alaska); and
-- the Northwest Portland Area Indian Health Board (43 tribes in
Idaho, Washington, Oregon).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
No single enactment has had a more profound effect on more tribal
communities than has the Indian Self-Determination Act (ISDA). In just
three decades tribes and inter-tribal organizations have taken over
control of vast portions of the BIA and IHS, including Federal
Government functions in the areas of healthcare, education, law
enforcement and land and natural resource protection. Today, not a
single tribe in the United States is without at least one self-
determination contract with each agency, and collectively the tribes
administer more than $2.82 billion in essential Federal Government
functions, employing an estimated 35,000 people.
In the IHS Aberdeen area, more than 20 percent of the IHS budget is
under contract to the tribes. In Alaska, 100 percent of the IHS budget
and most of the BIA budget has been contracted over to the tribes. From
the Navajo Nation to the Pacific Northwest to California, tribes in 35
States have demanded their self-determination rights and secured
control over IHS and BIA programs.
ISDA has by any measure been a success unprecedented in the history
of America's relations with its tribes. It has served not only to shift
back to the tribes the primary role of controlling and administering
essential governmental services, but to reinvigorate those tribal
governments so they would be in a position to engage in meaningful
economic and resource development to better their communities.
ISDA employs a contracting mechanism to carry out its goal of
transferring essential governmental functions from Federal agency
administration to tribal government administration. To carry out that
goal and meet contract requirements, the act requires that IHS and the
BIA fully reimburse every tribal contractor for the CSC that are
necessary to carry out the contracted Federal activities. (Cost-
reimbursable government contracts similarly require reimbursement of
``general and administrative'' costs.) Full payment of fixed CSC is
essential: without it, offsetting program reductions must be made,
vacancies cannot be filled, and services are reduced, all to make up
for the shortfall. In short, a CSC shortfall is equivalent to a program
cut.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ CSC are the necessary costs of operating a Federal program
under contract. When the BIA and IHS operate these programs, the
agencies have the benefit of their own bureaucracies and other agencies
to support the programs with personnel and financial management
systems, legal resources, procurement systems and the like, both from
within their two Departments and from other departments like the
General Services Administration and the Office of Personnel Management.
Tribal contractors require similar resources to carry out contracted
programs, as well as to meet mandatory Federal requirements (including
annual audits). They cover those resources with CSCs. Most fixed CSCs
are set by Government-issued indirect cost rates, with the rates issued
based upon certified independent audits and adjusted based upon
postyear audits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For years the administration failed to request full funding for its
CSC obligations, and the resulting shortfalls grew. The first major
effort to address this deficiency in the past 10 years occurred in
fiscal year 2010, when the Congress and the President supported a $116
million increase to reduce the IHS CSC shortfall by about one-half, and
a $19 million increase to address BIA CSC shortfalls. The IHS increase,
alone, will eventually restore 2,820 health sector jobs in Indian
country. Even still, in fiscal year 2010 these increases left a severe
CSC shortfall well in excess of $160 million.
Today, IHS projects an fiscal year 2012 shortfall in CSC payments
of $153 million. That means a $153 million cut in tribally contracted
programs next year--not IHS--administered programs, but tribally
administered health programs alone--to cover the shortfall.
BIA's most recent projection of full CSC requirements is $228.3
million (set forth in the BIA's March 2011 shortfall report). Yet, the
fiscal year 2012 budget requests only $195.5 million, resulting in a
required cut in tribally operated BIA programs of $33 million next
year. Fortunately, the recently enacted fiscal year 2011 continuing
resolution raises the floor on CSC payments to $220 million. According
to BIA, this should almost close the historic funding gap in paying
these contracts.
It is not acceptable for the administration to seek deficit
reduction by singling out tribally administered health and law
enforcement programs for such grave cuts in essential governmental
services. Indeed, the Congress 23 years ago directed that the agencies
``must cease the practice of requiring tribal contractors to take
indirect costs from the direct program costs, which results in
decreased amounts of funds for services,'' S. Rept. 100-274, at 9
(1987). Yet, the practice continues.
Funding CSCs in full will permit the restoration of Indian country
jobs that have been cut while the shortfalls continue. The recent
fiscal year 2010 reduction in the CSC shortfall produced a stunning
increase in Indian country jobs. For instance, last year the Cherokee
Nation received close to $8 million of its shortfall and restored 124
positions to the Nation's healthcare system; the Forest County
Potawatomi Community received about $400,000 and added 13 positions;
the Little River Band of Ottawa Indians received about $300,000 and
added six clinical positions; the Riverside-San Bernardino County
Indian Health consortium received $2 million and restored 23 positions;
and the Southcentral Foundation of Alaska received nearly $9 million
and restored 97 positions. Third-party revenues generated from these
new positions will eventually more than double the number of restored
positions, and thereby double the amount of healthcare that tribal
organizations will provide in their communities. Similar increases
occurred across many of the BIA contractors and compactors in fiscal
year 2010, though at far smaller numbers given the BIA's smaller CSC
increase that year.
In fiscal year 2012 the National Tribal Contract Support Cost
Coalition recommends that:
--the IHS CSC line be increased to $615 million; and
--the BIA CSC line be increased to $228 million.
The status quo is not acceptable. First, at the administration's
proposed funding levels the combined projected CSC shortfall in fiscal
year 2012 for both agencies will exceed $186 million. That means a $186
million cut in tribal health, education, law enforcement and other
contracted programs, representing more than 3,600 jobs.
Second, the status quo penalizes tribes for their self-
determination contracting activities. Today, a $1 million IHS-operated
clinic has $1 million to provide services. But a $1 million tribally
operated clinic on average has only $750,000 to serve the same
community. That is a cruel and unfair burden to impose on the very
tribes that seek greater tribal self-determination.
Third, the continuing shortfalls have all but brought to a halt
forward progress under the ISDA. For years, new IHS and BIA contracting
activities have slowed to a trickle, and each agency is stuck at no
more than 60 percent of its budget operated by tribes. The Congress's
Policy of Tribal Self-Determination will not move forward until the CSC
shortfalls are addressed.
Fourth, investing funds here is wise. No part of the IHS or BIA
budgets is more highly scrutinized than are the funds awarded under
these contracts. There is a transparency and accountability here that
is unrivaled in other government contracting work.
Fifth, fully paying CSCs is legally required. The United States
Supreme Court so held in the 2005 Cherokee Nation case. It is not a
matter of writing a better law, but of honoring the law that the
Congress has already written.
Finally, it is a stain on America when the Nation honors to the
penny all other government contracts, even when honoring those
contracts demands supplemental appropriations, but not contracts with
Indian tribes. As much as law, policy, fairness and good sense, the
Nation's honor demands that these contracts be paid in full for
services duly rendered to the United States.
In addition to these recommended funding levels, the Coalition
recommends that the subcommittee require both agencies to consistently
project and budget the additional CSC requirements associated with new
contracts and program expansions (on average, 13.5 cents for each new
IHS program dollar, and 10.4 cents for each new BIA program dollar).
IHS did this in its fiscal year 2012 budget, but the BIA did not.
Further, the subcommittee should reconcile the different language used
in the IHS and BIA portions of the bill (language attached), eliminate
the old ``section 314'' language (a useless vestige after the Cherokee
case), and assure that each agency has an ISD Fund inside the overall
CSC appropriation to address new contracting initiatives.
Thank you again for the opportunity to offer these recommendations.
suggested changes to ihs and bia bill language regarding csc
IHS Language
``Provided further, That, notwithstanding any other provision of
law, of the amounts provided herein, not to exceed [$461,837,000]
$615,000,000 shall be for payments to tribes and tribal organizations
for contract or grant support costs associated with ongoing contracts,
grants, self-governance compacts, or annual funding agreements between
the Indian Health Service and a tribe or tribal organization pursuant
to the Indian Self-Determination Act of 1975, as amended, prior to or
during fiscal year 2012, as authorized by such Act, of which not to
exceed [$5,000,000] $10,000,000 may be used for contract support costs
associated with new or expanded self-determination contracts, grants,
self-governance compacts, or annual funding agreements (proposed new
language underscored; stricken language in brackets or strike-outs).''
BIA Language
``and of which, notwithstanding any other provision of law,
including but not limited to the Indian Self-Determination Act of 1975,
as amended, not to exceed [$195,490,000] $228,000,000 shall be
available for payments for contract support costs associated with
ongoing contracts, grants, compacts, compacts, or annual funding
agreements entered into between with the Bureau of Indian Affairs and a
tribe or tribal organization pursuant to the Indian Self-Determination
Act of 1975, as amended, prior to or during fiscal year 2012, as
authorized by such Act, of which not to exceed $5,000,000 may be used
for contract support costs associated with new or expanded self-
determination contracts, grants, self-governance compacts, or annual
funding agreements.''
______
Prepared Statement of the National Tribal Environmental Council
On behalf of the National Tribal Environmental Council (NTEC) and
our 187 member tribes, we thank you for the opportunity to provide
fiscal year 2012 funding recommendations for the Department of the
Interior, environment, and other related agencies under the purview of
this subcommittee.
Founded in 1991, the NTEC works with federally recognized tribes to
protect tribal environments. The NTEC's mission is to support Indian
tribes and Alaska Natives in protecting, regulating, and managing their
environmental resources according to their own priorities and values.
Despite having some of the most pristine habitat in the United
States, tribes have been historically underfunded for wildlife and
natural resource management and conservation. There are 565 federally
recognized American Indian tribes and more than 300 reservations in the
United States. Tribes manage 95 million acres of land, 11 million acres
more than the National Park Service (NPS). Tribal lands contain more
than 997,000 acres of lakes, 13,000 miles of rivers, and 18 million
acres of forested lands. Tribal lands provide vital habitat for more
than 525 federally listed plants and animals, many of which are both
ecologically and culturally significant to tribes.
bureau of indian affairs (bia)
Interior Department (DOI) Climate Change Adaptation Initiative
(Cooperative Landscape Conservation)
Increase the BIA's allocation of the DOI's Climate Change
Adaptation Initiative to $8.75 million.
The DOI began a Climate Change Adaptation Initiative in 2009, an
undertaking that Indian tribes support in principle. The
administration's fiscal year 2012 budget request for the initiative is
$175 million, an increase of $39 million more than the 2010-2011
continuing resolution. The $136 million for the initiative in 2010-2011
continuing resolution did not include any funding for tribes. Despite a
substantial increase in the overall funding request, the situation for
tribes is nearly as bad in the 2012 budget. Of the $175 million, only
$200,000 (taken from an existing BIA real estate services account) will
be used to involve and assist Indian tribes in the North Pacific
cooperative. As such, tribes are accorded a mere .001 percent of the
funding for participation in only 1 of 21 Landscape Conservation
Cooperatives. This contradicts the DOI's statement that it ``is working
collaboratively across its bureaus, with other Federal agencies, State,
and tribal governments, and nongovernmental organizations to leverage
fiscal resources and expertise and focus them on conservation of the
Nation's different ecosystems.'' \1\ Moreover, this is highly
inequitable, especially considering the disproportionate effect of
climate change on tribes and their homelands. Sovereign Indian tribes
deserve a broader seat at the table in the Climate Change Adaptation
Initiative and a more equitable share of the funding.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Fiscal Year 2012 The Interior Budget in Brief, DH-37, emphasis
added.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tribal lands comprise 4 percent of the U.S. land base, but
represent a higher percentage if compared to the Federal lands involved
in the Initiative. Tribal lands comprise 95 million acres which,
divided by the total 587 million acres of Federal land, equal 16
percent. Tribal lands include 11 million acres more than the NPS, yet
the administration proposed nearly 50 times more funding for the NPS in
fiscal year 2012.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acres (in
Agency millions)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bureau of Land Management................................... 258
Fish and Wildlife Service................................... 150
Bureau of Indian Affairs/tribes............................. 95
National Park Service....................................... 84
-----------
Total................................................. 587
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Given that tribal natural resources have been historically
underfunded and there is no Federal program or funding that
specifically supports tribal climate adaptation efforts, we request
that the allocation to tribes via the BIA should be increased to $8.75
million, or 5 percent of DOI's Climate Change Adaptation Initiative,
for tribes to address and adapt to the impacts of climate change. To
achieve this equitable increase for tribes, the money provided to the
various DOI agencies for the Initiative must be reallocated. We request
that you include language in the bill directing the Secretary to set
aside these funds for tribes.
trust natural resources (tnr) program
Increase fiscal year 2010-2011 continuing resolution amount of
$175.62 million by at least $13.36 million for BIA TNR Program.
The BIA TNR Program represents the largest amount of base, Federal
funding for tribal natural resource management. There are several
modest increases in the fiscal year 2012 budget request, such as $1
million each for rights protection implementation, tribal management/
development, forestry, water management planning and pre-development,
wildlife and parks, and wildlife and parks fish hatchery projects, and
$500,000 for invasive species. Even with these increases, base programs
that fund tribes' daily conservation responsibilities are funded at
levels less than a decade ago.
In 1999, the BIA reported that tribes had more than $356 million of
unmet annual needs for natural resource management.\2\ Despite some
annual increases since then, the BIA and tribes have lagged
significantly behind in funding compared to other DOI agencies. For
example, the fiscal year 2012 budget requests increases of $138 million
for the NPS and $48 million for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(FWS), yet the request for the BIA is a decrease of $119 million.
Moreover, in the last 9 years the BIA budget has grown only 8 percent
compared to an average of more than 23 percent for other DOI agencies
(FWS: 30 percent; NPS: 28 percent; USGS: 19 percent; and BLM: 13
percent). Because the BIA spending on natural resources in the last 11
years has been relatively flat compared to inflation and the BIA's
budget has been historically inadequate to meet the natural resource
needs of Indian tribes, their needs have multiplied.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs,
Report on Tribal Priority Allocations, July 1999, 52.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The fiscal year 2012 request is $13.36 million less than the fiscal
year 2010 enacted level primarily due to a shift of Minerals and Mining
(M&M) funding from TNR to economic development and modest decreases to
a variety of TNR programs. We acknowledge that the shift of M&M means
the money still exists but in a different place. However, due to the
significant unmet annual needs for tribal natural resource management
and the historic underfunding of tribal natural resource base programs,
we believe it is vital to augment TNR base funding with a respective
amount. Thus, we request at least a $13.36 million increase more than
2010-2011 continuing resolution levels to the BIA TNR core programs.
fws
Tribal Wildlife Grants Program
Increase FWS Tribal Wildlife Grants funding to $9.4 million.
Unfortunately, tribes are not eligible for funding under Federal
wildlife and fishery restoration programs such as the Federal Aid in
Wildlife Restoration Act (Pittman-Robertson) or the Federal Aid in
Sport Fish Restoration Act (Dingell-Johnson) that fund activities
through an excise tax on hunting and fishing equipment. Although tribal
members pay taxes that support this funding, they remain excluded from
receiving the benefits and only States are allowed to access them.
In 2002, the Congress authorized the FWS to provide funding to
tribes under the Tribal Wildlife Grant (TWG) and Tribal Landowner
Incentive programs. Tribal proposals for support often total more than
$30 million annually. In fiscal year 2009, the FWS only funded 41 TWG
proposals out of 101 submitted, awarding $7 million to tribes with a
meager average award of $170,000. With 565 federally recognized tribes,
competition is severe and tribes rarely receive sufficient funds to
fully support important conservation efforts.
In fiscal year 2010-2011 continuing resolution, States received
nearly $1 billion from the Pittman-Robertson, Dingell-Johnson, and
State Wildlife Grants Programs. Thus, the $7 million tribes received
from the TWG program was only .007 percent of the amount States
received. From 2002-2010, States received nearly 86 times more FWS
funding than tribes for fish and wildlife conservation, or $6.25
billion for States compared to $72.2 million for tribes.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ In this example, state funding includes the FWS Wildlife and
Sport Fish Restoration Programs and State Wildlife Grants. Tribal
funding includes the FWS Tribal Wildlife Grants and Tribal Landowner
Incentive Program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since the inception of the TWG program in 2002, no more than $7
million per year has been made available on a competitive basis to the
Nation's 565 federally recognized tribes. We are pleased to see the
fiscal year 2012 request of a $1 million increase to the TWG program
funding over fiscal year 2010-2011 continuing resolution. Yet, at this
low level of funding, very few tribes receive any TWG funding; those
receiving TWG funding typically get very little; and no tribe receives
sufficient funding to sustain long-term tribal wildlife and natural
resource management efforts. In fiscal year 2010, the State portion of
the State and Tribal Wildlife Grant Program was increased by $15
million (20 percent more than fiscal year 2009). Tribes deserved at
least the same 20 percent increase in fiscal year 2010, which would
have amounted to $1.4 million. Thus we request that the TWG Program
funding be increased to $9.4 million for fiscal year 2012 ($1 million
from fiscal year 2012 request plus 20 percent fiscal year 2010
increase).
america's great outdoors (ago) and youth in the great outdoors (ygo)
initiatives
Set aside $7.5 million of the AGO initiative for tribes. Set aside
$2.34 million of the YGO Initiative for tribes.
The AGO Initiative ``seeks to empower all American citizens,
community groups, and local, State and tribal governments to share in
the leadership responsibility for protecting, improving, and providing
greater access to natural areas and their resources and leaving a
healthy, vibrant outdoor legacy for generations to come.'' Tribes
support these goals for protecting natural resources for current and
future generations. Despite DOI's written commitment to partner with
tribes in its fiscal year 2012 Budget in Brief and the declaration that
the AGO Initiative directs the FWS to ``build on . . . tribal
priorities for conservation,'' there is no dedicated funding for tribes
to participate in the AGO Initiative.\4\ The fiscal year 2012 request
for the AGO is $5.5 billion, including $150 million for partnership
programs. We request that at least 5 percent, or $7.5 million, be
allocated to tribes via the BIA or the FWS for participation and
partnership in the AGO Initiative.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Interior Budget in Brief, DH 4-5 and BH 61.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The DOI, via the YGO Initiative, likewise aims to engage and
partner with tribes to employ, educate, and engage youth to explore,
connect with, and preserve America's natural and cultural heritage. We
appreciate that the BIA and other DOI agencies have employed and
engaged tribal youth in these programs in the past, but there seems to
be no dedicated funds to ensuring sustainable tribal youth engagement.
The fiscal year 2012 request for the YGO Initiative is $46.8 million.
We request that 5 percent, or $2.34 million, be allocated and dedicated
to tribes via the BIA or the FWS for participation and partnership in
the YGO Initiative.
environmental protection agency (epa)
General Assistance Program
Preserve the administration's fiscal year 2012 request of $71.4
million for the EPA General Assistance Program (GAP).
Since 1992, the EPA's Indian Environmental GAP has served a
critical need in providing funding to tribes to build capacity for
environmental management. The fiscal year 2012 budget request includes
a much-needed $8.5 million increase for GAP. This requested increase
will help tribes to continue to build environmental capacity and
further advance efforts to manage tribal environments. We request that
EPA GAP be funded at the proposed $71.4 million level.
Multimedia Tribal Implementation Grants Program
Preserve the administration's fiscal year 2012 request of $20
million for the Multimedia Tribal Implementation Grants Program.
The fiscal year 2012 budget request for the EPA proposes a new
Multimedia Tribal Implementation Grants Program to support on-the-
ground implementation of environmental protection on tribal lands. This
program would provide $20 million ($12 million less than the fiscal
year 2011 request) for tribes to address their most pressing
environmental needs. This program would allow tribes to move beyond the
planning measures supported by GAP and allow them to begin implementing
tribal environmental priorities. We request that the multimedia tribal
grants be funded at the proposed $20 million level.
______
Prepared Statement of the Nez Perce Tribal Executive Committee
Honorable Chairman and members of the subcommittee, as Chairman of
the Nez Perce Tribal Executive Committee, I would like to thank you for
the opportunity to provide testimony on behalf of the Nez Perce Tribe
to this subcommittee as it evaluates and prioritizes the spending needs
of the United States Government regarding the Indian Health Service
(IHS), Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), Environment Protection Agency
(EPA), the Forest Service (USFS) and the Fish and Wildlife Service
(FWS).
As with any government, the Nez Perce Tribe does a wide array of
work and provides a multitude of services to the tribal membership as
well as the community at large. The Nez Perce Tribe has a health clinic
with a satellite office, a tribal police force with 16 officers, a
social services department, a comprehensive natural resource program
that does work in forestry, wildlife management, land services and land
management, habitat restoration, air quality and smoke management,
water quality and sewer service, and one of the largest fisheries
departments of any tribe in the Nation working on recovery of listed
species under the Endangered Species Act. The Nez Perce Tribe conducts
its extensive governmental functions and obligations through a
comprehensive administrative framework, which is necessary for a
sovereign nation that oversees and protects the treaty rights of the
Nez Perce People in addition to providing the day-to-day governmental
services to its members and the surrounding communities. The Nez Perce
Tribe has long been a proponent of self-determination for tribes and
believes its primary obligation is to protect the treaty-reserved
rights of the Nez Perce Tribe and its members. All of the work of the
tribe is guided by this principle. As a result, the tribe works
extensively with many Federal agencies and proper funding for those
agencies and their work with, for and through tribes is of vital
importance.
The National Congress of American Indians (NCAI) has produced a
comprehensive budget request outline for Indian country which the tribe
supports. I believe that it is a valuable tool that the subcommittee
should use when formulating a final budget for fiscal year 2012. For
the purpose of today's testimony, I would like to give you a idea of
some of the specific needs of the Nez Perce Tribe.
ihs
The Nez Perce Tribe was pleased to see President Obama's budget
provided for increased spending for the IHS. The request for $4.6
billion is an increase of 14 percent more than the fiscal year 2010
funding and is desperately needed. This equates to an increase in
$571.4 million in spending. Contract Support Cost (CSC) funding should
also be funded at $615 million. The tribe's shortfall last year for CSC
was $152,546 and the shortfall for all Idaho tribes was $1.27 million.
Proper funding for the operations of the clinic is imperative. The Nez
Perce Tribe currently operates one healthcare clinic, Nimiipuu Health,
in Lapwai, Idaho on the Nez Perce Reservation. Nimiipuu Health also has
a branch facility 65 miles away in Kamiah, Idaho on the Nez Perce
Reservation. Nimiipuu Health has an active patient count of 4,504
patients. Our total expenditures for fiscal year 2010 were $13,359,275.
Our Contract Health Services (CHS) cost for outpatient services for
fiscal year 2010 was $3,696,827. In this fiscal year for the 5 months
ended February 28, 2011 our total expenditures totaled $5,822,118.
Annualized for the full 12 months this will result in a cost of
$13,973,083. Our CHS cost at the end of February was $2,002,555 and
annualized would result in a total expenditure of $4,806,132. Our
revenue from the IHS for 2010 was $9,884,067 and is projected for 2011
at $9,927,580, but may be reduced to $9.3 million and therefore we are
projected to have a $1 to $1.5 million shortfall this fiscal year.
In 2010, the tribe expended $3,475,208 of third-party billings
collected in 2010 in addition to the reserves we had from 2009. If
expenditures continue as they are projected based on the first 5 months
of fiscal year 2011, the tribe will have to collect in third-party
billings $4,045,503 with only 35 percent of patients having insurance.
This is approximately double what the tribe normally collects from
third-party billings. As a result, the tribe has for the past 3 months
been in priority one status for out CHS patients. This means life and
limb are the claims that get approved for treatment. The tribe has also
operationally reduced its overall budget by 5 percent. When funding for
services is rationed, patients are put on a deferred services list.
Last year when I testified, the list amounted to $1,293,434 in deferred
healthcare cost. Any shortfall in funding creates a trickle-down effect
in emergency and preventative patient care.
bia
For the fiscal year 2011 budget proposal, the BIA proposed several
spending recommendations for improving trust land management that were
supported by the tribe. The Nez Perce Tribe entered into an agreement
with the United States Government in 2005 known as the Snake River
Basin Water Rights Settlement Act of 2004 (title X of division J of
Public Law 108-447, 118 Stat. 3431, et seq.). A component of the
agreement was the transfer of approximately 11,000 acres of land from
the Bureau of Land Management to the tribe. The lands were supposed to
be surveyed as part of the transfer. Funding for those surveys has not
been made to this date. The fiscal year 2011 budget request called for
$695,000 for that fiscal year to begin that process. Although that
amount would not cover the full cost of the surveys, it would allow the
process to begin. The tribe supports a renewal of that appropriation
request in the fiscal year 2012 budget that was not funded during this
budget cycle.
The tribe requests more emphasis be placed on funding for contract
support costs through the BIA and that it be funded at $228 million.
The tribe applauded the passage of the Tribal Law and Order Act and the
increased emphasis on accountability in the prosecution of crime in
Indian country. However, the on the ground law enforcement still lacks
proper funding. The Nez Perce Reservation covers 1,200 square miles and
covers five counties and has a mixture of tribal and nontribal
residents. Currently, the Nez Perce Tribe contributes $600,000 per year
to cover the shortfall in BIA funding for the tribe's law enforcement.
This funding comes from cigarette taxes levied by the tribe. This
funding is constantly under attack by the State. Addressing this
shortfall in BIA funding should be a priority.
The tribe also relies on the BIA for funding for its work related
to endangered species and protection of the tribe's treaty resources
including Chinook and steelhead salmon. The funding has also been used
to supplement the research efforts of the tribe relative to Big Horn
Sheep. The BIA Endangered Species Program provides tribes with the
technical and financial assistance to protect endangered species on
trust lands, but funding of this program has declined significantly
over the last 8 years.
In addition, the funding provided under the BIA Rights Protection
fund is critical as it supports the exercise of off-reservation hunting
and fishing for tribes like the Nez Perce. It is important to
understand that this funding is not for equipment, but is used for job
creation. The tribe has employed two new conservation officers and an
additional biologist for our programs under the funding during the last
fiscal year. As mentioned with law enforcement, the tribe has to cover
and manage a large area in fisheries related activities from the
Lostine River in Oregon to the south fork of the Salmon River and a
capable and adequate staff is vital to continue this work.
The Tribal Management and Development Program also needs increased
funding. NCAI has recommended $20 million for base and programmatic
funding. This program is critical for fish and wildlife management of
the tribe. Programs such as our fisheries programs and outside groups
such as the Inter-Tribal Buffalo Council rely heavily on this funding.
The tribe supports the funding requests for the BIA Wildlife and
Parks Tribal Priority Allocations that the Columbia River Inter-Tribal
Fish Commission will testify about later today. This funding is
allowing important work to be done on fish recovery through hatchery
operation and maintenance. As stated earlier, the tribe has invested a
large amount of its personnel and resources in the restoration and
recovery of this important resource through its fisheries programs. The
State of Idaho directly benefits from this work as well through its
sports fisheries. These programs have been successful, but more work
needs to be done.
fws and usfs
The tribe relies heavily on funding sources within the FWS and the
USFS. First, the Tribal Wildlife Grants account for a small pot of
money that has resulted in huge returns from the tribe's perspective.
This competitive grant does not simply dole out funds for projects, but
awards grants based on the quality of the proposal. The tribe has
received funding from this grant four out of the last 5 years based on
the quality of our research work on Big Horn Sheep. The Big Horn Sheep
is a treaty resource of the tribe that is declining rapidly within the
tribe's ceded territory. The funds from this program provide the
resources to keep the research going. Funding for these grants was
eliminated in some proposals for the fiscal year 2011 budget. The tribe
strongly urges this subcommittee to not eliminate this funding as it
provides a large return in work for a small investment. It is also one
of the few sources of funds tribes can tap into for wildlife research.
The tribe also supports increased funding for the work of the USFS
in the protection of treaty reserved resources of tribes. The Nez Perce
Tribe reservation and its usual and accustomed areas are rich in
natural resources and encompass eight different national forests. The
tribe works closely with each forest administration to properly manage
its resources on behalf of the tribe. These range from protecting and
properly managing the products of the forest to managing the vast
wildlife in each one such as elk, deer, bighorn sheep, and wolves.
Increased funding is necessary so that the USFS can meet these trust
obligations and continue to work with tribes such as the Nez Perce on a
Government-to-government basis.
Similarly, the tribe is looking for funding for solutions to help
with its Bison hunt in the Gallatin National Forest near Yellowstone
National Park. For the last 5 years, the Nez Perce Tribe has returned
to the Gallatin to exercise its treaty right to harvest bison in that
area. The treaty hunt has been successful and this year the tribe
harvested over 60 animals. However, there is still concern by the
livestock industry over the transmission of disease by the bison and
therefore a ship and slaughter program used by the State of Montana to
protect domestic livestock has the potential to endanger such treaty
based hunts. More funding for work and research to assist in helping
the USFS, the FWS and the National Park Service meet the treaty hunting
rights of the Nez Perce Tribe and the Confederated Tribes of the Salish
Kootenai is needed.
epa
The Nez Perce Tribe currently implements, on behalf of the EPA, the
Federal Air Rules for Reservations Program (FARR). The program monitors
air quality and regulates field burning throughout the Nez Perce
Reservation. The tribe is located in region 10 of the EPA. The Tribe is
currently dependent on several EPA sources for funding for the FARR.
Continued funding is needed for tribes to meet their air quality needs
and operate programs under the delegation of the EPA. The EPA
consistently uses the Nez Perce Tribe's FARR Direct Implementation
Tribal Cooperative Agreement (DITCA) Program as a model of success, but
region 10 is being forced to look for ways that the Nez Perce Tribe can
reduce the cost of its FARR DITCA. The Nez Perce Tribe cannot cut its
FARR DITCA budget without adversely impacting the tribe's ability to
protect the health and welfare of the 18,000 residents of the Nez Perce
Reservation. The Nez Perce Tribe currently operates its entire FARR
DITCA program for about the same cost per year as the State of Idaho
operates solely an agricultural burning program, therefore, EPA gets a
much bigger ``bang for their buck'' with the FARR DITCA program
compared to the State program and is a program worthy of investment.
The tribe was pleased to see that Administrator Lisa Jackson
proposed $1.3 billion for State and tribal partnerships in the fiscal
year 2011 budget. Funding for this work in fiscal year 2012 would be
important. In addition to the air quality program, the Tribe is
currently in facilitated discussions with the State of Idaho that are
being funded through grants from the EPA. The facilitated discussions
involve the tribe adopting water quality standards to improve the water
quality on the Nez Perce Reservation. The tribe will be looking to the
EPA for continued assistance and funding for these programs. The tribe
also relies heavily on contract support dollars for our water resource
programs such as the storage tank remediation issues and watershed
restoration. Deep cuts to the EPA budget would severely affect these
programs. As you can see, the Nez Perce Tribe does a variety of work,
sometimes instead of and sometimes on behalf of the United States, but
the tribe still expects the United States to provide proper funding
under its trust obligations.
______
Prepared Statement of the National WH&B Advocate Team
This is an urgent call to the Appropriations Committee and the
Congress delegates to cut spending for roundups/removals of America's
threatened wild horses and burros through fiscal year 2012
appropriations. The appropriation powers vested in the Congress must be
used immediately to stop the waste of millions of tax dollars and to
save America's fast-disappearing national treasures, the famous wild
horses and burros (WH&B) of the West. Independent research using the
U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) numbers and methodology has
uncovered the following:
fiscally irresponsible management--millions of tax dollars wasted
The BLM is creating the out-of-control costs of the program by
taking wild horses and burros off the range, including nonexcess
animals, and by not allocating reasonable resources to them on their
legal Western public lands. The herds are better managed on the range
at very little cost by keeping the family bands intact, using limited
fertility control and scientifically based, reformed management
protocols.
Millions of taxpayer dollars are being wasted on the unnecessary,
inhumane roundups and removals of herds, $10 million in fiscal year
2010, and the warehousing of animals, $36 million in fiscal year 2010.
Millions of taxpayer dollars are spent to support the BLM Grazing
Program for less than 0.5 percent of the total U.S. livestock inventory
at a loss of $123 million to $500 million per year. The 2008 GAO report
stated the program lacks accountability, science and fiscal
sustainability.
dangerously low numbers on the range--blm removing non-excess wh&b
The BLM's 26,600 is the targeted national appropriate management
level, which is ``in ecological balance with their occupied habitat''
(President's fiscal year 2011 Proposed Budget, pg. IV-79). Research
shows the BLM appears to be using taxpayer dollars to unnecessarily
round up nonexcess animals below 26,600 in violation of the 1971 Act.
Estimated WH&B numbers on the range are very much lower than the
38,000 BLM is currently reporting. The numbers could be as low as
18,000 (see Report pg. 5).
Estimated WH&B numbers on the range are over-inflated (see Report
pg. 7).
Extremely low numbers--26,600--are for long-term survival of the
protected herds. Of that number, burros are in grave danger at only
about 3,000 left in the wild. The majority of herds on the range
consist of numbers well below the 150 animals per herd considered
necessary for sustainability over time.
The BLM's own numbers and census methodology projected forward
leave only an estimated 5,700 animals on the range by the end of fiscal
year 2012--a sure setup for extinction.
minimal land/forage/water allocated for sustainability over time--
constant downward trend
The herds are not overpopulated. They are under-allocated land,
forage, and water. They are being squeezed off their legal public
lands. The original 53 million acres where they were found in 1971 have
been reduced to approximately 26 million acres. Continued reductions
are planned. The herds are restricted to these approximately 26 million
BLM acres or less than 4 percent out of 650 million total Federal
public land acres, which includes 245 million BLM acres (see Report pg.
12).
Livestock graze more than 239 million United States Forest Service
and BLM acres, which includes the approximately 26 million acres to
which iconic herds are restricted in their Herd Management Areas
(HMAs). On the HMAs, livestock are given preference and are allocated
the majority of forage compared to the legally protected herds. Three
to fifteen times more forage goes to livestock (see Report pg. 10).
Three hundred thirty-nine Herd Areas (HAs), in 1971 (317 per 2005
CRS Report) have been reduced down to the BLM's count of 180 HAs and
HMAs. Needless to say, hundreds of unique herds have been zeroed out
and lost forever over the last 40 years.
lack of science, consistency, accuracy, credibility, and transparency
The BLM's published data over the program life is inaccurate,
inconsistent, noncredible, and nontransparent.
No state-of-the-art, scientific census of actual WH&B numbers on
the range has ever been undertaken to substantiate the program goals.
Current on-the-range management practices lack science and long-
term efficacy studies on fertility treatment, sex ratio adjustments,
herd/band behavior/dynamics/health, and the causes of compensatory
reproduction. Current roundup methods are inhumane as demonstrated by
ample documentary evidence.
Program lacks true independent peer review and accountability.
Forced to acknowledge the lack of a science-based program, the BLM has
engaged the National Academy of Sciences to analyze the whole program
and make recommendations. This could be a 2-year study and will be a
waste of time and more taxpayer dollars if massive roundups/removals
are not halted to coincide with the study.
America asks the Congress to defund the wasteful, destructive
roundups/removals of wild horses and burros through the appropriations
process until proper reforms and humane, science-based, on-the-range
management protocols are put in place.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Refer to full Report to Congress on Defunding Roundups/Removals
at: http://tinyurl.com/6fo39y2.
Roundup Video link: http://bit.ly/g72Rkj.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
what the congress can do right now to save taxpayer dollars and save
america's threatened wild horses and burros
Vote for Fiscal Responsibility in the Program
Defund roundups/removals of WH&B, with the exception of
independently verifiable emergency situations, for fiscal year 2012
through the current budget process. Keep funding at fiscal year 2010
level of $64 million (Save $12 million). Reallocate program funds for
humane, on-the-range WH&B management and stop additional stockpiling of
animals in Government holding facilities not accessible by the American
public (Save $12 million fiscal year 2012). Reallocate program funds
for an immediate independent, accurate, state-of-the-art census of
animals on the range and in holding. Guesstimated numbers are no longer
acceptable. Reallocate program funds to repatriate as many animals as
possible in holding back to their legal Western public lands (Potential
to save more than $48 million in fiscal year 2012). Ensure continued
funding for all horses in holding until they can be repatriated to
their legal Western public lands. Ensure no funds are allocated for
euthanasia or slaughter of wild horses and burros. Acknowledge and
encourage revenue-producing ecotourism centered around the cultural,
historic, and heritage assets of America's living legends. Wildlife
viewing is a $45 billion a year national industry as reported by USFWS,
2006.
Demand Science, Credibility, Accuracy, Consistency and Transparency in
the Program
Ensure the NAS Study of the program is truly independent. Suggest
additional parameters be reviewed to enhance the study (see Report pgs.
21-22). Develop and pass legislation to ensure the highest humane
treatment and management practices on the range, which includes
improved WH&B handling, tracking, accountability, and real consequences
for inappropriate management. Consider alternatives to remove entire
program from the BLM's jurisdiction and create another entity that will
truly preserve and protect America's herds as the original 1971 act
intended.
Create More Equitable Land/Forage/Water Reallocation Legislation To
Protect and Preserve Viable Herds on the Range Long Term
Acknowledge that reducing the original HAs of 53 million acres down
to less than 26 million acres and zeroing out more than 150 herds has
violated the multiple-use mandate of the 1971 act. Acknowledge WH&B are
not being allocated equitable resources on their restricted, legal
Western public lands to sustain their health and longevity as federally
protected species mandated by the 1971 act. Utilize powers already
vested in the 1971 act to return all original HA acreage to WH&B and
designate WH&B as the ``principle'' user on all HMAs and HAs. This will
entail passing legislation requiring the BLM to amend the land use and
range management plans of all the HMAs and HAs in order to:
--reinstate migratory routes and lands lost to WH&B;
--designate the lands as ``ranges'' for WH&B;
--reflect marked increases in forage and water allocations to WH&B,
as the ``principle'' user of those resources; and
--reflect marked increases in appropriate management levels of WH&B
to ensure their continued survival for generations to come on
public lands.
Stand up for Increased Appropriate Management Level Numbers of WH&B on
the Range for their True Preservation Well Into the Future
Acknowledge that 26,600 WH&B on the range in the 10 Western States
are far below a ``species of concern'' population level as compared to
other large wild land species. Wild burros numbering about 3,000 are in
the endangered category right now. Support the increase of appropriate
management levels of WH&B so their numbers will be sustainable for
long-term survival on all HMAs and HAs.
Support repatriation of WH&B currently in expensive holding
facilities back to their legal lands in the West, thus saving millions
of taxpayer dollars and preserving and protecting America's living
legends as was originally intended by the 1971 Act.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Refer to full Report to Congress on Defunding Roundups/Removals
at: http://tinyurl.com/6fo39y2.
Roundup Video link: http://bit.ly/g72Rkj.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
______
Prepared Statement of the Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission
Mr. Chairman and other honorable members of the subcommittee, I am
Billy Frank, Jr., Chairman of the Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission
(NWIFC). It is indeed a privilege for me to be among the distinguished
cadre of Northwest tribal leaders who are also here to present the
funding requests of their people. Their strong support and
encouragement gives our organization focus and direction and helps make
us successful in protecting and enhancing their treaty rights. To meet
the many natural resource management responsibilities required of the
tribes, I submit the following requests for the Bureau of Indian
Affairs (BIA) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
summary of fiscal year 2012 appropriations request
BIA
Rights Protection Implementation Account.--Increase the funding to
western Washington fisheries management by $8.643 million from the
amount contained in the President's fiscal year 2012 budget to a total
of $17.146 million. Restore the Washington State timber-fish-wildlife
project to the fiscal year 2010 enacted levels of $2.736 million.
Increase salmon marking by $1.4 million from the amount contained in
the President's fiscal year 2012 budget to a total of $2.4 million.
Increase the funding to U.S./Canada Pacific Salmon Treaty by $694,000
from the amount contained in the President's fiscal year 2012 budget to
a total of $4.8 million.
Fish, Wildlife, and Parks Account.--Support the fish hatchery
maintenance account at $5.452 million as requested in the President's
fiscal year 2012 budget.
EPA
Support the tribal General Assistance Program (GAP) at $71.375
million as requested in the President's fiscal year 2012 budget.
Support the Multimedia Tribal Implementation Grants Program at $20
million as requested in the President's fiscal year 2012 budget.
Restore the Puget Sound Geographic Program to the fiscal year 2010
enacted level of $50 million.
National Requests
We also support the budget priorities and funding requests of the
National Congress of American Indians.
On behalf of our 20 member tribes, I am here today to speak to our
fiscal year 2012 natural resource management funding requests for the
BIA and the EPA. But before I do that, I must first acknowledge the
outstanding support this subcommittee has given to us in the past
couple of years. You listened to our story and have helped us greatly
with your actions that supported our needs. We are also pleased that
the fiscal year 2012 President's budget continues to be supportive of
the northwest natural resources funding requests and includes many of
the subcommittee's actions from the last 2 years.
tribes, treaty rights, and trust obligations of the federal government
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 ceded most of their land, but
in doing so, reserved certain rights to fish, hunt, and gather 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 U.S. 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 and determined they were entitled to 50 percent of the
harvestable number of salmon returning to Washington State waters. More
recent Federal court rulings and solicitor opinions upholding treaty-
reserved 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 essential in nearly all aspects of natural resource
management in the region.
The tribes from the Pacific Northwest have stepped forward and have
embraced co-management. Today, the tribes have developed sophisticated
natural resource programs designed to protect and enhance their treaty
rights. Tribal programs, based on deep cultural and philosophical
underpinnings, have served as the backbone of salmon recovery,
providing the technical, policy, and legal framework for this
incredibly difficult task. Tribes perform complicated harvest,
hatchery, and habitat management tasks that neither the State nor the
Federal Government can effectively carry out. Tribal programs, largely
funded by the BIA, serve as a de facto arm of the Federal Government as
it labors to uphold its trust obligations to the tribal people. These
funds are contracted or compacted by the tribes through the Indian
Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act. Under this act, tribes
were delegated authority to provide their own services created by the
Federal trust responsibility. It is because of the role that tribes
play in protecting their rights that they require adequate, long-term,
and stable funding.
justification of fiscal year 2012 appropriations request
BIA
Increase the funding to western Washington fisheries management by
$8.643 million from the amount contained in the President's fiscal year
2012 budget to a total of $17.146 million.
Over the past several years, the tribes and the NWIFC have
requested an increase of $12 million in the base western Washington
fisheries management program. In fiscal year 2010, the Congress heard
our plea and increased the national rights protection implementation
account by $12 million with $3.386 million of this going to the western
Washington fisheries management program. This increase was very much
appreciated and will go towards meeting many of our needs. However, we
once again ask the Congress to address the remaining identified needs
of the NWIFC and our member tribes. We respectfully request an increase
of $8.643 million from the amount contained in the President's fiscal
year 2012 budget to a total of $17.146 million which is consistent with
our needs assessment presented in fiscal year 2010 to this
subcommittee.
Restore the Washington State Timber-Fish-Wildlife Project to the
Fiscal Year 2010 Enacted Levels of $2.736 Million.--The congressional
increase to the rights protection implementation subactivity in fiscal
year 2010 of $12 million was allocated to all programs within this
element including the Washington State timber-fish-wildlife project.
However, the President's fiscal year 2012 budget did not carry forward
the entire fiscal year 2010 increase. The Washington State timber-fish-
wildlife project was reduced by $10,000. Thus, we respectfully request
that this account be restored to maintain the fiscal year 2010 funding
level.
Increase Salmon Marking by $1.4 Million From the Amount Contained
in the President's Fiscal Year 2012 Budget to a Total of $2.4
Million.--The salmon marking line item was funded at $1 million by the
fiscal year 2010 increase in the rights protection implementation
subactivity. These funds are used to 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. We respectfully request an additional $1.4
million to fully implement more extensive selective fisheries targeted
at these marked fish.
Increase U.S. Pacific Salmon Treaty by $694,000 From the Amount
Contained in the President's Fiscal Year 2012 Budget to a Total of $4.8
Million.--The Pacific Salmon Treaty Act of 1985 charges the United
States Section of the Pacific Salmon Commission with the responsibility
for implementation of the Pacific Salmon Treaty, a bilateral treaty
with Canada. Tribes assist in meeting the Federal Government's
obligations in implementing the treaty by participating in cooperative
research and data gathering programs. We support the U.S. section's
recommendation to fund the Department of the Interior, the BIA at $4.8
million, an increase of $694,000 from the amount contained in the
President's fiscal year 2012 budget.
Support the Fish Hatchery Maintenance Account at $5.452 Million as
Requested in the President's Fiscal Year 2012 Budget.--Tribal fish
hatcheries in western Washington are part of the largest fish hatchery
system in the world. Tribal hatcheries produce 50 percent of the coho
salmon and 33 percent of the Chinook salmon in Puget Sound and the
coast of Washington. These hatcheries provide fish that significantly
contribute to both non-Indian recreational and commercial harvest, as
well as for tribal fisheries. Today, hatcheries also play a large role
in recovering pacific salmon, many of which are listed under the
Endangered Species Act. A comprehensive needs assessment study was
conducted in fiscal year 2006 by the BIA at the request of Congress
which identified a level of need of more than $48 million in necessary
hatchery maintenance and rehabilitation costs. We support the funding
of this account at $5.452 million as requested in the President's
fiscal year 2012 budget.
epa
Support the Tribal Gap at $71.375 Million as Requested in the
President's Fiscal Year 2012 Budget.--We support full funding of the
EPA Indian GAP at the $71.375 million amount requested in the
President's fiscal year 2012 budget. This funding has built essential
tribal capacities and remains critical to the tribes' ability to
sustain their important water quality programs. We support the increase
of $8.5 million from the fiscal year 2010 enacted level which is
included in the President's budget.
Support the Multimedia Tribal Implementation Grants Program at $20
Million Requested in the President's Fiscal Year 2012 Budget.--This
program was initially included in the President's fiscal year 2011
budget request. It will allow the EPA to provide targeted multimedia
(cross discipline) grants to tribes for implementation of Federal
environmental programs. This program logically follows the capacity
building function under the tribal GAP, as noted above. This program is
a substantial investment from within the EPA and will continue to build
a firm foundation for environmental protection. Tribes in western
Washington are ready to partner with the EPA to begin this
implementation program. We support $20 million for the Multimedia
Tribal Implementation Grant program funding, which is included in the
President's fiscal year 2012 budget.
Restore the Puget Sound Geographic Program to the Fiscal Year 2010
Enacted Level of $50 Million.--Marine resources are very important to
our member tribes. The Puget Sound Geographic Program provides
essential funding that will help protect, restore, and enhance Puget
Sound. Tribes will continue to seek funding from this EPA account, in
coordination with the Puget Sound Partnership. Such funding will allow
the tribes to participate in the necessary scientific work,
implementation measures, and policy discussions on issues that affect
our treaty rights. We support restoring this program to the fiscal year
2010 enacted level of $50 million. With this level of funding,
collaborative work can continue on key marine issues, salmon recovery,
land-use management, and regulatory changes.
conclusion
Mr. Chairman, and members of the subcommittee, we know that it is
difficult to allocate scarce Federal funds at this time. However, we
believe that the management work that we perform to protect our
valuable resources and to help fulfill the trust obligation of the
Federal Government continues to be worthy of your support.
Thank you.
______
Prepared Statement of the National Wildlife Refuge Association
Mr. Chairman 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). The
meaningful funding increases from fiscal year 2008-fiscal year 2010
allowed the NWRS to emerge from the years of declining budgets that
followed the 2003 refuge centennial. Unfortunately, the final
appropriation for fiscal year 2011, an $11 million cut, represents a
$19 million reduction when factoring in the amount the NWRS needs
annually to maintain existing management capabilities. We respectfully
request an appropriation of $511 million for fiscal year 2012, which
would essentially be flat funding from fiscal year 2010.
The NWRA appreciates the opportunity to offer comments on the
fiscal year 2012 Interior, environment, and related agencies
appropriations bill and we respectfully request the subcommittee
support the following funding allocations for programs in the NWRS and
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS):
--$511 million for the operations and maintenance (O&M) accounts of
the NWRS;
--$27 million for Refuge Revenue Sharing;
--$900 million for the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF),
including $140 million for the NWRS;
--$20.2 million for Landscape Conservation Cooperatives (LCCs) in the
FWS;
--$20 million for Inventory and Monitoring for refuges;
--$37 million for the NWRS construction account for large-scale
restoration projects, visitors centers, and energy-efficiency
projects;
--$80 million for NWRS Visitors Services;
--$39 million for Refuge Law Enforcement
--$5 million for the management of the new Pacific Marine Monuments;
--$65 million for the FWS' Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program;
--$95 million for the State and Tribal Wildlife Grants Program;
--$50 million for the North American Wetlands Conservation Fund;
--$6.5 million for the Neotropical Migratory Bird Fund;
--$8.4 million for Wildlife Without Borders;
--$8.5 million for the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation (NFWF)
in the FWS' Resource Management General Administration
appropriation.
national wildlife refuge funding--o&m and construction
The NWRA chairs the Cooperative Alliance for Refuge Enhancement
(CARE), a diverse coalition of 21 sporting, conservation, and
scientific organizations representing more than 14 million Americans
that works to support the NWRS's ability to accomplish its mission.
After years of flat budgets, the Congress in recent years has
demonstrated a commitment to fund our national wildlife refuges, and
the increases from fiscal year 2008-fiscal year 2010 allowed for the
suspension of workforce downsizing plans that outlined an eventual 20
percent reduction in overall staffing levels. Even so, CARE estimates
that the NWRS needs at least $900 million in annual funding to properly
administer its 150 million acres and remains committed to aiming for
this goal.
NWRA respectfully requests that you provide $511 million in fiscal
year 2012 for NWRS O&M. We estimate the refuges need at least $519
million to maintain management capabilities from fiscal year 2010; our
request represents a sacrifice as we deal with our Nation's fiscal
crisis.
This $511 million request for refuge O&M includes $8 million for
inflationary costs, which, due to the freeze on Federal salaries, is
less than the annual adjustment of at least $15 million for inflation
the NWRS ordinarily needs just to maintain management capabilities,
including rent, utilities, salaries, concrete, gas, and steel--
everything a refuge needs to function. The final appropriation for
fiscal year 2011, an $11 million cut, ($492 million) will in effect be
a $19 million reduction when factoring in this annual need. Our request
of $511 million is a reasonable amount for the Service to maintain most
management capabilities. Without providing adequate funding for these
fixed costs, refuges will simply be unable to maintain current programs
and public services, and the backlog will grow.
Refuges have almost $1 billion worth of construction needs,
including the replacement of deteriorating structures that are becoming
more expensive to maintain. We request flat funding for the NWRS's
construction budget at $37 million, including funds for large-scale
habitat restoration. Funds for new visitor/administration centers,
including those at the Potomac River Refuges near Washington, DC and
the Sherburne NWR outside Minnesota's Twin Cities, will provide a net
benefit in efficiencies and in economic impact. Refuges with a broad
range of programs create more service industry jobs and more income for
local communities.
supporting jobs and leveraging american volunteerism
Refuges are economic engines in local communities, returning on
average $4 in economic activity for every $1 appropriated by Congress.
Nationwide this equates to more than $2 billion in annual economic
impact. Refuges are job creators; more than 30,000 jobs--largely in the
private sector--are attributed to refuge-related activities. Ecosystem
restoration activities deliver the biggest pay-off, where $1 million
invested creates 30 jobs, while $1 million invested in recreation
creates 22 jobs. Refuges provide significant bang for the buck, despite
receiving the least amount per acre of all land management agencies.
Refuges are managed with $3.36 per acre while the National Forest
Service and National Park Service receive $32.25 and $37.11 per acre,
respectively.
Refuges are also vital places for the American people to connect
with nature and volunteer. Currently, refuge Friends and volunteers do
approximately 20 percent of all work on refuges, the equivalent of 648
full time employees. We request $80 million for Visitors Services for
the NWRS. The administration's proposed $2.3 million cut to Visitors
Services represents a cut to the programs that oversee volunteers and
thereby a marked decline in the work volunteers are able to contribute,
leaving that work essentially undone.
using science to guide adaptive management
The FWS and the NWRS are developing landscape level strategies to
address habitat changes due to shifting land use, increasing human
population, the spread of invasive species and changing climates. But
the need is urgent and time is of the essence--especially with species
on the verge of collapse in locations such as Alaska and Hawaii. We
strongly support the FWS initiative to establish Landscape Conservation
Cooperatives (LCCs) to bring the best science to bear to help local,
State, and Federal agencies make the most educated management
decisions. We recommend an allocation of $20.2 million to fund LCCs in
fiscal year 2012, building upon the initial LCC investments in fiscal
year 2010.
The NWRA further recommends an allocation of $20 million for the
NWRS's Inventory and Monitoring program. As the Gulf oil spill showed,
basic inventories of our natural assets are crucial if the American
people are to recoup costs in the event of manmade disasters.
commitment to refuge communities--refuge revenue sharing
The NWRS uses the net income derived from use permits, timber
harvests, and so on to make payments to local counties or communities
to offset lost tax revenue, and relies on Congressional appropriations
to the Refuge Revenue Sharing program to compensate for the shortfall
between revenues and obligations. Due to declining revenue and lack of
appropriations, the Service has been paying less than 50 percent of its
tax-offset obligations since 2001. This has a measurable impact on
local communities that is felt even more starkly in difficult economic
times--and it creates severe strain in relations between the Federal
units and their local community, threatening the goodwill and
partnerships that are keystones of successful conservation. NWRA
requests $27 million for the Refuge Revenue Sharing Program, which, in
recognition of the President's proposal to zero out funding, is still
only half of what is needed. The NWRA also calls for a review of the
Refuge Revenue Sharing Act of 1935 as amended, and consideration of
conversion to a Payment-in-Lieu of Taxes (PILT) program to be
consistent with the National Park Service, the Bureau of Land
Management and the U.S. Forest Service and to provide Refuge
communities with more equitable payments.
partnerships and strategic growth
The Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program is a powerful tool for
working with private landowners to collaboratively conserve refuge
landscapes. The program consistently leverages Federal dollars for
conservation, generating between $4-$10 in conservation return for
every $1 appropriated, and has been key to the success of many iconic
landscape conservation projects. In the past 2 years, the Wyoming
Landscape Conservation Initiative used $454,000 in habitat restoration
and enhancement to leverage an additional $1.4 million from private
partners. But the Partners program saw its purchasing power erode
between 8-24 percent in 2010 due to rising diesel fuel and seed costs.
If funded at its authorized level of $75 million, the program would net
at least $300 million worth of additional conservation. NWRA requests
an fiscal year 2012 appropriation of $65 million for the Partners for
Fish and Wildlife Program, a $5 million increase to maintain
capabilities.
The NWRA also calls upon the Congress to fully fund the Land and
Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) at its authorized level of $900 million,
with 75 percent devoted across agencies to investments in iconic
landscapes. Created in 1965 and authorized at $900 million per year
(more than $3 billion in today's dollars), the LWCF is our most
important land acquisition tool. With more than 8 million acres still
unprotected within existing designated refuge boundaries, and the need
to establish key wildlife corridors and connections between protected
areas, the LWCF is more important than ever. In 2011, NWRA recommends
that Congress approve LWCF funding to support projects such as:
--Bear River Migratory Bird Refuge (Utah)--$1.4 million;
--Blackwater NWR (Maryland)--$1.5 million;
--Cache River NWR (Arkansas)--$4.25 million;
--Connecticut River--Silvio O. Conte NFWR (New Hampshire, Vermont,
Massachusetts, Connecticut)--$6.5 million;
--Everglades Headwaters NWR (Florida)--$10 million;
--Flint Hills Legacy Conservation Area (Kansas)--$5 million;
--Nestucca Bay NWR (Oregon)--$2 million;
--Rocky Mountain Front Conservation Area (Montana)--$8 million;
--Rhode Island NWR Complex (Rhode Island)--$3.28 million;
--Southeast Louisiana Refuge Complex (Louisiana)--$500,000; and
--Stillwater NWR (Nevada)--$3 million to acquire water rights.
There are several additional extremely worthy refuge land
acquisitions advocated for by refuge ``Friends'' organizations and
refuge partners and we have provided the subcommittee with those
requests in a separate document.
The NWRA also urges the subcommittee to appropriate $95 million for
the State and Tribal Wildlife Grants Program to implement State
Wildlife Action Plans; $50 million for the North American Wetlands
Conservation Fund; $6.5 million for the Neotropical Migratory Bird
Conservation Fund and $8.5 million for the National Fish and Wildlife
Foundation.
returning to fiscal year 2008 funding levels
Some in the Congress have recommended returning to fiscal year 2008
funding levels; we must caution that this would have immediate and
severe impacts to our national wildlife refuges. With the NWRS already
44 percent underfunded, proposals to return the agency to fiscal year
2008 levels would result in an estimated 20 percent cut to current
funding and would have dramatic ramifications including:
--Elimination of hundreds of staff positions, significantly reducing
the System's ability to restore habitats, control invasive
species, maintain roads, and respond to illegal activities;
--Decline in the quality and quantity of visitor services programs,
forcing an estimated 54 visitor centers to close and preventing
11 more under construction from opening at all;
--Reduction of volunteer efforts, as cuts to staff who oversee
volunteers will result in a decline in the work volunteers are
able to contribute;
--Reduction of hunting programs on an estimated 48 refuges and
reduction of fishing programs on an estimated 45 refuges;
--A halt on progress of the NWRS's inventory and monitoring program,
likely reducing it to a skeletal operation. The need for this
program was made clear by the Deepwater Horizon oil spill,
which forced FWS staff to hastily catalog gulf coast refuge
assets in order to prove damages and recoup costs from
responsible parties. Now the only refuges nationwide with a
comprehensive inventory of species and water quality are those
that were in the path of oil.
In conclusion, the NWRA believes the NWRS can meet its important
conservation objectives only with strong and consistent funding
leveraged by the valuable work of refuge volunteers. We extend our
appreciation to the subcommittee for its ongoing commitment to our
NWRS.
______
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 funded by a Public Law 93-638 contract with the
Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), which is appropriated directly through
the BIA's ``Trust/Natural Resource Management--Rights Protection
Implementation.'' The 1854 Treaty Authority respectfully requests that
the Senate fund this appropriation in fiscal year 2012 at the same
level it was funded in fiscal year 2010 ($30,451,000) 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 million 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 nontTribal 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 above-mentioned
Government entities, as well as organizations from the private sector.
However, the 1854 Treaty Authority has struggled to maintain its
full-time staff. Up until fiscal year 2010, we had not had an increase
in base funding for our programs of any significance in many years, and
in fact the base funding had decreased the previous seven funding
cycles. Simultaneously, cost of living expenses increased at a regular
rate, and some expenses have increased at an alarming rate (e.g. health
and vehicle insurance, fuel, etc). Staff pay costs (wages plus
benefits) combined with a decrease in base funding compelled the Treaty
Authority to absorb all the cost increases internally at the expense of
other programs and services. In 2007, we were unable to continue doing
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.
I understand that this is not a unique situation, 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 23 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.
We are very thankful for the increase in fiscal year 2010 funding
which enabled us to make up some of the shortfall which has plagued us
in recent years. If we can continue to maintain funding at its current
level, we can begin to look at ways to refill the two vacant positions
that are sorely needed to provide adequate services to the tribes.
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 especially the increase in 2010, and respectfully reiterate the
request for the Senate to fund this appropriation in fiscal year 2012
at the same level it was funded in fiscal year 2010 ($30,451,000) in
order to meet the increased cost of fulfilling our court-ordered
responsibilities.
______
Letter From the Oregon Water Resources Congress
May 11, 2011.
Hon. Jack Reed,
Chairman, Subcommittee on the Interior, Environment, and Related
Agencies, Washington, DC.
Hon. Lisa Murkowski,
Ranking Member, Subcommittee on the Interior, Environment, and Related
Agencies, Washington, DC.
RE: Fiscal year 2012 Budget for the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency's Clean Water State Revolving Fund Loan Program (CWSRF)
Dear Chairman Reed and Senator Murkowski: The Oregon Water
Resources Congress (OWRC) was established in 1912 as a trade
association to support member needs to protect water rights and
encourage conservation and water management statewide. The OWRC
represents nonpotable agricultural water suppliers in Oregon, primarily
irrigation districts, as well as water control districts, and other
special districts and local governments that deliver irrigation water.
The association represents the entities that operate water management
systems, including water supply reservoirs, canals, pipelines, and
hydropower production.
OWRC is concerned about reductions to the Environmental Protection
Agency's (EPA) Clean Water State Revolving Fund Loan Program (CWSRF)
and is requesting that appropriations for this program be increased to
$5 billion in fiscal year 2012. CWSRF is an efficient program that
addresses critical water infrastructure needs while benefiting the
environment, local communities, and the economy.
We are disappointed that the administration's request of $1.55
billion for the CWSRF program is a reduction from enacted 2010 funding,
and is still far short of what is needed to address critical water
infrastructure needs in Oregon and across the Nation. This funding may
lead to 600 clean water projects nationally, but that is an average of
only 12 per State, far less than what's been funded in the past and
well short of what is needed. The Oregon Department of Environmental
Quality's (DEQ) recent ``Proposed Intended Use Plan Update #2--State
fiscal year 2011,'' reflects a total of $23,462,936 in funding requests
from five agricultural water suppliers alone.
Six OWRC member districts have successfully received loans from the
CSWRF over the last several years and many more will apply if funds are
available. Numerous irrigation districts and other water suppliers need
to pipe currently open canals, thereby improving water quality by
eliminating run-off into the canals and increasing water availability
for fish and irrigators by eliminating water loss from the canal
system. These projects not only benefit the environment and the patrons
served by the water delivery system, but also benefit the economy.
Four irrigation districts received more than $11 million funding in
Oregon from the 2009 ARRA funding through the CWSRF for projects which
created valuable jobs while improving water quality. These four
projects were essential to DEQ not only meeting but exceeding the
minimum requirement that 20 percent of the total ARRA funding for the
CWSRF be used for ``green'' projects. Those districts' applications had
been on DEQ's list of eligible projects for many years and would
probably still be on that list had the ARRA funding not been made
available. We provide that comment not to complain, but to emphasize
the need for additional funding for this program.
We acknowledge the administration's desire to develop and implement
``green infrastructure''. In fact, as mentioned above, irrigation
districts and other water suppliers in Oregon are on the forefront of
``green infrastructure'' through innovative piping projects that
provide multiple environmental benefits. However, the EPA's proposal to
provide an average of 5 percent of water infrastructure spending in
future budget years does not change the need for increased funding
today or provide certainty about the specific amount of funding in
future years. The CWSRF is often an integral part of an overall package
of State, Federal, and local funding that necessitates a stronger level
of assurance that loan funds will be available for planned water
infrastructure projects. Reductions in the CWSRF could lead to loss of
grant funding and delay or derail beneficial projects that irrigation
districts have been developing for years.
We appreciate the administration's efforts to improve both the way
Federal dollars are spent and program efficiency. However, the CWSRF
has been an extremely valuable tool in Oregon for improving water
quality and efficiently addressing infrastructure challenges that are
otherwise cost-prohibitive. While our comments are focused on the need
for additional funding of the CWRSF to meet our members' needs, it is
our understanding that the list of eligible projects for and needing
this funding grows annually and exceeds the Oregon DEQ's funding
capacity. The latest Intended Use Plan lists 140 projects for a total
of $480,500,455. Additional information about the irrigation district
projects and other projects funded in Oregon through the CWSRF can be
found at: www.deq.state.or.us/wq/loans/docs/IUP2011Update2.pdf
We recognize that our country is facing difficult economic times
and that we must make strategic investments with scarce resources.
Oregon is facing record levels of unemployment and the CWSRF helps
provide much needed construction and professional services jobs. The
CWSRF is a perfect example of the type of program that should have
funding increased because it creates jobs while benefiting the
environment, and is an efficient return on taxpayer investment. It's
not a hand-out but a wise investment that allows local communities to
leverage their limited resources and address critical infrastructure
needs that would otherwise be unmet.
We respectfully request the appropriation of at least $5 billion
for the EPA's CWRSF for fiscal year 2012.
Sincerely,
Anita Winkler,
Executive Director.
______
Prepared Statement of the Performing Arts Alliance
We urge the subcommittee to designate a total of $167.5 million to
the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) for fiscal year 2012. Mr.
Chairman and distinguished members of the subcommittee, I am grateful
for this opportunity to submit testimony on behalf of the Performing
Arts Alliance (PAA) and its member organizations--American Music
Center, Association of Performing Arts Presenters, Chorus America,
Dance/USA, Fractured Atlas, League of American Orchestras, National
Alliance for Musical Theatre, National Association of Latino Arts and
Culture, National Performance Network, OPERA America, and Theatre
Communications Group. The PAA is a national network of more than 18,000
organizational and individual members comprising the professional,
nonprofit performing arts, and presenting fields. For more than 30
years, the PAA has advocated for national policies that recognize,
enhance, and foster the contributions the performing arts make to
America.
This testimony is intended to highlight the importance of the
Federal investment in the arts in order to sustain a vibrant cultural
community. With strong Federal support, the NEA can widen citizen
access to the cultural, educational, and economic benefits of the arts,
and advance creativity and innovation in communities across the United
States.
NEA increases opportunities for the American public to enjoy and
benefit from the performing arts. Since the establishment of NEA in
1965, access to the performing arts has improved in communities large
and small across the country. NEA has helped foster the development of
the many regional theatres, opera companies, dance companies,
orchestras, and performing arts centers that Americans now enjoy.
Despite diminished resources, NEA awards almost 2,400 grants annually
to nonprofit arts organizations for projects that encourage artistic
creativity, provide lifelong learning opportunities, and engage
audiences in the finest 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 and the U.S. territories.
NEA contributes to the economic growth and development of
communities nationwide. The arts are part of a diversified 21st century
economy. Along with nonprofit arts organizations, creative enterprises
make significant contributions to State and local economies, generating
employment and tax revenues, and providing goods and services in high
demand by the public. A strong arts sector is an economic asset that
stimulates business activity, attracting companies that want to offer
their employees and clients a creative climate and amenity-rich
community.
the nonprofit performing arts community
The following member profiles of the PAA, which include national
service organizations representing new music, presenting, chorus,
dance, musical theatre, Latino arts and culture, opera, orchestras, and
theatre fields, exemplify the economic, educational, and quality of
life benefits that performing arts organizations bring to communities
across the country.
new music
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, AMC has been a leader in providing field-wide advocacy, support,
and connection. AMC supports the community by making grants to
composers and ensembles each year and by offering professional
development resources for new music professionals. AMC connects the
community through an array of information services and through
engagement with the broader performing arts field, providing benefits
and services for nearly 2,400 members in all 50 States and 25 countries
around the world.
arts presenters
Performing arts presenters bring professional performing artists
from all over the world into the communities they serve and include
organizations such as performing arts centers in major urban cities,
academic institutions, festivals and fairs, as well as the artists,
artist managers, agents, local arts agencies, touring artists, and
companies who work together to engage communities in live performance
experiences. 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 6
continents around the globe. Arts Presenters' members bring
performances to more than 2 million audience goers each week and spend
in excess of $2.5 billion annually, and the field of presenters serves
more than 6 million audience members every week. The membership
includes a range of organizations from very small presenting groups
(under $50,000 budgets) to multimillion dollar budgets and individuals
who are artists or performing arts professionals, representing a
diversity of performing arts fields.
Through NEA grants, Arts Presenters is able to build partnerships
and alliances to develop new artistic works and global cultural
exchanges as well as offer critical leadership training, professional
development, and opportunities to explore the competencies for 21st
century presenting for emerging and mid-career practitioners.
chorus
When Chorus America was founded nearly 35 years ago, one of their
primary goals was to ensure that choral music was recognized,
celebrated, and supported as a key component of the national arts
landscape. Since that time, the NEA has been a partner with Chorus
America in this goal, not only with steady grant support for the work
of our service organization, but also by supporting the work of many of
their member choruses of all types and sizes.
NEA's 2008 Survey of Public Participation in the Arts confirms that
singing in a chorus is the most popular form of public participation in
the performing arts. Chorus America's own research, the 2009 Chorus
Impact Study, found that 22.9 percent of households report one or more
adults or children currently participate in a chorus. There are an
estimated 270,000 choruses in the United States with more than 42.6
million people singing in them. This research also illustrated how
adults who sing in choruses are remarkably good citizens. Chorus
members are more likely to volunteer, contribute financially, and
participate in their communities than the general public. Not only is
choral music a linchpin of music repertoire, choruses are a hub for
engagement in the arts and can be valuable assets in building healthy
communities.
NEA's grants to choruses encourage the highest standards of
performance, the creation of new and excellent art reflecting the
issues of our time, and bring the beauty and power of choral singing--
frequently reaching otherwise underserved populations. Given the
numbers of people involved in choral music as artists and/or audience
members, and the many positive characteristics of choruses and choral
singers, the NEA's financial support and other resources for nonprofit
choruses is incredibly important in terms of directly benefiting
communities large and small all around the country.
dance
NEA's support for the field of dance helps increase the quality and
the visibility of the field throughout the United States. Dance is one
of the most accessible and universally practiced art forms and Dance/
USA's professional company members represent the vast cultural and
stylistic diversity exhibited in this art form. Funding from the NEA
supports the creation of high-quality, innovative works of choreography
and powerful community dance education programs throughout the United
States. The NEA's programs have helped solidify dance as a national
treasure spread across cities and through communities, schools, and
theaters in all 50 States and have ensured that the best of American
dance is available to all in the United States and a showpiece for the
rest of the world.
In addition to the more than 600 professional dance companies, the
United States has more than 1,000 pre-professional and semi-
professional groups. According to 2009 data, the 288 dance companies
with expense budgets of $100,000 or more generated more than $600
billion in economic activity across the United States and employed more
than 12,000 people in a mix of full-time and part-time positions.
fractured atlas
Fractured Atlas is a nonprofit organization that serves a national
community of artists and arts organizations. Their programs and
services facilitate the creation of art by offering vital support to
the artists who produce it, and they help artists and arts
organizations function more effectively as businesses by providing
access to funding, healthcare, education, and more, all in a context
that honors their individuality and spirit. Their fiscal sponsorship
program has grown from six local groups to more than 2,200 nationally,
and in 2011 their membership topped 16,000 artists and arts
organizations, with an expanded audience of more than 100,000 through
their Open Arts Network.
Most funding from institutional and government sources comes with
restrictions; it is intended for a specific project, program, or
geographic area. Those restrictions can make it difficult for a
national, multidisciplinary organization like Fractured Atlas to find
support for the full scope of our services, or for initiatives that
bring together partners working in different artistic disciplines and
regions. Yet those broad-based initiatives are essential to our ability
serve artists with the innovative tools and resources that impact their
lives. NEA is one of the few funders that understand the value of
ambitious arts initiatives that transcend the boundaries of geography
and discipline. Without the NEA's support, the extended audience of
more than 100,000 artists and arts groups that we currently reach would
shrink significantly. The NEA is also of enormous intellectual value as
a platform for national conversations about the arts: their role in
daily life, value in communities as an economic driver, and importance
as a thread of cultural identity. Those conversations manifest
themselves in action that influences how resources are allocated from
the Federal to the local level.
musical theatre
The National Alliance for Musical Theatre (NAMT) is the national
service organization dedicated exclusively to musical theatre and
serving some of the leading musical theatre producers in the world.
Last season, NAMT members collectively staged more than 16,000
performances attended by more than 11 million people, employed 15,500
people, and provided education programs for more than 1 million
students and teachers. The 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. The NAMT's Festival has showcased more than 300 writers
and 200 new musicals, which have had thousands of subsequent
productions worldwide.
national association of latino arts and culture
Founded in 1989, the National Association of Latino Arts and
Culture (NALAC) is the Nation's only multidisciplinary Latino arts
service organization. NALAC provides critical advocacy, funding,
networking opportunities, and professional development training to
build the capacity and sustainability of the Latino arts and cultural
field to sustain artists and arts organizations in every region of the
country. NALAC's constituency is a multi-ethnic, multigenerational, and
interdisciplinary community that includes thousands of artists and
hundreds of not-for-profit Latino arts and cultural organizations in
the United States.
national performance network (npn)
NPN is a group of diverse cultural organizers, including artists,
working to create meaningful partnerships and to provide leadership
that enables the practice and public experience of the contemporary
arts in the United States. NPN's resources currently support and
connect 50-75 performing arts organizations, called NPN Partners,
across the country. NPN constituency ranges from two-person operations
to multi-million dollar arts centers. NPN Partners are ethnically,
culturally, and stylistically diverse and reflect a cross-section of
urban, suburban, and rural communities that are generally under-
represented. More than 425,000 audience members have attended NPN-
sponsored performances and more than 285,000 people have participated
in NPN residency activities.
For many NPN/VAN members, NEA provides resources that are not
otherwise available to them, for example, if they are in cities or
rural areas with limited arts support. Funding from NEA is an important
validation of their work and often leverages new local support. The
rigor of NEA panels represents the level of excellence achieved by the
organizations which receive grants; this is particularly true for
organizations supporting new and experimental work. Presenters are able
to use NEA funding to take risks, such as presenting new work, by
making them less dependent on box office.
opera
OPERA America members are found in communities all across the
country--a total of 117 companies in 43 States. In the United States,
more than half of these companies were established after 1970, making
the growth of opera throughout North America a relatively new
phenomenon. More than 4.3 million people attended a live performance at
one of OPERA America's Professional Company Members in 2009, including
education and outreach programs, and festivals. In 2009-2010, OPERA
America's Professional Company Members in North America presented 2,100
performances and 449 fully staged main season and festival productions.
All together, the opera companies of America provide more than 55,000
full-time and part-time employees.
NEA's support of the field of opera has been invaluable in
supporting audience development, increasing accessibility, and
promoting innovative programming. During fiscal year 2009, the opera
field received almost $1.6 million from NEA that supported arts
education programs for youth, young artist training programs,
technology to increase the accessibility of opera, and the creation of
new works by American composers. These programs result in more vibrant
communities, a well-rounded education for children and youth, and the
crucial development of the next generation of performers and composers.
Funding from NEA supports opera companies and festivals and ensures
quality programs and performances that are treasured throughout the
United States and abroad.
orchestras
Supported by a network of musicians, volunteers, administrators,
and community leaders, America's symphony, chamber, collegiate, and
youth orchestras total more than 1,800, existing in every State and
territory, with annual budgets ranging from less than $10,000 to more
than $90 million. More than half a million individuals are involved in
orchestras, including conductors, staff, board members, musicians, and
volunteers. Orchestra revenue totaled $1.69 billion in 2008-2009, and
their economic impact exceeds several times that amount as orchestras
create jobs, engage in commerce with local businesses, and spur local
expenditures on related goods and services.
An NEA grant serves as an emblem of public value and artistic
significance, and orchestras in communities large and small partake in
the distinction of presenting nationally recognized NEA-supported
programs. In fiscal year 2010, the NEA's Grants to Organizations
included 119 grants to orchestras, and continued funding for the agency
will support its ability to serve the American public. Orchestras
utilize NEA support to educate and encourage America's youth, increase
public access to culturally diverse music, foster civic pride, and
encourage new orchestral works and programming. Orchestras now offer
nearly 13,000 education concerts, more than 1,000 community engagement
concerts, and more than 40 kinds of programs, including pre-school
programs; in-depth, multi-year community residencies; and long-term
partnerships with schools.
theatre
Today, thanks in large measure to the pivotal role played by the
NEA since 1965, the not-for-profit theatre field consists of more than
an estimated 1,800 theatres located in major metropolitan centers,
urban neighborhoods, suburbs and rural communities. Their wide-ranging
repertoire includes classics; modern plays and musicals; new plays,
adaptations and translations by American and international writers;
plays for culturally specific and young audiences; and experimental,
multimedia and performance-art works.
Theatre Communications Group, the national organization for the
American nonprofit theatre, reports that combined, these theatres
directly contributed nearly $1.9 billion to the U.S. economy; the real
economic impact is even greater when spending by theatres' attendees
and employees in their local communities is taken into account. The
universe of theatres employed more than 128,200 theatre workers,
including actors, directors, playwrights, designers, administrators,
and technicians.
By supporting many of the Nation's finest theatre institutions, NEA
has contributed far beyond the actual monetary value of its grants.
Nearly every Pulitzer Prize-winning play since 1976 originated at an
NEA-funded theatre, and a network of educational and outreach programs
has sprung up across the country as a result of NEA support, ensuring
access to all Americans and developing new generations of audiences.
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. 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 $167.5 million to NEA. Thank you for your consideration of
our request.
______
Prepared Statement of the Pinon Community School, Inc.
My name is Jeffrey Mike, and in addition serving on the School
Board for the Pinon Community School in Pinon, Arizona, I also serve as
a Member of the Board of Directors of the Native American Grant School
Association (NAGSA). Both organizations are well aware of the many
challenges facing Native American Schools, whether operated under a
contract or grant from the Bureau of Indian Education. Some of those
challenges are shared by all our schools, and others are unique
depending on the mission of the particular school. Pinon, however,
focuses its concerns on three very specific aspects of the fiscal year
2012 budget that affects its ability to provide services to our student
population: tribal grant support costs (administrative costs);
transportation; and facilities. Specifically, Pinon requests the
following:
--For the BIE, funding for Tribal Grant Support Costs (TGSC) in the
amount of $72.3 million to fully meet the indirect costs
incurred by all tribally operated schools.
--For the BIE, $73 million in school transportation funding.
--For the BIE, the restoration of $61 million to the school
construction account; and
--For the BIE, $76 million in facilities maintenance funding and
$109.8 million facilities operation funding.
Background.--Pinon Community School, which has a very proud
tradition of serving Native American students since 1932, currently
operates as a tribally controlled grant school primarily funded through
appropriations received from the United States Department of the
Interior and pass-through funding received from the Department of
Education. Its mission includes the operation of a kindergarten program
serving approximately 60 students per year, and also the operation of a
residential dormitory that houses up to 120 students at any particular
time of year.
Pinon Community School operates in one of the more remote
geographic areas of our country. According to the 2000 Census, the last
we were able to find that provided detailed demographic information,
the town of Pinon had a population of 1,190--91.93 percent of which was
Native American--with an average family income of $23,393. More than 58
percent of the households had children under the age of 18, and 53.7
percent of those households reported income below the poverty line. The
nearest ``metropolitan'' area, Chinle, is more than 60 miles away, and
its population was just more than 5,300 as measured in the 2000 census.
We are located more than 250 miles from Albuquerque, New Mexico and
almost 300 miles from Phoenix, Arizona.
Not surprisingly, we serve a very unique function in our community.
First, we operate a kindergarten program that serves approximately 60
children each school year. Second, we provide residential housing and
services for an additional 90 to 120 students who attend the elementary
and secondary schools of the Pinon Unified School District, part of the
Arizona public school system. Our dormitory exists because those
students live too far away to commute to school on a daily basis or
have a family situation that makes a dormitory situation a more
appropriate option during the school week. Our dormitory provides these
students a safe place to live and obtain their daily meals.
The poverty in our area is extremely evident. Many, if not most, of
our school age children, have parents who struggle to provide
economically for their families, and our residential program is a
beacon of hope for those children who need the ongoing attention and
input that is so crucial for the academic success that will hopefully
lead to a productive and happy adult life.
While our budget requests do not specifically address all of our
concerns, we believe that it is important for Members of Congress, and
indeed the American public at large, to understand exactly what our
school, and our students face every day. Many, if not most of our
students are what you might consider ``at risk.'' Moreover, it should
be fairly apparent that children who are compelled to live away from
their families for the school week need the type of services and
healthy diversions that will not only protect them from the many
pitfalls that confront the idle, and may I add, especially teenagers,
but also enhance their chances of moving forward to advanced
educational opportunities. Unfortunately, we find that many of our
students are years--sometimes 4 or 5 years--behind grade level. We do
not receive the funds to provide supplemental educational services,
e.g., tutoring, and we also do not have the funds to provide the type
of counseling that will help us keep our students on the ``straight and
narrow.'' We estimate that we would need to hire at least two certified
counselors to help with these issues but simply do not have the funds.
The State government funded a ``21st Century Program'' to help us
to provide after-school activities to engage our students, but that
funding is due to run out next year. Many years ago the Federal
Government provided funding for ``Intensive Residential Guidance'' for
dormitory students but that money is long gone also. Sadly, we do not
even have the funds to maintain our athletic fields where we could
otherwise provide organized physical activity and recreation for
children living away from home.
We know that it can be very difficult for those who live in more
populated areas--where more resources are available--to understand the
challenges that our school, and more importantly, our students and
their families face every day.
As we stated from the outset, as the Congress begins to consider
the fiscal year 2012 budget we request that it take our concerns into
account.
TGSC.--When the Congress recognized that the Native American
community should have the right to assume responsibility for the
education of its own children, it also committed to funding the
administrative costs of making that a reality. Yet every tribally
operated school suffers, and has suffered, for 19 of the past 20 years,
from the chronic underfunding of its administrative costs, which
include the cost of retaining essential administrative employees, such
as business managers, performing essential and required government
requirements, such as audits, background checks and other required
reports. By all estimates, Federal Government funding of TGSC hovers at
the 61 percent rate, and every $1 that the Federal Government does not
provide for administrative costs comes out of the pockets of our
students, in the form of fewer of the services to which they are
entitled. For this reason, we endorse the proposal of the National
Congress of American Indians, that the appropriation for TGSC be
increased to $70.3 million for existing schools, with an additional $2
million for those schools which may be converting to grant status
during the next fiscal year.
Transportation Costs.--Pinon's transportation issues are
complicated. We begin by pointing out that the BIE has proposed
$52,739,000 for school transportation costs, which translates into a
payment rate of $3.23 per mile. Pinon's residential students in Grades
1-12 attend schools in the Pinon Unified School District which assumes
the cost of their transportation to and from school. Be aware, however,
that Pinon still must transport its residential students home every
Friday, and back to school every Monday. All the costs that affect the
rest of America, most recently the increased cost of gasoline, affect
Pinon too, but there is no accommodation in the budget for this
reality. In addition, we have a very different situation for our
kindergarten students. We must transport our kindergarten students from
the school to their doorsteps. There is only one paved road in our
service area. Therefore, the school is obliged to transport these very
young children to their homes over unpaved roads, which are
particularly susceptible to weather (rain, snow, flooding, etc.) and
are not otherwise maintained. The failure of the BIE to account for
these conditions is inexcusable. Exacerbating this problem is that the
funding provided by the BIE does not permit the School to acquire the
types of vehicles which would allow it to safely transport its students
under hazardous weather conditions. Four-wheel drive vehicles, which
would help accomplish this, are significantly more expensive ($10,000 -
$15,000 more) and are simply out of the price range of the school.
Ironically, Pinon, which leases its school buses from the Federal
Government, just recently received a notice from the General Services
Administration that it intends to increase the rate for school bus
rentals by BIE funded schools over the next 2 years; yet, the BIE has
provided no funding to alleviate the hardship that Pinon will
experience as a result of this increase.
For these reasons, Pinon endorses the recommendation of the
National Congress of American Indians to increase the School
transportation budget for BIE funded Schools to $73 million.
Facilities Operation and Maintenance and Replacement School
Construction.--Under the BIE's latest ``Education Facility Condition
Index'' Pinon's facilities have been rated as ``poor''. At least six
employee units have been condemned (which in the case of a residential
facility is a serious issue). In one of the residential dormitories,
two wings have been condemned.
The decision to eliminate all funding for replacement school
construction, while at the same time failing to request adequate
funding for facilities maintenance and operation seems shortsighted, to
say the least. When the BIE fails to fund facilities maintenance at
realistic levels, small preventable problems become bigger and more
expensive to address, and in emergency situations school funding must
be diverted from other programs to address these needs. The recently
published ``Education Facility Condition Index'' reports a deferred
maintenance backlog in the amount of $302 million but the BIE has
requested only $50.7 million in facilities maintenance funding, a mere
fraction of what is needed to make a dent in the maintenance backlog.
In addition, the BIE has requested $58.7 million for facilities
operations, which are currently funded at only 46 percent of need.
The National Congress of American Indians has requested a
significant investment in the infrastructure for Native American
Schools. We whole-heartedly support its requests for $76 million in
Facilities Maintenance funding and $109.8 million for Facilities
Operation. In addition, we respectfully request that the Congress at
least restore the $60.9 million that the BIE has cut from the budget
for school replacement construction, and direct the BIE to reopen the
process for school construction applications, so that schools that are
in dire need of replacement facilities have the ability to secure their
place on the priority list.
Conclusion.--We thank you for the opportunity to provide our input
as the Congress commences its deliberations on the fiscal year 2012
budget for BIE-funded Schools. Mr. Oscar Tso, Principal of Pinon
Community School, is ready and available to answer any questions you
may have.
______
Prepared Statement of the Partnership for the National Trails System
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee: The Partnership for
the National Trails System appreciates your support over the past 17
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 and for the trails in the Bureau of Land Management
(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 2012 through these appropriations:
NPS.--$16.45 million for administration of 23 trails and for
coordination of the long-distance trails program by the
Washington office.
Construction.--$346,000 for the Ice Age Trail and $200,000 for
the Pacific Crest Trail.
USDA Forest Service (USFS).--$8.7 million to administer six
trails and $1.2 million to manage parts of 16 trails
administered by the NPS or BLM. $1 million for Iditarod Trail
construction.
BLM.--To coordinate its National Trails System Program: $250,000;
to administer these trails:
Iditarod Trail.--$700,000.
Camino Real de Tierra Adentro Trail.--$230,000.
Old Spanish Trail.--$350,000; and to manage portions of 10
trails administered by the NPS or the USFS: $4 million;
$3,140,000 for operating five National Historic Trail
interpretive centers;
Construction.--$300,000 for the Pacific Crest Trail.
We ask that you appropriate $4.5 million for the NPS Challenge Cost
Share Program and continue to direct one-third ($1.5 million) for
national scenic and historic trails or create a separate $1.5 million
National Trails System Challenge Cost Share Program.
We ask that you add $500,000 to the 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 from the Land and Water Conservation
Fund (LWCF) for land acquisition:
To the USFS.--$6.65 million for the Pacific Crest Trail, $1.7
million for the Florida Trail; $3.442 million for the Old
Spanish Trail; $9.2 million for the Appalachian Trail, $1.5
million for the North Country Trail, and $1.4175 million for
the Nez Perce Trail;
To the BLM.--$3.5 million for the Oregon Trail in Oregon, $7.5
million for the Pacific Crest Trail in Oregon, and $1 million
for the Oregon, California, Mormon Pioneer, and Pony Express
Trails in Wyoming; and
To the NPS.--$5.2 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;
--$2.1 million for the New England Trail;
--$2.005 million for the Appalachian Trail;
--$2 million for the Oregon Trail--City of Rocks Reserve; and
--$1.17 million for San Antonio Missions National Historic
Park--El Camino Real de los Tejas National Historic Trail.
We also ask that you appropriate from the USFS Forest Legacy
program $8.730 million to protect High Peaks in Maine along the
Appalachian Trail.
nps
The $16.45 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 the Congress provided over the
past 7 years. We support the administration's requested funding for the
new Star Spangled Banner and Washington-Rochambeau National Historic
Trails and we request $400,000 for the Park Service to implement
planning and administration for the New England National Scenic Trail.
We request an increase of $626,000 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 $763,000 for the
Trail of Tears will enable the NPS 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. We support the administration's requested increases of
$282,000 for the Juan Bautista de Anza and $147,000 for the Ala Kahakai
Trails. We request a further increase to $400,000 for the Ala Kahakai
Trail to enable the NPS to work with E Mau Na Ala Hele, the Ala Kahakai
Trail Association, 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 this trail.
We support the administration's requested funding of $1,708,000 for
the Appalachian Trail to expand the highly successful ``Trail to Every
Classroom'' program of the Appalachian Trail Conservancy. The
$1,483,000 we request for the 4,200-mile North Country Trail will
enable the Park Service to provide greater support for the regional GIS
mapping, trail building, trail management, and training of volunteers
led by the North Country Trail Association. This funding will also
enable the NPS to move the administrative office for the North Country
Trail to Michigan for more efficient and effective collaboration with
the North Country Trail Association. The $1,399,000 we request for the
Ice Age Trail includes a $550,000 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 Trail Alliance staff
and volunteers of lands acquired for the trail.
Construction.--We request that you appropriate for trail
construction projects $346,000 for the Ice Age Trail and $200,000 for
the Pacific Crest Trail in the national parks crossed by the 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's member organizations applaud the administration's
decision to restore these highly effective programs of the NPS, BLM,
and Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). We request that you fund all of
them and appropriate $4.5 million in Challenge Cost Share funding to
the NPS for fiscal year 2012 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 create a separate
National Trails System Challenge Cost Share program with $1.5 million
funding.
We support the administration's requested $947,000 for the Connect
Trails to Parks project to enhance the public's understanding of the
National Trails System and its relationship to the National Park
System.
usfs
As you have done for several years, we ask that you provide
additional operations funding to the USFS for administering five
national scenic trails and one national historic trail, and managing
parts of 16 other trails. We ask you to appropriate $8.7 million as a
separate budgetary item specifically for the Arizona, Continental
Divide, Florida, Pacific Crest, and Pacific Northwest National Scenic
Trails and the Nez Perce National Historic Trail within the over-all
appropriation for Capital Improvements and Maintenance for Trails.
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
$1.2 million specifically for these trails.
Work continues, supported by funds you provided over the past 10
years, to close several major gaps in the Florida Trail. In 2010,
Florida Trail Association volunteers maintained 1,322 miles and
completed eight major construction and restoration projects along the
Trail. The Partnership's request of $8.7 million above includes $2.5
million to enable the USFS and FTA to continue this maintenance, to
control invasive species, do ecosystem restoration, and otherwise
manage 4,625 acres of new Florida Trail land.
The Partnership's request of $8.7 million above also includes $2.3
million for the Pacific Crest Trail, $2 million for the Continental
Divide Trail, $1 million for the Pacific Northwest Trail, $640,000 for
the Nez Perce Trail, and $239,000 for the Arizona Trail. We also
request $1 million of additional funding for construction of sections
of the Iditarod Trail.
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
five scenic trails and 3,115 miles of eight historic trails
administered by the NPS and USFS. The bureau 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 support the administration's increase of $15 million in base
funding for the NLCS and ask that you appropriate as new permanent base
funding $250,000 for National Trails System Program Coordination,
$700,000 for the Iditarod Trail, $230,000 for El Camino Real de Tierra
Adentro Trail, $350,000 for the Old Spanish Trail, and $4,000,000 for
management of the portions of the 10 other trails under the care of the
BLM. We request $300,000 for maintenance of the Pacific Crest Trail;
and $3,140,000 to operate five historic trails interpretive centers.
We ask you to fund the BLM's Challenge Cost Share program and to
add $500,000 directed for projects for the National Trails System as
you have done for many years with the NPS'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 2011 and to direct the BLM to include unit-level
allocations by major subactivities 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 2012. 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 applauds and supports the administration's
intention to provide full funding of $900 million for the LWCF. We
request that you provide robust and consistent funding to keep on a
trajectory to achieve annual full funding for 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 $6.65 million we request for the Pacific Crest Trail
will continue to support the acquisition underway by the Forest Service
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 $1.7 million requested for the
Florida Trail will continue another successful collaboration between
these two agencies to protect 30 tracts and 3.4 miles of the Trail
along the Suwanee River. We request $3.442 million to protect a stretch
of the Old Spanish Trail in the Carson National Forest, $9.2 million to
protect sections of the Appalachian Trail in the Cherokee and Pisgah
National Forests and $1.5 million to buy land for the North Country
Trail in the Hiawatha and Ottawa National Forests. We also request
$1.4175 million to acquire land in Hell's Canyon of the Snake River in
Oregon to protect sites along the Nez Perce Trail.
BLM.--We request $6 million for the Cascade Siskiyou National
Monument and $1.5 million for Porcupine Mountain that will preserve
sections of the Pacific Crest Trail in Oregon, $3.5 million to purchase
land along the Big Sandy River in Oregon for the Oregon Trail, $1
million to protect sections of the Oregon, California, Mormon Pioneer,
and Pony Express Trails along the Platte River in Wyoming.
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. Since fiscal year 2000 Wisconsin has
matched $13.6 million Federal LWCF funding with $27.7 million to help
protect 67 miles of the Ice Age National Scenic Trail by purchasing 51
parcels totaling 7,727 acres. Another 40 parcels are under negotiation,
appraisal or option to purchase. The requested $5.2 million LWCF grant
to Wisconsin will continue this very successful Federal/State/local
partnership for protecting land for the Ice Age Trail. We request $2
million to provide similar grants to the seven States along its route
to close gaps in the North Country Trail, $2.1 million for the Park
Service to acquire three parcels for the New England Trail, and $2.005
million for the NPS to acquire parcels in Pennsylvania and Vermont for
the Appalachian Trail. We also request $2 million for the City of Rocks
Reserve in Idaho to protect an important section of the Oregon Trail
and $1.17 million for San Antonio Missions National Historic Park along
El Camino Real de los Tejas National Historic Trail.
private sector support for the national trails system
Public-spirited partnerships between private citizens and public
agencies have been a hallmark of the National Trails System since its
inception. These partnerships create the enduring strength of the
Trails System and the trail communities that sustain it by combining
the local, grass-roots energy and responsiveness of volunteers with the
responsible continuity of public agencies. They also provide 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 the Congress' support for
the trails has grown. In 2010, the trail organizations fostered
1,115,559 hours--an increase of 23 percent more than 2009--of
documented volunteer labor valued at $24,366,484 to help sustain the
national scenic and historic trails. The organizations also raised
private sector contributions of $12,486,240 to benefit the trails.
______
Prepared Statement of the Pueblo of Zuni
Keshi, ko'don dewanan a'deya'ye. My name is Arlen Quetawki and I am
the Governor of the Pueblo of Zuni. It is an honor to be able to
present this testimony to the subcommittee. My tribe's current land
area covers some 450,000 acres in western New Mexico and a northeastern
portion of Arizona, about 150 miles west of Albuquerque, New Mexico.
Although we face many challenges, we are fortunate that we still live
in our ancestral homelands. Ours is a very traditional and humble
community, and I invite the chairman and members of this subcommittee
to visit with us in Zuni. You will not be disappointed.
I submit this testimony because decades after we first started
contracting with the Government, the Government still fails to honor
our contracts by failing to pay the Contract Support Costs (CSC) the
Government admits it owes. The time is long past when this shameful
conduct must end, and when the Government's practice of repeatedly
breaching agreements with our tribe and with other Indian tribes must
cease. This is something this subcommittee and the Congress can change.
I therefore ask that the subcommittee increase CSC funding to the
Indian Health Service (IHS) up to $615 million, and that it increase
CSC funding to the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) up to $228 million.
In the 1990s our tribe began to confront a financial crisis over
the Government's recurring payment shortfalls. Here is the background
to that crisis.
As you know, in order to operate the essential Government programs
that the IHS and the BIA have transferred to us, we must have an
administrative structure in place. Just like any government or
business, we need insurance. We need to account for our contract
expenditures. We need to make payroll. We need to purchase and track
property and equipment. And, we need to manage our employees. On top of
all this, Federal law adds unique demands requiring us to pay for
independent and certified audits every year.
These are the expenditures that the Government expects us to cover
from a special pool of funds called an ``indirect cost pool.'' Money
for that pool comes from all of the tribe's contracts and grants, as
well as from tribal revenues. From this pooled money we pay for all our
fixed administrative costs, including insurance and audit costs. (Of
course, the Federal Government does things differently, such as self-
insuring, or else using agency lawyers and accountants, or using the
General Services Administration, the Office of Personnel Management,
and other agencies to carry out these same functions.)
We cannot spend whatever we choose to spend on these things. Nor
would we want to. Instead, our expenditures must be reviewed and
approved by an agency within the Department of the Interior called the
National Business Center (NBC). NBC sets our indirect cost pool
expenditures, and from that an indirect cost rate, all based on a
certified independent audit from the most recent completed year. Then,
after the New Year is over we do another audit to see how the funds
were actually spent, and then square up with the NBC. The system is
completely transparent, and completely accountable.
We try to keep our indirect cost rate as low as possible, so that
most of our funds are devoted to the direct delivery of services to our
people, whether it is law enforcement, healthcare or Head Start. We are
not a rich tribe, so every dollar must count.
Once we have an indirect cost rate, that rate applies to all of the
funding agencies with which we have contracts and grants. That is the
law as spelled out by the NBC and by the Office of Management and
Budget. The problem is that, contrary to that same law, every year the
BIA and the IHS disregard these agreements.
The law requires them to pay the full indirect costs we have
negotiated with the NBC. But, the IHS and the BIA refuse. They do not
budget for these costs. They do not ask the Congress for these costs.
And so the Congress does not appropriate the funds to pay these costs.
But since these are fixed costs and we have to account for spending
these costs, we must still pay them. The result? Deep program
reductions in the essential services that we have contracted to provide
to our people.
Cuts in public health nursing, and in alcohol and substance abuse
treatment.
Cuts in emergency medical services.
Cuts in police and realty services.
Cuts in child education and adult scholarships.
Cuts in housing services.
The list goes on and on. Year in and year out we are forced to cut
jobs that provide services to our people, so that our books remain
balanced in the face of the BIA and the IHS underpayments.
This has got to stop.
No other Government contractor gets shorted on its contracts. If
necessary, supplemental appropriations are made to pay the Government's
contracts in full. This subcommittee must therefore ask the question:
Why does the Government think it is lawful to cheat us on our
contracts? Is it because we are Indian tribes, instead of Boeing or
Haliburton? The question must be asked.
For my tribe the crisis reached the boiling point in the late
1990s. We sought out legal counsel, and we filed two class-action
lawsuits, one against the IHS and one against the BIA. Our BIA lawsuit
eventually resulted in a settlement for all the Nation's tribes over
shortfalls that occurred in the early 1990s. The settlement was part of
a combined settlement with other claims in another class action against
the BIA that was filed by our neighbors, the Ramah Navajo Chapter. Our
IHS lawsuit was blocked by another judge from proceeding as a class
action. Then, we settled our own claims against the IHS, but only for
the shortfalls we suffered in the mid-1990s.
Since those cases nothing has changed.
Today, the BIA and the IHS shortfalls continue. Even after a 1999
Government Accountability Office report investigated and confirmed the
integrity of the entire CSC process, and reported on the terrible
impacts the shortfalls are creating in Indian communities, the
shortfalls continue. Even after the Supreme Court ruled in the 2005
Cherokee Nation case that the Government must pay these contracts in
full, the shortfalls continue. Even after the BIA adopted a new CSC
policy in 2006, the shortfalls continue.
Mr. Chairman, the time has come to end this shameful practice.
Our tribe embraces tribal self-determination. We welcome being free
from the oppressive dictates of the IHS and the BIA. We welcome being
responsible and accountable to our own people for the governmental
services being provided on our reservation.
But the IHS and the BIA, by continuing these CSC shortfalls,
penalize tribes like us that choose this path. The BIA and the IHS
programs remain protected from any cuts so long as the BIA and the IHS
operate the programs. But once the programs are transferred to a tribe
under a self-determination contract, the BIA and the IHS demand that we
cut jobs and divert program resources, to make up for the shortfall in
the agencies' contract payments.
Current appropriations language actually says this. The law
actually authorizes cuts in our program funds, in order to cover the
shortfall in the BIA's CSC payments.
The result? Last year we again suffered deep CSC shortfalls of more
than $690,000, including more than $683,000 just in BIA underpayments.
In fact, the BIA does not even pay one-half of the total contract
support costs it is required to pay under the law and our contracts.
Not only is this shortfall stunning in itself, it means cuts in several
jobs at a time when our community can hardly afford more unemployment.
If the country is worried about double-digit unemployment, we sadly
have the expertise in this category, as we have been experiencing
unemployment greater than 60 percent for more than 10 years.
The time has come to correct this terrible practice.
On behalf of the Pueblo of Zuni, I ask that this subcommittee make
sure that, from this day forward, the Government honors its legal duty
to pay the full CSC that are due under our contracts and under the
Indian Self-Determination Act.
We are prepared to be partners with the Government in promoting
greater transparency, increased local employment, enhanced tribal self-
determination, and a reduced Federal bureaucracy. But, the Government
must be an honest partner with us, just as we must annually account and
cut square corners with the Government, so too the BIA and the IHS must
be upright in honoring these contracts.
We thus join the voice of many other tribal leaders in calling for
full funding of these contracts in the fiscal year 2012 appropriation.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify on this critical issue
facing Indian country, and on what has become a grave threat to the
forward march of tribal self-determination.
______
Prepared Statement of the Pacific Salmon Commission
Mr. Chairman, and honorable members of the subcommittee, I am Dr.
Jeffrey Koenings and I am presenting written testimony on behalf W. Ron
Allen, Alternate Commissioner on the Pacific Salmon Commission (PSC)
and the chairman of the U.S. section's Budget Committee. The U.S.
Section prepares an annual budget for implementation of the Treaty. The
integrated budget details program needs and costs for Tribal, Federal,
and State agencies involved in the Treaty. Under the Bureau of Indian
Affairs (BIA) budget, the U.S. section recommends that the 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 $680,000
more than the fiscal year 2010 enacted levels and the
President's recommended fiscal year 2011 level. This funding
level represents status quo funding 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 in the BIA's budget under
the rights protection implementation, wildlife and parks, other
recurring programs area.
Under Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) programs, the U.S. section
recommends that the Congress:
--Provide base funding of $417,000 for FWS participation in the
Treaty process, and provide funding of $315,000 for the Pacific
States Marine Fisheries Commission's (PSFMC) Regional Mark
Center. This funding level represents an increase of $65,000
more than the fiscal year 2010 enacted level for the Mark
Center to make up for losses from other programs and allow the
Mark Center to maintain the same level of service to the U.S.
section.
This base funding for the FWS will pay for the critically important
on-going work. The funding for PSFMC Mark Center is utilized to meet
Treaty requirements concerning data exchange with Canada. These program
recommendations are integrated with those of the State and Federal
agencies to avoid duplication of effort and provide for the most
efficient expenditure of scarce funds.
A copy of the integrated U.S. section budget justification has been
made available to the 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 an 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. Tribal programs are essential for the United States
to meet its international obligations. Tribal programs have taken on
additional management responsibilities due to funding issues with State
agencies. All participating agencies need to be adequately funded to
achieve a comprehensive U.S. effort to implement the Treaty.
We are strongly recommending maintaining base funding of $417,000
for the FWS so the United States can maintain the critical database to
implement the Treaty. We also strongly recommend funding of $315,000 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 PSFMC. The 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 and Puget Sound
Chinook 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 through 2018. The Fraser River sockeye and pink chapter to the
Pacific Salmon Treaty expired in 2010 and negotiators worked out an
interim arrangement while Canada's Cohen Commission completes its
judicial inquiry on the Fraser River sockeye fishery.
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 PSC to develop recommendations that help to ensure solutions
that minimize impacts on listed stocks, especially if we are allowed to
work towards the true intent of the Treaty: mutually beneficial
enhancement of the shared resource.
Mr. Chairman, that concludes my written testimony submitted for
consideration by your 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
Pacific Salmon Commission budget.
summary of tribal and fws programs under the u.s.-canada pacific salmon
treaty
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
[Dollars in thousands]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year Fiscal year
2010 enacted 2012 Increase
appropriation recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bureau of Indian Affairs, Wildlife and Parks, Rights 4,120 4,800 2,530
Implementation.................................................
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Anadromous Fisheries............ 667 732 65
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
______
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.
In the spirit of these profound words of our former president, I am
honored to appear before this subcommittee on behalf of the Quinault
Indian Nation and provide testimony on our priority requests and
recommendations on the fiscal year 2012 budgets for the Bureau of
Indian Affairs (BIA) and the Indian Health Service (IHS).
Tribal-specific priority requests:
--$7 million a year for Blueback Restoration--BIA (for 2012-2019);
--$500,000 for Substance Abuse Strategy--IHS;
--$325,000 to fully implement the Quinault Forest Management Plan
(FMP); and
--$2.21 million McBride Road Maintenance and Emergency Reservation
Exit.
Local/regional requests and recommendations:
--Affiliated Tribes of Northwest Indians;
--Northwest Portland Area Indian Health Board; and
--Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission.
Self-governance and national requests and recommendations:
BIA:
Tribal Priority Allocation General Increase.--Provide $82.9
million (10 percent increase more than fiscal year 2010);
Contract Support Costs (CSC).--Provide $50 million Increase for
BIA to fully fund the CSC, including direct CSC; and provide $5
million for the Indian Self-Determination (ISD) Fund;
Law Enforcement/Tribal Courts/Tribal Detention Facilities.--
Provide $30 million more than fiscal year 2010 levels; and
Increase funding to the Office of Tribal Self-Governance (OTSG)
to fully staff the office for the increase of tribes entering
Self-Governance.
IHS:
Fully Fund Current Services.--Provide $532 million for IHS and
tribal pay costs, inflation, and population growth; staffing
for new/replacement facilities and healthcare facilities
construction previously approved plan;
Contract Health Services (CHS).--Provide $118 million increase
for CHS;
CSC.--Provide $122 million for IHS to fully fund CSC; and,
OTSG.--Increase $5 million to the IHS OTSG.
We support all requests and recommendations of the National
Congress of American Indians and the National Indian Health Board.
tribal specific requests justification
$61 Million Blueback Restoration ($7 Million Annually From 2012-2019)
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. 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 2019.
Fertilization, data acquisition, and monitoring will continue for many
years.
$500,000 Substance Abuse and Security Strategic Plan
The Quinault Indian Nation Substance Abuse and Security Strategic
Plan seeks to improve, integrate, and strengthen the overall health and
services to protect the communities on the reservation from the
significant risks related to heroin and methamphetamine production,
sale, and use by targeting enforcement, outreach, prevention,
stabilization, and harm reduction services to high-risk populations.
Heroin and methamphetamine use within the Quinault Indian Nation is
a serious concern and a significant public health and social challenge.
Some of the major problems contributing to the spread of meth
trafficking is the size and isolation of our communities, and
jurisdictional issues related to law enforcement on tribal lands.
Tribal and local agencies are discovering that cooperation and
collaboration represent a way to leverage resources to attack the
threat of heroin and methamphetamine. Cooperative, inter-jurisdictional
law enforcement efforts are the only way that Federal, tribal, and
State law enforcement agencies will be able to effectively combat
methamphetamine.
During this past year, the Quinault Indian Nation identified border
and security threats as an added component to our comprehensive
substance abuse strategy. The Quinault Indian Reservation occupies 27
miles of international border along the Pacific Ocean. We believe drug
traffickers have discovered our unpatrolled borders and the 22 points
of entry via abandoned logging roads directly to U.S. Hwy 101. Our
ocean fishermen have reported high-speed vessels making multiple trips
into Raft River, a system in a very remote location along our central
coast. Following our meetings with the U.S. Border Patrol, we learned
that our coastline is not a part their regular patrol routes. Our
resources protection officers and police officers have also received
multiple reports of camouflaged persons exiting from boats onto our
shore, while confirming no military operations were underway at that
time. We have also received multiple reports of low-flying helicopters
both within the interior and along our coastline at odd hours of night
and early morning.
The Quinault Indian Nation's Substance Abuse Strategic Plan is part
of a broader more comprehensive alcohol and drug strategy 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 supply while
helping ensure safer communities.
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. We stress the urgent need to
reclaim our communities to protect our families, our elders and our
next seven generations from this menacing and deteriorating drug on the
Quinault Indian Nation Reservation.
$325,000 Fully To Implement the Quinault Forest Management Plan (FMP)
From time immemorial, the Quinault people have been deeply
connected with the land, water systems, and forests. The Quinault
Indian Nation, with enthusiasm and tremendous hope for building a
sustained economy, adopted an FMP in 2001. However, recent budget
reductions have brought our efforts in implementing the plan to a near
standstill. We are entering a second phase of implementation and must
evaluate the plan's effectiveness and our need to undertake adaptive
management measures. However, with recent and impending reductions in
natural resource funding, we are left with very little hope for
implementing the plan as it was originally intended. Moreover, the ESA
created unfunded mandates for the Quinault Indian Nation FMP. We
contend with ongoing issues, daily, due to a lack of funding and
inadequate staffing levels. We urge you to be very cognizant of trust
obligations and commitments to maximize tribal resources and restore
funding levels to ensure that progress made, thus far, will continue to
support a comprehensive and sustained management approach to
reservation lands.
$2.21 Million McBride Road Maintenance and Emergency Reservation Exit
Route: BIA/Roads Maintenance Program
The Quinault Reservation is located in Grays Harbor County in the
village of Taholah, Washington; a rural isolated and economically
deprived area. The village of Taholah lies in a tsunami danger zone.
The site of the village is barely above sea level and experts have
determined that the sea level is rising because of global warming
patterns. For Taholah, tsunami is a health and safety risk factor that
we must live with everyday. The Quinault Indian Reservation is
interlaced with thousands of miles of roads that are left over from
large logging contracts that ended in about 1980. Most of these roads
do not have the required right-of-way and do not receive funding for
maintenance.
The village of Taholah is accessible via SR 109 that parallels the
Pacific Ocean. The McBride Road, a single forest road, is the only
escapement route available to the 1,000 community members of the
Quinault Indian Nation living in the village of Taholah. Its state of
disrepair necessitates that immediate action be taken to bring the road
up to a Class B gravel road status to be used in cases of emergency.
The cost for this project is $876,500 to repair 10.75 miles and could
be accomplished within a 3-month timeframe during dry weather
conditions. The project will create four new jobs in right-of-way
acquisition and road engineering and will impact about 400 jobs of
timber workers, fishermen, and fishing guides that rely on these roads
for their livelihood.
Major portions of this route are at sea level. What is particularly
important to understand is that the portions of this road above sea
level are susceptible to mudslides. Three such mudslides have occurred
in the past 5 years. In a single event, the road blocked access for 3
days. Medical needs for village people became an issue, while those in
need of kidney dialysis were particularly affected. Some tribal members
were able to evacuate the village by using another, longer alternate
route. Still, this application is unsafe for use by the general public
because the forest roads are not patrolled, well-maintained, have
limited signage and cell reception.
______
Prepared Statement of the Ramah Navajo School Board, Inc.
request summary
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee: On behalf of the
Board of Trustees of the Ramah Navajo School Board, Inc., we are
requesting funding to address the education needs of American Indians
and Alaska Natives (AI/AN) on the national level, and also the more
specific education and health needs of the Ramah Navajo Reservation in
Cibola County, at Pine Hill, New Mexico. Specifically, we are
requesting the Congress to:
--Direct the Bureau of Indian Education (BIE) to reopen the
Replacement School Construction Priority process to solicit new
applications, or--in the alternative--appropriate $5.6 million
for the replacement of Ramah Navajo Elementary School building;
--For the Indian Health Services (IHS), $3.45 million for a Ramah
Navajo elder community center;
--For the IHS, $2.55 million for the Ramah Navajo School's water well
and sewer system;
--For the BIE, continue the funding to support American Indian tribal
colleges;
--For the BIE, funding for ``Tribal Grant Support Costs'' in the
amount of $72.3 million to meet the indirect cost needs of all
tribally controlled schools; and
--For the BIE, funding for the Indian School Equalization Formula
(ISEF), the core academic budget, in the amount of $431
million.
background
The Ramah Navajo School Board, Inc., established in 1970, governs
the K-12 Pine Hill School (a federally funded BIA/BIE school), the Pine
Hill Health Center and more than 30 other school and community programs
on the Ramah Navajo Reservation in Cibola County, at Pine Hill, New
Mexico. We have the distinction of operating the first Indian-
controlled health clinic and the first Indian-controlled high school in
the country. The Ramah Navajo School Board serves the 4,000-plus
members of the Ramah Band of Navajo Indians, and on their behalf, I
want to thank you for the commitment and support you have provided to
our community over the past 40 years. The Ramah Navajo people are well
aware of the current fiscal climate in our country and the many
difficult decisions that must be made to restore economic prosperity
for all Americans. That being said, the Federal Government, through the
BIE and the IHS, has an historic and long-standing trust responsibility
to the health and well-being of American Indian communities such as
Ramah Navajo, who, long before the current economic downturn, struggled
to provide to their members basic services, such as education and
healthcare. The BIE school system, for example, has long been
underfunded, and the fiscal year 2012 proposed budget falls far short
of remedying this state of affairs. Given the importance of education
to the future viability of our community, we hope that the Congress
will recognize and address the very real funding needs of our tribally
operated school. Ramah Navajo, one of the most remote communities in
the country, faces unique challenges and must receive continued funding
to operate its facilities and provide essential community-based
programs. With all these factors in mind, we unequivocally support the
fiscal year 2012 budget requests prepared by the National Congress of
American Indians (NCAI) for the BIE-funded school programs, and in
particular, the request for realistic funding for Tribal Grant Support
Costs (TGSC) and the ISEF Program. Ramah Navajo also has three
community requests for which it seeks your support.
specific requests
Request No. 1: Direct the BIE to reopen the ``Replacement School
Priority List'' and/or appropriate $5.6 million needed to replace the
Ramah Navajo elementary school building.--The Federal Government,
through the BIE, is responsible for facility operations and maintenance
for all buildings on Ramah Navajo's K-12 Pine Hill School campus. The
elementary school (building #803), which opened in 1975, has served our
community for the past 35 years. In August 2010, however, it was
discovered that this building has sustained serious water damage, mold
growth, and insect infestation. The consulting engineers have
recommended the replacement of all exterior walls, the roof, and
interior finishes. In replacing the exterior walls, it would be also be
necessary to remove and replace plumbing and electrical equipment.
Given the extent of the major renovation needed to bring the building
up to a safe and usable condition, it has been recommended that the
building be demolished, and a new elementary school building be
constructed in its place. In the meantime, the elementary school
building has been sealed closed due to the structural defects (e.g.,
the roof is on the verge of collapse in some locations), and also the
high concentrations of mold in the building. As a result, our 300
elementary school students are housed in other school buildings. In
addition to the concerns about the physical plant, the current
situation adversely impacts our entire education environment; raises
concerns about overcrowding and student health and safety; and limits
our ability to expand our student enrollment. We have an emergency need
for a new elementary school building, and the BIE has a process for
evaluating school construction applications and ranking them on a
priority list for funding. However, 6 years have passed since the BIE
has added any new schools to the replacement school construction
priority list. And since Ramah Navajo does not have any other way to
make its case for a replacement elementary school building, we are left
with an uninhabitable elementary school building. The fiscal year 2012
proposed budget includes no funding for replacement school or facility
construction. This would inflict severe hardship on schools, such as
Ramah Navajo, who now face a critical need for replacement facilities.
Therefore, we urge the Congress to direct the BIE to reopen the
competitive process by which Indian schools can submit applications to
justify their requests for replacement school construction.
Alternatively, and given the administration's proposed freeze on ``new
construction'', we urge the Congress to direct the BIE to identify
funding from the facilities improvement and repair account to
immediately redress our critical building deficiencies so that our
school can be fully utilized once more.
Request No. 2: Appropriate $3.45 million for a Ramah Navajo elder
community center.--There is a great need in the Ramah Navajo community
for an elder community center to be located near the Pine Hill Health
Center on our school campus so elders can have a center dedicated to
their needs. Our community is spread out over 625 square miles with
only one paved road. Family hogans and houses are geographically
remote, raising concerns about the well-being of our elders.
Approximately 480 residents older than 65 and another 905 between the
ages of 50 and 64 are seen at the Pine Hill Health Center. Although
some of our elders qualify for part-time care takers through Medicaid
to help with the functions of daily living, most of our elders do not,
leaving them vulnerable to many unmet needs, such as accidental falls,
taking care of personal finances, bathing, cooking and hot meals, and
other elderly needs.
The Pine Hill Health Center has received an IHS Elder Initiative
grant to conduct a comprehensive survey of our elder community covering
everything from personal needs assessments, home safety and
environmental assessments, thorough physical exams and a community
evaluation and survey of elder needs. This study shows that the
community is very much in need of an elder community center that will
address the needs of our elders, including, but not limited to,
healthcare, nutrition, education, intergenerational social activities
in conjunction with the school, and space to train local caregivers. As
the median age of our population rises, as our IHS-funded survey
confirms, this community will increasingly require a facility where
services to this growing and vulnerable population can be provided. The
Ramah School Board officials have met with the IHS area office to
discuss this need. We are beginning the process to get this project on
the IHS priority list, but have been told that it is probably a 20-year
waiting period. This is unacceptable to us and to our elders.
Request No. 3: Appropriate $2.55 million for the Pine Hill School
water well and sewer system.--The Pine Hill School water well and sewer
system, constructed in the early 1970s, was originally intended to
serve only the new Pine Hill School and housing units for the school
staff. Over the past 37 years, the board of trustees has added numerous
other buildings and facilities for school and community programs. The
Water and Sewer System also serves non-Ramah facilities, such as the
Pine Hill Market, and provides clean water to nearby community housing
projects (70-plus units). We seek funding for a new water and sewer
system through the IHS sanitation facilities program. The funds
requested are essential for the health and safety of our students,
teachers, and housing residents. At this time, our west sewer lagoon
does not comply with applicable Environmental Protection Agency laws
and regulations, so we urgently need to bring the lagoon into
compliance. The funds sought for this project will also be used for the
design and construction of a new 8- to 10-inch sewer line main from the
school campus to the sewer lagoon, and for the upgrade of the well,
which is the principal source of water for our school campus.
Request No. 4: Continue funding to support American Indian tribal
colleges throughout the country.--Since the threatened cuts to the BIE
budget to support American Indian tribal colleges throughout the
country will end the hopes of thousands of American Indians for a
college education and skilled, living wage jobs, especially for their
own tribes, we urge the Congress to continue the critical funding for
these colleges at least at the same level as it did in the budget for
the last fiscal year.
Request No. 5: Increase the TGSC for tribally operated schools to
$72.3 million.--The TGSC, formerly known as administrative cost grants,
cover those indirect/administrative costs incurred by tribes that have
elected to take over operation of the BlE-funded schools on their
reservations. This funding covers such expenses as payroll, accounting,
insurance, background checks, and other legal, reporting and
recordkeeping requirements. Almost all these costs are legally mandated
and/or conditions for the receipt of program funding. Yet,
appropriations for the TGSC have consistently lagged behind the needs
of tribally controlled schools. In fiscal year 2010, for example, the
amount appropriated by the Congress funded only 62 percent of the
administrative costs incurred by schools. For fiscal year 2012, the
proposed budget requests a $3 million increase more than the fiscal
year 2010 enacted levels, which the BIE estimates would meet 65 percent
of need. Given the ever rising costs of fiscal management, insurance,
and other ``contract support'' expenses, and the possibility that three
additional schools may be converting to tribally controlled status in
fiscal year 2012, it is altogether likely that this additional $3
million will not be sufficient to raise the cost rate above the current
62 percent of need. For 19 of the last 20 years, our Pine Hill School,
as well as all other tribally operated schools, has not received its
full TGSC amount. On the other hand, significant efforts have been made
in the budget to address Contract Support Costs (CSC) for the BIA and
the IHS non-school contractors. For example, the proposed budget
requests an increase of $25.5 million to fund CSC for non-school
contractors (with an additional $2 million to pay for the costs of new
contractors). For the IHS, the administration seeks a $50 million
increase. In fiscal year 2010, the BIA and the IHS non-school
contractors also received significant increases, while tribally
operated schools received no increases since fiscal year 2004. While we
are grateful that the Congress has recognized the need to address the
shortfalls in funding for our nonschool programs, these efforts do not
remedy the very real impacts associated with inadequate funding of our
school's TGSC, and we request that the comparable needs of our schools
be recognized and fully funded. The NCAI has calculated that $70.3
million is needed to fully fund the TGSC for current grant schools with
an additional $2 million for schools newly converting to tribally
controlled status. We fully endorse this request.
Request No. 6: Fund the ISEF Account at $431 million in order to
fulfill the Federal Government's obligation to Indian children in the
BIE school system. These funds support Indian education programs, which
is, of course, the core function of our schools. Without an increase to
the ISEF, our own school will not be able to continue to recruit and
retain the high-quality personnel needed for our education program to
succeed. Key support services also require subsidies. For example, our
food service budget, transportation, and facilities and maintenance
funding falls far short of the amounts realistically needed, and these
shortages must be supplemented by our ISEF funds. We must also provide
school security, a school nursing staff, and after-school programs. All
of these costs should be the responsibility of the BIE, but its budget
for the ISEF chronically fails to supply the level of support needed
and does not take into account the enhanced costs of operating a small
school such as ours in a sparsely populated reservation community. Over
the past 7 years, the ISEF budget has increased by only 13 percent,
less than 2 percent per year. The proposed fiscal year 2012 budget
requests $392.3 million. This translates into a ``weighted student
unit'' amount of $5,320.62, an increase of less than $9 more than the
fiscal year 2010 enacted amount. Instead, we urge that the ISEF
appropriation be set at $431 million as recommended by the NCAI, the
amount realistically required to begin to rectify the historic
underfunding of the BIE school system. Our children deserve as much.
conclusion
The Board of Trustees for the Ramah Navajo School Board, Inc.,
appreciates your support. We hope that this information will help the
Congress, especially new members, better understand the needs of and
unique challenges faced by the AI/AN communities generally, and the
Ramah Navajo Reservation community, in particular. Thank you for this
opportunity to present our testimony.
______
Prepared Statement of the Riverside-San Bernardino County Indian
Health, Inc.
On behalf of Riverside-San Bernardino County Indian Health, Inc. of
California, I write to request that the fiscal year 2012 appropriation
include $615 million in contract support cost (CSC) funding for the
Indian Health Service (IHS). According to IHS, this is the amount that
is legally required to fully pay the contracts that tribal
organizations like us (along with hundreds of Indian tribes) are
carrying out to operate Federal IHS facilities and healthcare programs.
Without this funding, in fiscal year 2012 Riverside will once again
suffer a shortfall of $3,094,883 in carrying out its IHS contract.
The chairman and this subcommittee know well that, when the IHS
contracts over the operation of its facilities to tribal organizations
under the Indian Self-Determination Act (ISDA), the result is
strengthened tribal government institutions; increased local employment
and training; a reduced Federal bureaucracy; and--perhaps most
importantly--increased local control over the design and delivery of
critical healthcare programs. We take distant bureaucrats from
Washington, DC out of the picture, along with their reams of
regulations and manuals, to produce true local control over healthcare.
The Congress, the President, and every IHS Director since 1975 has
recognized that no policy in American history has had a more profound
effect on strengthening tribal institutions, quality of care, and local
employment than has the Indian Self-Determination Policy reflected in
the ISDA. This is why it is critical that the Congress honor and
support that Policy by appropriating the sums required by law and by
our contracts for fixed contract support costs.
As the subcommittee knows, CSC are fixed costs. They are set by the
agencies and they must be paid off the top, no matter what. Since these
costs are fixed, the direct result of CSC underpayments is the loss of
local jobs and reductions in healthcare and related services. The
impact for Indian country is particularly severe when you consider that
Indian healthcare is barely one-half the amount the Government spends
to care for Federal prisoners, and only 38 percent of the Nation's
overall per capita healthcare spending.
The last thing we need to be doing is diverting the few funds we
have in order to subsidize the Government's CSC underpayments. Doing
that only punishes our Indian patients and dishonors the Government's
trust responsibility to provide healthcare.
At Riverside we know that closing the CSC gap produces jobs and
improves healthcare and outcomes among our people. In fiscal year 2010
Riverside was allocated $1,976,000 to partially reduce our CSC
shortfall. With that, we opened 23 jobs, including 1 pharmacist; 1
pharmacy technician; 3 chemical dependency counselors; 1 nursing
director; 5 registered dental assistants; 2 dental receptionists; 1
dentist; 1 case utilization review manager (for our Contract Health
Care private-sector referral program); 1 optometrist; 2 opticians; 2
nurse practitioners; 1 patient escort; 1 fitness specialist to assist
our diabetic patients; and 1 social worker. These are real jobs, good
jobs, and permanent jobs. They are also a fraction of the jobs we lost
to the CSC shortfall.
The time has come, after 35 years, to finally end the CSC
shortfalls that have damaged our healthcare programs, punished our
people, and broken the Government's contract promises. I therefore
respectfully, but urgently ask that you consider increasing the
contract support cost line in the IHS budget to $615 million. In making
this request I wish to point out this request has the full support of
the National Indian Health Board, the National Congress of American
Indians and the National IHS Tribal Self-Governance Advisory Committee.
______
Prepared Statement of the Sac and Fox Nation of Oklahoma
On behalf of the Sac and Fox Nation of Oklahoma I am submitting the
following budget priorities for the fiscal year 2012 budgets for the
Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) and the Indian Health Service (IHS).
Thank you for considering these requests
introduction
At the time of this written submission, current year funding for
fiscal year 2011 remains under negotiation and is currently funded
under a continuing resolution through April 8, 2011. While discussions
will resume in the Congress on proposals for a comprehensive plan to
address a final enacted amount for fiscal year 2011, final funding
levels remain uncertain. Therefore, our requests and analysis of the
fiscal year 2012 President's proposed budget are compared to the fiscal
year 2010 final enacted.
The President has committed to support and advance tribal Self-
Determination and Self-Governance for the Nation's 567 federally
recognized tribes. Consistent with that commitment, the fiscal year
2012 President's proposed budget presents a renewed opportunity for the
U.S. Government to live up to the promises made to American Indians/
Alaska Native (AI/AN) tribal governments. Further, it provides a
concrete fulfillment of the President's promise to the tribal
leadership to ensure that the AI/AN governments are full and equal
partners in the family of governments.
bia requests
Overall, the fiscal year 2012 budget request for the BIA is
approximately 4.5 percent below the 2010 enacted level. While we are
concerned about several of the proposed decreases, we strongly support
and urge the passage of those significant increases included in fiscal
year 2012 President's proposed budget, including:
--$25 million increase in Contract Support Costs (CSC);
--$20 million increase for tribal law enforcement activities;
--$8.9 million increase to improve the state of Bureau of Indian
Education (BIE) schools;
--$3.9 million increase to implement new safety and security measures
at 10 schools and two dormitories;
--$3 million increase for tribal grant support costs; and
--$3 million for tribal management/development.
In order to effectively carry out the transfer of Federal
activities to tribes under the Indian Self-Determination and Education
Assistance Act, we respectfully request this subcommittee to protect
and support the President's fiscal year 2012 proposed increases for the
BIA programs and to support the following additional program increases:
Tribal Priority Allocation (TPA) General Increase.--Provide $82.9
million (10 percent increase over fiscal year 2010) for general
increase.
TPA is one of the most important funding areas for tribal
governments. It covers such needs as scholarships and higher
education funding, human services, economic development, and
natural resources management. This funding has steadily eroded
due to inflation and population growth. The effects of rising
costs of travel, equipment, supplies, and purchased services
have been compounding for years while the Native American
population has increased at 1.6 percent per year. Since tribes
have the flexibility to use TPA funds to meet the unique needs
of their individual communities, they are the main resources
for tribes to exercise their powers of Self-Determination and
Self-Governance (SG). We respectfully urge the subcommittee to
provide at least a 10 percent ($82.9 million) ``general
increase'' more than the fiscal year 2010 enacted level for TPA
in order to maintain these programs and services.
CSC.--Provide a $50 million increase for the BIA to fully fund
CSC, including direct CSC and provide $5 million for the Indian
Self-Determination (ISD) Fund.
The CSC are the key to Self-Determination for tribes. Full
funding of the CSC covers the fixed overhead costs that a tribe
must incur to operate a BIA program or facility as required
under the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance
Act. When the CSC is not fully funded, tribes are forced to
utilize limited direct program services dollars or tribal
resources to cover these shortfalls. Further, contract support
costs directly funds jobs--and those jobs directly enhance
services for education, law enforcement, and other essential
governmental services across Indian country. We respectfully
urge the subcommittee to fund these essential services and not
permit Indian agreements to remain the only Government
contracts that are not fully funded.
Law Enforcement/Tribal Courts/Tribal Detention Facilities.--
Provide $30 million more than fiscal year 2010 levels.
Effective implementation of the recently enacted Tribal Law and
Order Act (TLOA) requires a commitment of resources if its
intended goals are to be fully implemented to address issues of
public safety and justice in Indian country. Increased and
targeted funding will support tribes in their implementation of
the TLOA. We respectfully urge the subcommittee to provide an
increase in funds for officer recruitment and training, tribal
courts and for tribal detention facilities operations and
maintenance.
Education.--Provide $24.3 million to fully restore funding to
Johnson O'Malley (JOM).
Investments in education for our Native children prepare our
youth for active and equal participation in our economic
systems as well as to help these students who have historically
been underserved to achieve their dream of going to college and
providing them with the skills to serve as future leaders. We
respectfully urge the subcommittee to restore funding for the
JOM Program which provides special and unique need as
determined through parent committees.
Increase funding to the Office of Tribal Self-Governance (OTSG)
to fully staff the office for the increase of tribes entering
Self-Governance (SG).
ihs requests
The President's fiscal year 2012 proposed increase for the IHS
represents a significant increase of $571 million (14.1 percent) more
than the fiscal year 2010 enacted level. This represents a positive
step toward meeting the overwhelming $22.1 billion needed to bring
parity in healthcare for the AI/AN. Last year, permanent
reauthorization of the Indian Health Care Improvement Act (IHCIA) was
included as part of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act
(ACA). Effective implementation of the IHCIA requires an investment in
Indian health to ensure that Indian healthcare delivery system is
strengthened so that the AI/ANs and Indian health programs benefit from
these reformed systems.
We respectfully urge this subcommittee to hold Indian health
program harmless and to protect and support the President's fiscal year
2012 proposed increases for the IHS programs from budget roll-backs,
freezes, and rescission. We offer the following additional
recommendations:
Fully Fund Current Services.--Provide $532 million for the IHS
and tribal pay costs, inflation, and population growth;
staffing for new/replacement facilities and healthcare
facilities construction previously approved plan.
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. Maintaining current services is a
fundamental budget principle. We respectfully urge the
subcommittee to provide an increase necessary to maintain the
current level of care.
Contract Health Services (CHS).--Provide $118 million increase
for CHS.
This increase of $118 million is a modest increase compared to
the estimated needs of $1 billion. At present, less than one-
half of the CHS need is being met, leaving too many Indian
people without access to necessary medical services. We
respectfully urge the subcommittee to provide to address this
critical need.
CSC.--Provide $122 million for the IHS to fully fund CSC.
For fiscal year 2012, the estimated shortfall is $153 million.
Investing funds here is wise. No part of the IHS budgets is
more highly scrutinized than are the funds awarded under these
contracts. There is a transparency and accountability here that
is unrivaled in other government contracting work. Adequate CSC
funding assures that tribes have the ability to deliver the
highest-quality healthcare services to their members. We
respectfully urge the subcommittee to fund these essential
services and not permit Indian agreements to remain the only
Government contracts that are not fully funded.
OTSG.--Increase $5 million to the IHS OTSG.
As of 2011, there are 334 SG tribes managing approximately $1.4
billion in funding. This represents 59 percent of all federally
recognized tribes and 33 percent of the overall IHS funding.
The OTSG supports tribes operating programs under the Tribal
Self-Governance Amendments of 2000. The SG process serves as a
model program for healthcare reform implementation and builds
tribal infrastructures to provide quality services to the AI/AN
people. We respectfully urge the subcommittee to provide an
increase to provide for adequate implementation of this act.
______
Prepared Statement of the Southcentral Foundation
My name is Charles Clement. I am the Chief Operating Officer of
Southcentral Foundation (SCF) in Alaska. SCF is a tribal organization
that compacts with the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS)
under title V of the Indian Self-Determination Act (ISDA) to carry out
various Indian Health Service (IHS) programs. In doing so, the SCF acts
pursuant to tribal authority granted by Cook Inlet Region, Inc., an
Alaska Native regional corporation designated by the Congress as an
Indian tribe for purposes of ISDA activities. As my testimony reflects,
we request that in fiscal year 2012 the Congress fully fund contract
support cost requirements by $615 million, and that it also add $25
million to forward-fund a small portion fiscal year 2013 joint venture
staffing requirements.
The SCF has carried out IHS programs under ISDA agreements for more
than 25 years. In accordance with its compact with the HHS, the SCF
currently provides medical, dental, optometric, behavioral health, and
substance abuse treatment services to more than 45,000 Alaska Native
and American Indian beneficiaries living within the municipality of
Anchorage, the Matanuska-Susitna Borough, and nearby villages. The SCF
also provides services to an additional 13,000 residents of 55 rural
Alaska villages covering an area exceeding 100,000 square miles. To
administer and deliver these critical healthcare services, the SCF
employs more than 1,400 people.
Today, I will focus my remarks on two issues, contract support cost
funding and joint venture funding.
contract support cost (csc) funding
The greatest impediment to the full performance of our self-
governance compact with the IHS has been the historic underfunding of
our CSC. Since those costs are fixed, when the IHS fails to cover our
contract support costs--despite a statutory mandate and a contract
obligation to do so--the SCF has no choice but to cut positions, which
in turn cuts services, and which in turn cuts down our billings and
collections from Medicare, Medicaid, and private insurers (billings
which would otherwise go into additional staff and services for our
people).
The reverse is also true, and it is proven: when CSC shortfalls are
finally paid, the results are increased employment, increased services
and increased collections leading to more employment and services. In
fiscal year 2010, the President requested and the Congress approved an
historic increase in ``contract support cost'' appropriations for
fiscal year 2010, for which the SCF is deeply appreciative. Nationally,
this increase (which totaled $116 million) cut down the current
shortfall in CSC payments by about one-half. In a moment I will detail
the advances the SCF has already made with the partial restoration of
its CSC funds in fiscal year 2010.
But before doing that I need to explain the costs that we are
talking about. The majority of the SCF's CSC (about 80 percent) are
comprised of fixed overhead costs that are determined by an indirect
cost rate that is approved by the HHS's Division of Cost Allocation.
The remainder of the SCF's CSC (about 20 percent) are set directly by
the IHS through direct negotiations. Together, these are the fixed CSC
that the SCF actually incurs, year in and year out, whether the IHS
reimburses us or not. These costs are independently audited each year
by certified public accountants, as required by law.
Even though OMB circulars require that every agency must honor our
Federal indirect cost rate, and despite the fact that the ISDA mandates
that the IHS must add ``in full'' all CSC to the SCF's self-governance
compact, in the past, the IHS has never fulfilled those obligations.
Nor has the IHS ever met its obligation to inform the Congress mid-year
of the amounts it owes the SCF in the current year, and the IHS has
never requested supplemental appropriations from the Congress to
address those contract shortfalls. Instead, the IHS has adopted a
practice of issuing its contract shortfall reports 1 year late, long
after the Congress can do anything about it through the supplemental
appropriations process.
So far as we have been able to determine, no other contractors are
treated this way. The HHS, including the IHS, treats its contracts with
Indian tribes--and only its contracts with Indian tribes--as if they
were just grants. We provide a contracted service for a contracted
price, but then the IHS only pays us what it thinks it can afford, and
it never budgets enough in its annual appropriation to pay all of its
contracts with all of the tribes.
This practice must stop. In fiscal year 2012, the IHS should
finally pay its contract obligations in full. The CSC line-item should
be fully funded at $615 million, as the IHS's own calculations disclose
is required in the IHS budget justification.
It is said that CSC shortfalls are the necessary result of fiscal
constraints. But as I have noted, neither the HHS nor any other Federal
agency I know of ever uses that as a reason not to pay a Government
contractor in full, whether the issue involves other IHS or HHS
procurement contracts, or the Government's contracts to feed our troops
overseas. Fiscal constraints are never a reason for a Government to
renege on its contract obligations, and if they were no one could ever
rely on the Government as a contracting party.
Existing fiscal constraints should also not fall disproportionately
on the tribally administered portion of the IHS system. On the one
hand, when fiscal constraints lead the Congress to reduce program
funding, the burden of that decision is shared equally between the IHS-
operated portion of the healthcare delivery system and the tribally
operated portion of that same system. The tribe, like IHS, is then
awarded a contract to operate a smaller program.
But when budgetary constraints lead to insufficient contract
support appropriations, tribes, and tribal organizations like the SCF
shoulder the full brunt of the reduction, requiring the contracted
programs themselves to be cut in order to make up the difference. All
the while, parallel programs that remain under the IHS operation are
entirely protected from those funding decisions.
In effect, and in reality, underfunding CSC disproportionately
balances budgetary constraints on the backs of tribal contractors,
alone. It punishes the people served under those contracts by forcing
reductions in contracted programs. If the Congress is going to cut
budgets or limit budget increases, fairness demands that such actions
occur in portions of the budget that are shouldered equally by the IHS
and the tribes and tribal organizations.
The SCF's CSC requirements reflect critical infrastructure, often
mandated by the Congress. They include federally mandated costs such as
annual independent audits, and they also cover items such as liability
and property insurance, workers' compensation insurance, and payroll
and procurement systems. We have to buy insurance. We need to make
payroll. We have to purchase supplies and services, and track property
and equipment. Given these fixed costs, when CSC are cut, the SCF has
no choice but to make up the difference through staffing and service
reductions. As a result, the shortfall has had a direct impact on
employment--or rather, unemployment--in our area. Indisputably, CSC
shortfalls mean lost jobs.
At even a high estimate of $100,000 per average full-time
equivalent employee, every $1 million loss in our CSC payments
initially costs the SCF 10 jobs. In actuality, however, the impact is
even worse, since the reduction in services also means a reduction in
revenues from Medicare, Medicaid, and other third-party insurers and
payers. Therefore, the true job loss for the SCF is more than 20
positions.
The SCF is one of the country's larger tribal healthcare
contractors. In fiscal year 2008, the HHS failed to pay us roughly 40
percent of our entire CSC requirement: $10.7 million. The impact of
such a large shortfall on jobs was stunning, and it severely
constrained our ability to meet the healthcare needs of the Alaska
Native and American Indian population in our service area. The
shortfall meant we could not hire doctors, nurse practitioners, home
health workers, psychiatrists, mental health clinicians, dentists,
dental hygienists, optometrists, pharmacists, and substance abuse
counselors--and I could list many more. Things only got worse in fiscal
year 2009, when the SCF lost another $12.8 million, again nearly 40
percent of our CSC requirement.
But the reverse is also true, and it is proven: when CSC shortfalls
are reduced, more healthcare is delivered. Thanks to this
administration's unprecedented support in fiscal year 2010, the SCF saw
its CSC shortfall close last year by about $8.8 million. As a result,
the SCF in fiscal year 2010 opened 97 positions to fill multiple
healthcare provider teams and support staff. If the remaining shortfall
were closed through appropriate HHS budget priorities, the SCF would be
able to add another 50 positions that currently cannot be filled.
The SCF applauds the President's proposal in fiscal year 2012 to
narrow the nationwide gap by $66 million more than fiscal year 2010
levels. That said, these sums are simply not even close to sufficient
to cover either the current shortfall this year or the anticipated
shortfall next year. For that reason, the SCF respectfully calls upon
the Congress to provide $615 million in CSC funding for fiscal year
2012, so that the HHS can finally honor these contracts in full.
The administration has made bold and historic efforts to narrow the
gap. Given the continuing recession and a persistent gap in Indian
healthcare, now is the time to finally close it. Every tribe has
contracts with the IHS to carry out some of the agency's healthcare
services, and nearly every tribe is currently being penalized for
taking that initiative. Closing the CSC gap will directly benefit
nearly every Indian and Alaska Native community in the Nation that is
served by the IHS.
joint venture funding
The second issue I need to address concerns the many joint venture
projects currently underway across the country in which several tribes
and tribal organizations (including the SCF) have secured non-Federal
financing to construct healthcare facilities to be operated by the
tribes under self-determination or self-governance agreements, in
exchange for a contractual commitment by the IHS to fund the staffing
of those facilities once they are completed.
The SCF is gravely concerned that insufficient continuing services
appropriations will be available to fully staff the several joint
venture projects that will come on line in fiscal year 2013, as well as
the associated CSC requirements for running those facilities. As things
stand, the IHS already commits to only staff these facilities at 85
percent of full staffing. Without any CSC funding, that percentage will
drop to 60 percent. Such an outcome will severely strain the ability of
many tribes to provide effective care, to meet their debt service
obligations, and to properly operate these facilities. Subcommittee
instructions to the agency can help ensure that such consequences do
not befall the joint venture program. Forward-funding a portion of
these costs in fiscal year 2012 with $25 million (one-fifth of what
will be required in fiscal year 2013) would be a sound management
practice that would permit hiring to begin before we open our doors on
October 1, 2012.
Thank you for granting me the opportunity to testify on behalf of
the SCF and the 58,000 Native American people we serve.
______
Letter From Sonosky, Chambers, Sachse, Endreson & Perry, LLP
May 5, 2011.
Hon. Jack Reed,
Chairman, Subcommittee on the Interior, Environment, and Related
Agencies, Washington, DC.
Hon. Lisa Murkowski,
Ranking Member, Subcommittee on the Interior, Environment, and Related
Agencies, Washington, DC.
Re: Testimonies from tribes and tribal organizations regarding contract
support costs in the fiscal year 2012 budget
Dear Chairman Reed and Senator Murkowski: I write on behalf of the
National Tribal Contract Support Cost Coalition to request that copies
of the enclosed House testimonies be made a part of the Senate
Committee's record on the fiscal year 2012 appropriation for Interior,
environment, and related agencies.
These testimonies are all directed to the enormous shortfall still
remaining in the contractual duty of the Indian Health Service (IHS) to
pay full contract support costs under its contracts awarded to tribes
and tribal organizations operating Federal hospitals, clinics, and
other healthcare programs for the IHS across Indian country. Although
this subcommittee has been open to the administration's past requests
for increased funding to address this binding contract obligation, the
administration's $462 million fiscal year 2012 request is, by its own
admission, a stunning $153 million short of the full amount needed to
pay these contracts in full.
The reasons supporting closing this gap in fiscal year 2012 are
many, including:
--the legal duty to pay these contracts under the law and the Supreme
Court's 2005 Cherokee Nation decision;
--the effectiveness of these contracts in improving health while
producing local jobs and improved local governance;
--failing to pay these federally determined fixed costs punishes
tribal contractors by compelling offsetting health program
reductions and layoffs; and
--100 percent of contract support cost dollars go into tribal
healthcare--not one penny goes to the agency bureaucracy.
But perhaps the greatest reason to pay the shortfall is that these
fully performed contracts are the only contracts which the Federal
Government sees fit to underpay, even after amendments and a Supreme
Court decision declaring that these contracts are to be treated no
differently than any other Federal contract.
Although the enclosed testimonies vary widely, they all address
this same fundamental problem. They represent the views, not only of
national organizations like National Indian Health Board and National
Congress of Indians, but also the specific views of more than 290
tribes (individually or in tribal consortia) situated across the States
of Washington, Idaho, Montana, Oregon, California, Nevada, Michigan,
Wisconsin, Alaska, Oklahoma, and New Mexico.
Thank you once again for the subommittee's special commitment to
Indian healthcare, as well as the subommittee's specific commitment to
correcting the injustice that these contract support cost shortfalls
impose upon nearly all of the 565 tribes contracting with the IHS to
operate Federal facilities or services in 35 States under the Indian
Self-Determination Act.
Sincerely,
Lloyd B. Miller,
Partner.
______
Prepared Statement of the SouthEast Alaska Regional Health Consortium
I write as president of the SouthEast Alaska Regional Health
Consortium (SEARHC) to urge that the subcommittee increase the Indian
Health Service (IHS) requested appropriation for contract support cost
(CSC) payments up to $615 million. This will permit the IHS to finally
pay in full all of its contract obligations to SEARHC and the hundreds
of other tribes and tribal organizations that operate IHS facilities
across the United States.
The SEARHC is an inter-tribal consortium of 18 federally recognized
tribes situated throughout the southeast panhandle of Alaska. Our
considerable service area encompasses more than 35,000 square miles, an
area larger than the State of Maine. With no road system connecting our
communities, the challenges to deliver healthcare are considerable.
We meet this challenge through a network of community clinics and
the Mt. Edgecombe Hospital, and our array of healthcare services
includes medical, dental, mental health, physical therapy, radiology,
pharmacy, laboratory, nutritional, audiology, optometry, and
respiratory therapy services. In addition we provide supplemental
social services, substance abuse treatment, health promotion services,
emergency medical services, environmental health services, and
traditional Native healing.
We administer more than $42 million in IHS facilities and related
programs and services. These are Federal services which we operate on
behalf of the Federal Government through a self-governance compact and
associated funding agreement.
To carry out the Government's healthcare programs under this
contract requires us to incur certain fixed costs, including a number
of costs mandated by the Federal Government. These costs include
substantial annual audit costs, insurance costs, and an array of
administrative costs to operate our personnel and financial management
systems.
Virtually none of these CSC are covered in the direct service
budget which the IHS contracts to pay under our funding agreement. This
is because the IHS either does not incur these costs at all (in the
case of audit expenses and insurance costs), or because the IHS
receives resources to carry-out these functions from other portions of
the IHS budget, other divisions of the Department of Health and Human
Services, or even other departments of the Federal Government. Still,
these are mandatory fixed costs which SEARHC must incur year in and
year out, and for SEARHC these costs are set every year by the
Department's Division of Cost Allocation.
Decades ago SEARHC was required to accept a contract that did not
provide for the payment of these CSCs. Over the years, however, the
Congress amended the Indian Self-Determination Act to require that our
full requirement for contract support costs be added ``in full'' to the
negotiated budget for our direct services. Thus today, both the law and
our compact and funding agreement require that CSC be added in full.
But this has not happened. The IHS will not pay the full amount
owed under our contract. In fact, we never know how much IHS is going
to choose to pay us until our contract has already been fully
performed. We really have no choice in the matter--our people depend
upon us to provide healthcare on a continuing basis.
No Federal agency should be able to simply declare unilaterally
that it is not going to pay the full amount of a contract, and not tell
the contractor how much it will actually be paid until the contract
year is almost over. Yet that is what has been happening to SEARHC.
In the last completed fiscal year (2010) SEARHC was underpaid
approximately $2,761,000 in fixed CSCs. SEARHC has no tax base, and
thus no way to make up for the difference other than to take resources
that would otherwise support the delivery of services. Again, this is
because CSCs are fixed and must be paid off the top. The result is a
severe impact on our ability to fully discharge our contract and
provide maximum care to our beneficiaries.
Worst yet, the Government's conduct is simply wrong. So far as
SEARHC has been able to determine, in no other area of Government
contracting does an agency decide at the end of a year how much it is
going to pay a contractor after it has already received the benefit of
the bargain. The Government would never treat other Government
contractors this way, and there is no excuse for the Government's
treatment of tribal contractors, particularly given the mandatory
language in the Indian Self-Determination Act which controls the award
of our contract documents.
The SEARHC is a member of the National Tribal Contract Support Cost
Coalition (NTCSCC), and we fully endorse the NTCSCC's testimony. We
call for full funding of CSCs in fiscal year 2012. It has been almost 7
years to the day since the Supreme Court required that the Government
honor its self-determination contracts and self-governance agreements
with tribal healthcare providers; at long last we hope that the
Congress will work with the administration to provide the funds
necessary to meet that statutory and contractual commitment in full.
______
Prepared Statement of the Squaxin Island Tribe
On behalf of the tribal leadership and members of the Squaxin
Island Tribe, I am honored to submit our funding priorities and
recommendations for the fiscal year 2012 budgets for the Bureau of
Indian Affairs (BIA) and the Indian Health Service (IHS). The fiscal
year 2012 President's proposed budget presents a renewed opportunity
for the U.S. Government to live up to the promises made to American
Indians/Alaska Natives (AI/ANs) tribal governments. We want to thank
this subcommittee for their long-standing support and urge your
consideration of the following requests:
tribal-specific requests
$1 million increase for Northwest Indian Treatment Center (NWITC)
residential program in IHS.
regional requests and recommendations
The Squaxin Island Tribe is actively involved in the collective
Northwest Tribal efforts and supports the requests and recommendations
of:
--Northwest Portland Area Indian Health Board;
--Affiliated Tribes of Northwest Indians; and
--Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission.
self-governance (sg) and national requests and recommendations
Bureau of Indian Affairs
Tribal Priority Allocation (TPA) General Increase.--Provide $82.9
million (10 percent increase over fiscal year 2010).
Contract Support Costs (CSC).--Provide a $50 million increase for
the BIA to fully fund CSC, including Direct CSC; and provide $5 million
for the Indian Self-Determination (ISD) Fund.
Increase funding to the Office of Tribal Self-Governance (OTSG) to
fully staff the office for the increase of tribes entering SG.
IHS
Fully Fund Current Services.--Provide $532 million for the IHS and
tribal pay costs, inflation, and population growth; staffing for new/
replacement facilities and healthcare facilities construction
previously approved plan.
Contract Health Services (CHS).--Provide $118 million increase for
CHS.
CSC.--Provide $122 million for the IHS to fully fund CSC.
OTSG.--Increase $5 million to the IHS OTSG.
We support all requests and recommendations of the National
Congress of American Indians and the National Indian Health Board.
squaxin island tribe background
The Squaxin Island Tribe is located in southern Mason County, near
Shelton, Washington in the 6th Congressional District. The tribal
government and its economic enterprises constitute the largest employer
in the county with more than 1,250 employees. The tribe is a signatory
to the 1854 Medicine Creek Treaty and is a SG tribe. The tribe has a
current enrollment of 1,017 and an on-reservation population of 426
living in 129 homes. Squaxin has an estimated service area population
of 2,747; a growth rate of about 10 percent, and an unemployment rate
of about 30 percent (according to the BIA Labor Force Report).
tribal specific requests justifications
$1 million increase for Northwest Indian Treatment Center (NWITC)
residential program in IHS.
``D3WXbi Palil'' meaning ``Returning from the Dark, Deep Waters to
the Light''--The NWITC has not received an adequate increase in its
base IHS budget since the original congressional set-aside in 1993. An
increase of $1 million would restore lost purchasing power and meet the
need to add mental health and psychiatric components to treatment. This
increase would allow the NWITC to continue its effective treatment of
Native Americans.
The Squaxin Island Tribe operates the NWITC located in Elma,
Washington (6th Congressional District). The NWITC is a residential
chemical dependency treatment facility designed to serve American
Indians from tribes located in Oregon, Washington, and Idaho who have
chronic relapse patterns related to unresolved grief and trauma. The
NWITC is unique in its integration of tribal cultural values into a
therapeutic environment for co-occurring substance abuse and mental
health disorders.
The NWITC has more than 15 years of experience providing
residential treatment with culturally competent models and is
accredited by the Commission on Accreditation of Rehabilitation
Facilities (CARF), an international accrediting organization for
behavioral health programs. The NWITC is also certified by Washington
State Division of Alcohol and Substance Abuse (DASA) Division of
Behavioral Health and licensed by the Department of Health.
Approximately 180 clients are treated at the NWITC each year. In
2009, the NWITC served 193 patients from 28 tribes. In 2009, the NWITC
added intensive case management and crisis support to alumni in order
to continue to promote positive outcomes for clients. Our base
allocation in 1994 was $850,161. In 2010 it was $994,877. If value
equity to the 1994 baseline were maintained, the 2010 allocation would
have been $1,250,895. Despite funding challenges, the NWITC has
continued to develop and deliver innovative, culturally appropriate
services to meet increasingly complex demands.
Let me share just one of the many NWITC success stories: X came
into treatment referred by a tribe on the Kitsap Peninsula. He came
pressured by court, but did not believe he could change--nor did he
really want to. While in treatment his spirit awakened and he came to
believe in a different possibility. He is now a chemical dependency
counselor. He writes each year on the anniversary of his admission to
thank us for his changed life. He sends pictures of the children he is
raising and tells us their lives are also changed.
It is critical to increase the NWITC's annual base allocation from
IHS in order to sustain the current services to the tribes of the
Northwest. We respectfully request the subcommittee to increase the
annual base allocation for the NWITC by an additional $1,000,000 to
guarantee that patients can be admitted based on need, not State
funding streams, and that culturally infused, integrated, and
comprehensive treatment services and recovery support services will be
maintained.
sg and national requests and priorities
Squaxin Island was 1 of the first 30 tribes in the Nation to enter
into a Self-Governance Compact with the Federal Government. Today, the
tribe establishes its own priorities and budgets for funds previously
administered by the BIA and the IHS. In order to effectively carry out
the transfer of Federal activities to tribes under the Indian Self-
Determination and Education Assistance Act, we respectfully request
this subcommittee to protect and support the President's fiscal year
2012 proposed increases for Indian Affairs programs and to support the
following additional program increases:
TPA General Increase.--Provide $82.9 million (10 percent increase
more than fiscal year 2010) for general increase. TPA is one of
the most important funding areas for tribal governments. It
covers such needs as scholarships and higher education funding,
human services, economic development, and natural resources
management. This funding has steadily eroded due to inflation
and population growth. The effects of rising costs of travel,
equipment, supplies, and purchased services have been
compounding for years while the Native American population has
increased at 1.6 percent per year. Since tribes have the
flexibility to use TPA funds to meet the unique needs of their
individual communities, they are the main resources for tribes
to exercise their powers of Self-Determination and Self-
Governance. We respectfully urge the subcommittee to provide at
least a 10 percent ($82.9 million) ``general increase'' more
than the fiscal year 2010 enacted level for TPA in order to
maintain these programs and services.
CSC.--Provide $50 million increase for BIA to fully fund CSC,
including Direct CSC; and provide $5 million for the ISD Fund.
Contract support costs are the key to Self-Determination for
tribes. Full funding of CSC covers the fixed overhead costs
that a tribe must incur to operate a BIA program or facility as
required under the Indian Self-Determination and Education
Assistance Act. When CSC is not fully funded, tribes are forced
to utilize limited direct program services dollars or tribal
resources to cover these shortfalls. Further, CSC directly
funds jobs--and those jobs directly enhance services for
education, law enforcement, and other essential governmental
services across Indian country. We respectfully urge the
subcommittee to fund these essential services and not permit
Indian agreements to remain the only Government contracts that
are not fully funded.
Increase funding to the OTSG to fully staff the office for the
increase of tribes entering SG.
ihs requests
The President's fiscal year 2012 proposed increase for the IHS
represents a significant increase of $571 million (14.1 percent) more
than the fiscal year 2010 enacted level. This represents a positive
step toward meeting the overwhelming $22.1 billion needed to bring
parity in healthcare for AI/ANs. Last year, permanent reauthorization
of the Indian Health Care Improvement Act (IHCIA) was included as part
of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA). Effective
implementation of the IHCIA requires an investment in Indian health to
ensure that Indian healthcare delivery system is strengthened so that
AI/ANs and Indian health programs benefit from these reformed systems.
We respectfully urge this subcommittee to hold Indian health
program harmless and to protect and support the President's fiscal year
2012 proposed increases for IHS programs from budget roll-backs,
freezes, and rescission. We offer the following additional
recommendations:
Fully Fund Current Services.--Provide $532 million for the IHS
and tribal pay costs, inflation, and population growth;
staffing for new/replacement facilities and healthcare
facilities construction previously approved plan. 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.
Maintaining current services is a fundamental budget principle.
We respectfully urge the subcommittee to provide an increase
necessary to maintain the current level of care.
CHS.--Provide a $118 million increase for CHS. This increase of
$118 million is a modest increase compared to the estimated
needs of $1 billion. At present, less than one-half of the CHS
need is being met, leaving too many Indian people without
access to necessary medical services. We respectfully urge the
subcommittee to provide to address this critical need.
CSC.--Provide $122 million for the IHS to fully fund CSC. For
fiscal year 2012, the estimated shortfall is $153 million.
Investing funds here is wise. No part of the IHS budgets is
more highly scrutinized than are the funds awarded under these
contracts. There is a transparency and accountability here that
is unrivaled in other government contracting work. Adequate CSC
funding assures that tribes have the ability to deliver the
highest-quality healthcare services to their members. We
respectfully urge the subcommittee to fund these essential
services and not permit Indian agreements to remain the only
Government contracts that are not fully funded.
OTSG.--Increase $5 million to the IHS OTSG. As of 2011, there are
334 SG tribes managing approximately $1.4 billion in funding.
This represents 59 percent of all federally recognized tribes
and 33 percent of the overall IHS funding. The OTSG supports
tribes operating programs under the Tribal Self-Governance
Amendments of 2000. The SG process serves as a model program
for healthcare reform implementation and builds tribal
infrastructures to provide quality services to AI/AN people. We
respectfully urge the subcommittee to provide an increase to
provide for adequate implementation of this act.
On behalf of the Squaxin Island Tribal Council and tribal members,
thank you for this opportunity.
______
Prepared Statement of the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy
Mr. Chairman and honorable members of the subcommittee: I
appreciate the opportunity to present this testimony in support of the
Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) in the fiscal year 2012
Interior, environment, and related agencies appropriations bill. In an
historic embrace of conservation, the President's budget request
includes full funding of LWCF in fiscal year 2012. The proposed $900
million is the congressionally authorized amount for the program and
seeks to renew focus on the promise of the LWCF: that it is right and
wise to reinvest proceeds from offshore drilling receipts in the
protection of natural resources and recreational access for all
Americans.
I recognize that this subcommittee will face many demands in this
tight fiscal climate. However, far-sighted investment in LWCF will
permanently pay dividends to the American people and to our great
natural and historical heritage. As LWCF is funded from Outer
Continental Shelf revenues, not taxpayer dollars, these funds should go
to their intended, and authorized, use.
As part of the full commitment to LWCF in fiscal year 2012, the
National Park Service (NPS) included $3.044 million for the acquisition
of land in the Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area in
California in the President's budget. I am pleased that this funding
was included in the request and urge the Congress to provide the full
President's budget amount for LWCF so that this important area can
receive this needed funding.
Southern California is 1 of only 5 locations in the world that
feature the Mediterranean biome. Characterized by mild, rainy winters
and warm, dry summers, the biomes (geographically limited ecosystems)
are moderated by the windward presence of cold ocean currents offshore.
The landscapes in these areas are noted for the evergreen shrublands,
called chaparral in California, that host very diverse, but spatially
limited, ecosystems of flora and fauna. These Mediterranean biomes also
present attractive climates for human habitation, leaving the
ecosystems highly threatened by development. Protecting undeveloped
lands in these fragile ecological areas has become especially urgent in
the burgeoning Los Angeles metropolitan area.
The Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area was established
in 1978 to protect land in the mountains northwest of the Los Angeles
basin. In creating this park, the Congress noted the region's important
scenic, recreational, and historic resources, as well as the public
health benefits from protecting lands in the Santa Monica Mountains. In
addition to NPS lands, a number of State-owned lands, including Point
Mugu, Leo Carrillo, Malibu Creek, and Topanga State parks and several
State beaches, are located within the boundaries of the national
recreation area. Millions of people visit the Santa Monica Mountain's
each year exemplifying its importance and significance to the
surrounding communities and beyond.
Within the Santa Monica Mountains are the Zuma and Trancas Canyons.
The perennial streams running through these canyons give rise to an
abundance of animal and plant life. Ecologically important, the canyons
have been inhabited for more than 10,000 years. Ancestors of the
Chumash Indians gathered food and found shelter in the canyons, which
were later included in a Spanish land grant of 13,330 acres and became
Rancho Topanga Malibu Sequit. Eventually the Pacific Coast Highway
crossed the land, making its beauty accessible to travelers. Most of
this land is now under NPS ownership, protecting its multitude of
natural and historic resources.
The NPS at Santa Monica has identified a number of properties for
future acquisition, and it is important for NPS to continue the
acquisition and protection of these ecologically, recreationally, and
archeologically important scenic lands. The President's fiscal year
2012 Budget recommendation of $3.044 million through the LWCF, if
combined with funds made available in fiscal year 2011, will permit the
acquisition of extremely important lands in and near the Zuma/Trancas
Canyons.
The LWCF is our Nation's premier Federal program to acquire and
protect lands at national parks, forests, refuges, and public lands and
at State parks, trails, and recreational facilities. These sites across
the country provide the public with substantial social and economic
benefits including promoting healthier lifestyles through recreation,
protecting drinking water and watersheds, improving wildfire
management, and assisting wildlife and fisheries adaptation.
I want to thank the chairman and the members of the subcommittee
for this opportunity to testify on behalf of this nationally important
protection effort in California, and I appreciate your consideration of
this funding request.
______
Prepared Statement of the Shoshone-Paiute Tribes
My name is Robert Bear. I am the chairman of the Shoshone-Paiute
Tribes of the Duck Valley Indian Reservation. Our 290,000-acre Duck
Valley Reservation straddles Idaho and Nevada. I, together with a six-
member business council, oversee tribal government operations for our
more than 2,500 enrolled members. I am testifying to respectfully urge
the subcommittee to fully fund tribal contract support cost (CSC)
requirements in fiscal year 2012 ($615 million for the Indian Health
Service (IHS) and $225 million for the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA)),
and to support the administration's request for $6 million to fund our
water settlement in fiscal year 2012.
The Shoshone-Paiute Tribes face challenging conditions in an
extremely remote area. While farming and ranching continue to be our
primary businesses, our members struggle to make ends meet. The 2005
BIA Labor Force Statistics show that our members who reside in the
Idaho portion of the reservation suffer an unemployment rate of 79
percent, while those who reside on the Nevada portion suffer an
unemployment rate of 64 percent. For those tribal members fortunate
enough to be working, 51 percent still live below the poverty level.
From our Owyhee Community Health Facility, to our housing program, to
the other programs the tribes operate under our title IV and title V
self-governance (SG) compacts, conditions remain tough for our members.
Without the requested CSC increase, the Shoshone-Paiute Tribes will
continue to suffer contract underpayments from the Government of
$450,078 under our IHS compact and $145,026 under our BIA contract,
together equivalent to 11 positions in healthcare, public safety, roads
safety, housing, and other essential governmental services. Given not
only our precarious local economy, but also the Government's legal
obligations to our tribes, this is not acceptable.
Every $1 that BIA and IHS withhold in owed CSC funding means a $1
less in direct program services that we can spend on our members. It
means staff vacancies for healthcare and social programs that our
members so desperately need and deserve, and which they would receive
were the Government still running these programs. From fiscal year 2007
through fiscal year 2010 these two agencies will have shorted us by
more than $2 million--monies that the agencies were required to pay us,
but did not pay us, under our SG contracts.
CSC shortfalls cost jobs is shown by what happened last year when
the shortfall was partially reduced, thanks to this subcommittee's and
the President's commitment. When IHS reduced our shortfall by $224,225,
we added four jobs, including two medical coders and a clerk/voucher
examiner (all to strengthen our third-party collections from Medicare,
Medicaid, and other third-party payers), plus a security guard. These
are all good paying and vitally needed jobs that will now be permanent.
Our experience last year proves that reducing the CSC shortfall
really does restore jobs that were lost on account of the historic
shortfall.
CSC shortfall amount may be just another number to BIA and IHS
officials who have long neglected their contractual obligations to
tribes. But I know it means more to this subcommittee and this
Congress. For us, these shortfalls mean not only lost jobs but a youth
lost in the criminal justice system, or a diabetic elder who is turned
away from needed counseling or denied prescriptions, or billings that
go uncollected because we haven't the staff to pursue valid claims.
It also means a stop in forward progress toward greater self-
determination, and instead continued dependence on BIA.
For instance, in 2008, we entered into an agreement with the
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) to assume the Indian Reservation
Roads program serving the Duck Valley Reservation. We also notified BIA
of our intent to assume the BIA Road Maintenance program. Our plan was
to consolidate transportation planning, design, construction and
maintenance under tribal administration. The only problem was that the
prior administration would not provide required CSC. If we took over
the BIA Road Maintenance Program in 2008, the BIA told us we'd have to
divert program funds to pay for our insurance, audit and other CSC.
Had we been able to go forward, we would decide which roads to
repair. We would coordinate with the Elko County School District to
ensure that bus routes remain open during bad weather. We would be in
charge of improving road safety on our reservation for our own people
and our neighbors. We would employ our own members who need the work
and can do the work.
Mr. Chairman, the Shoshone-Paiute Tribes cannot subsidize BIA- and
IHS-funded programs. We simply haven't the means to do so. Besides, it
is both wrong and illegal under the Indian Self-Determination Act to
shortchange the tribal governments that offer to administer the
Government's programs and that take those programs off of the
Government's hands. We even secured a Supreme Court victory that says
so in Cherokee Nation and Shoshone-Paiute Tribes v. Leavitt (2005). But
until this subcommittee provides the necessary funds to meet those
obligations, we will continue to see our contracts breached year in and
year out.
As for the remainder of the President's budget, we want to salute
the President for honoring the Government's commitment in our water
settlement by allocating $6 million in the budget for this purpose in
fiscal year 2012. While we appreciate the need to slim down Government
expenditures wherever possible, a settlement is a legally binding
obligation which must be honored and paid. We thank the President for
recognizing this, and the subcommittee for its support as well.
Thank you for the honor of presenting testimony to this
subcommittee on behalf of the Shoshone-Paiute Tribes of Idaho and
Nevada.
______
Prepared Statement of the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe
On behalf of the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, I am pleased to submit
testimony concerning the President's fiscal year 2012 budget for the
Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) and Indian Health Service (IHS). I want
to express my appreciation to this subcommittee for its strong support
of Indian tribes. I would like to focus my remarks on education, public
safety, healthcare, and infrastructure.
The Standing Rock Sioux Tribe is situated in North Dakota and South
Dakota. The reservation comprises 2.3 million acres, including 1.4
million acres of trust land owned by the tribe or tribal members. About
10,000 tribal members and nonmembers reside on the reservation in eight
communities and in smaller towns. The tribe's primary industry is
cattle ranching and farming. We are remote, rural Indian reservation.
As the Congress addresses the needs of the Indian country in light
of the budget deficit, I would urge you to consider three fundamental
questions. First, what is the impact of funding Indian programs on
jobs? While Indian tribes like Standing Rock are often among the
largest employers in their areas, unemployment in Indian country
remains at levels that are unimaginable elsewhere. Federal investments
in education, public safety, and infrastructure in Indian country are
crucial to providing jobs in these chronically high unemployment areas.
Second, what kind of country are we? The Federal Government has a
special trust obligation to Indian tribes arising from the
Constitution, treaties, and other documents. Much has been promised to
Indian tribes in return for the loss of our lands. Are we a country
that keeps its promises? Maintaining needed funding for programs aiding
Indian country is one way to demonstrate the integrity of the United
States in honoring its commitments.
Third, is it fair to limit the debate on the budget to only
discretionary spending? Certainly not. The only way to fairly address
the budget deficit is to put everything on the table. Social security,
Medicare, tax reform, and other key issues need to be included. It is
simply not right to undermine necessary programs for Indian country,
while the major reasons for the budget deficit remain unaddressed. With
these questions in mind, we turn to Standing Rock's specific
recommendations.
In the 19th century, the Sioux Nation ceded millions of acres of
land to the United States. But as recently as the 1950s, the United
States Army Corps of Engineers flooded more than 56,000 acres of prime
tribal farmland on the Standing Rock Sioux Reservation to create the
Oahe Dam to increase navigation along the lower Missouri River and to
provide cheap hydro-electric power to the north-central United States.
Tens of millions of Americans benefit from the Oahe Dam, but it brought
great hardship to our tribe. These hardships continue to this day.
The Oahe Dam devastated our tribe. It displaced more than 25
percent of our reservation's population. We lost our best farmland and
are still working to reclaim irrigable lands on our reservation. The
creation of Lake Oahe further isolated our reservation. It established
over a 100-mile transportation barrier from Bismarck, North Dakota to
Mobridge, South Dakota, where the first bridge crossing over the
Missouri River south of Bismarck is located. Our rural location and
lack of infrastructure (roads, safe drinking water, sewers, and
electricity) contribute to the economic challenges our tribe faces. But
working in partnership with the United States and our neighbors, we can
turn challenges into opportunities for economic growth and job
creation.
The tribe is working steadily to expand opportunities for economic
development to provide jobs for our members and improve the standard of
living on our reservation. We operate the Standing Rock Farms, a Parts-
on-Demand operation, two modest tribal casinos, and a sand and gravel
operation which helps us supplement services and programs for our more
than 14,000 enrolled members. A few retailers also operate businesses
on our reservation. Despite the measures we are taking at the local
level to improve living conditions on our reservation, we have
persistent unemployment above 50 percent, and a high dropout rate among
our high school students. More than 40 percent of Indian families on
our reservation live in poverty. Yet, the administration has proposed
cutting discretionary spending for the BIA by $118.9 million or 4.5
percent more than the fiscal year 2010 enacted level.
Education.--Native Americans are poorly represented in colleges
across the country. Investment in Indian education--at every level--is
critical to the future success of our children.
Scholarships and Adult Education (+$32 Million).--I recommend that
the Congress double the funding for the BIA Scholarship and Adult
Education Program by $32 million. Our tribe has provided $3 million in
tribal funds over 3 years to support a scholarship program to provide
more than 300 students with grants of between $3,000-$3,500/semester
which allow them to pursue degrees from accredited colleges,
universities, and vocational schools. The BIA financed scholarships
total about $500,000 per year. This meets 25 percent of our need. The
adult education component enables adults to obtain their GED or the
required skills needed to transition to a community college or job
placement.
United Tribes Technical College (UTTC).--I urge the subcommittee to
fully fund the UTTC, which is an exceptional institution that serves
many of our tribal members and provides a sound education.
Johnson O'Malley Act (JOM) (+$11 Million).--I urge the Congress to
increase funding for the JOM program to $24.3 million to address the
unique educational and cultural needs of Native children attending
public schools (an increase of $11 million above the administration's
request). The JOM was funded at $24 million in 1994. The JOM is a
critical program that fully involves local communities and Native
parents in the education of our children.
Public Safety Needs.--Living conditions on Standing Rock are
difficult. According to recent Federal statistics (2010), more than
1,163 reservation households on Standing Rock had family incomes
between 30 percent-80 percent of median family income in the area. On
the North Dakota portion of our reservation (Sioux County, North
Dakota), the median family income is $27,473. This figure is 57 percent
of North Dakota's overall median family income of $47,898. On the South
Dakota portion of our reservation (Corson County, South Dakota), the
median family income is $27,591. This figure is about 59 percent of the
South Dakota average median family income of $46,244. On Standing Rock,
485 households, or 42 percent of our least well off households, earn 30
percent of median family income.
We have far too few BIA public safety officers patrolling our eight
districts and small communities on our 2.3 million acre reservation.
Police officers in Indian country are our primary first responders. The
BIA equipment and technology are outdated, including police cruisers,
radios, and communications infrastructure. We do not have access to
computerized law enforcement statistics.
In the spring and summer of 2008, following the deaths of several
tribal members, at our request and with the help of our congressional
delegation, the BIA began ``Operation Dakota Peacekeeper'' as part of
the Department of the Interior's Safe Indian Communities initiative to
reduce crime, target illegal drug activities, and provide much needed
investigative support to prosecute domestic violence and crimes against
children. A total of 56 BIA officers were detailed from their
reservations to Standing Rock over a 7-month period.
Operation Dakota Peacekeeper more than quadrupled our normal BIA
police force. Before the surge, we had only 10 BIA public safety
officer positions filled. This was enough for two officers per 24-hour
shift to patrol a 2.3 million acre reservation encompassing four towns,
eight separate communities, 2,500 miles of roads, and a population of
10,000 residents. The public safety surge was an overwhelming success.
Tribal elders felt safe in their homes and began to leave their doors
unlocked and windows open at night. It also highlighted the glaring
need for greater numbers of patrol and other public safety personnel on
our reservation.
The Congress enacted and President Obama signed the Tribal Law and
Order Act (TLOA) in law which creates a number of important mandates to
strengthen tribal courts and justice systems.
Criminal Investigations and Police Services (+25 Million).--In
order for the administration to fully implement the TLOA and to address
the shortfall of more than 1,800 police officers in Indian country
cited in a 2006 GAP report, we encourage the Congress to increase
funding for criminal investigations and police services to $215
million, or $25 million more than the 2.2 percent increase ($4.2
million) proposed by the administration above the fiscal year 2010
enacted level of $185 million.
Detention/Corrects (+$15 Million).--Until the BIA addresses the
shortages of corrections officers cited in the 2006 GAP report and to
implement requirements of the TLOA, we recommend that the Congress
increase funding for BIA-funded detention/corrections by $15 million
above the administration's proposed budget of $85 million.
Tribal Courts (+$20 Million).--We urge the Congress to increase the
modest funding of $25 million appropriated for the Tribal Courts
Program. Our tribe cannot effectively carry out criminal proceedings,
let alone civil cases, with our small BIA allocation, even when heavily
subsidized by the tribe. Our tribal courts are crowded, cramped and
outdated and limit our ability to administer a comprehensive criminal
justice system on the reservation.
Facilities, Operation, and Maintenance (+$5 Million).--We urge the
Congress to add an additional $5 million to the BIA-funded public
safety and justice's facility, operation and maintenance budget of
$13.7 million. Adequate maintenance and repair is essential to extend
the useful life of facility infrastructure and make needed repairs
until Indian tribes can invest in adequate infrastructure for tribal
courts, police stations, and detention facilities.
Healthcare.--The majority of our tribal elders continue to suffer
from diabetes, heart disease, and hypertension. Accidents are the
leading cause of death among our members. On the North Dakota portion
of our reservation, 6.6 percent of our tribal members are age 65 and
older. In North Dakota generally, 14.7 percent are age 65 and older
(more than double our figure). On the South Dakota portion of our
reservation, 9.6 percent of our tribal members are age 65 and older. In
South Dakota generally, this figure is 14.5 percent, more than 50
percent higher than on our reservation. More is needed to serve our
elders properly. All our members deserve the opportunity to live full
and productive lives and compete successfully in today's global
economy.
We are pleased to see the administration acknowledge the large
health disparity that exists between Native Americans and the rest of
the population. The fiscal year 2012 funding of $4.166 billion for IHS
services is recognition that Indian country still has a long way to go
to improve the health of our members. Far too many of our members live
with debilitating diseases and illnesses that shorten their lives. We
urge the subcommittee to protect the administration's proposed increase
of $508 million above the fiscal year 2010 enacted level for IHS
services, which includes an increase of $89 million for Contract Health
Services (CHS) and $63 million for Contract Support Costs. On Standing
Rock, many members go without needed healthcare services each year
because of inadequate CHS dollars. The proposed increases will better
enable tribes and the IHS to implement provisions in the permanent
extension of the Indian Health Care Improvement Act that are designed
to redress health disparities in Indian country.
Taking Care of Existing Infrastructure Needs (+$75 Million).--I
strongly oppose the $1 million cut the administration has proposed for
the BIA Road Maintenance Program and the flat line funding this program
has received over the last 20 years. The decision to underfund this
program will cost taxpayers millions of dollars as tribes and the BIA
must reconstruct roads far sooner due to poor road maintenance. With
inadequate routine maintenance, roads which should last 20 years, last
only 7-10 years. Limited to $25 million, tribes operating the Road
Maintenance Program cannot tackle the large backlog of deferred road
maintenance needs that make our roads and bridges unsafe and impede
travel on our reservations. We invested $26.5 million, which we
borrowed from Wells Fargo, to reconstruct nearly 20 miles of community
streets. We installed sidewalks, curbs, gutters, and street lights
throughout the reservation for the first time. We are struggling to
maintain that investment because we expend most of our Road Maintenance
Program funds during the winter months to pay for snow removal (labor,
fuel, salt, sand, truck repairs, truck rentals, etc.) and to respond to
other road emergencies such as floods.
Lack of adequate funding for the Road Maintenance Program and new
construction (Indian Reservation Roads/Bridges Program) undermine our
ability to achieve every major program priority we have (public safety,
healthcare, education, housing, and economic development). All of these
programs depend on and require a modern infrastructure. Road
Maintenance is a public safety program. Poor road conditions contribute
to the unacceptably high levels of serious injury and death on Indian
reservation roads each year. We urge the Congress to appropriate $100
million annually for the Road Maintenance Program so that we can better
maintain our road systems.
Economic Development.--We urge the Congress to appropriate $5
million for the BIA's Office of Indian Energy and Economic Development
to help tribes build their reservation economies. Increased
appropriations will allow this program to more effectively serve
reservations to promote job creation and economic development we so
badly need.
Thank you for providing our tribe the opportunity to present
testimony.
______
Prepared Statement of the Sawtooth Society
Mr. Chairman and honorable members of the subcommittee: I
appreciate the opportunity to present this testimony in support of the
Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) in the fiscal year 2012
Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies appropriations bill. In an
historic embrace of conservation, the President's budget request
includes full funding of LWCF in fiscal year 2012. The proposed $900
million is the congressionally authorized amount for the program and
seeks to renew focus on the promise of the LWCF: that it is right and
wise to reinvest proceeds from offshore drilling receipts in the
protection of natural resources and recreational access for all
Americans.
I recognize that this subcommittee will face many demands in this
tight fiscal climate. However, far-sighted investment in LWCF will
permanently pay dividends to the American people and to our great
natural and historical heritage. As LWCF is funded from Outer
Continental Shelf (OCS) revenues, not taxpayer dollars, these funds
should go to their intended and authorized use.
As part of the full commitment to LWCF in fiscal year 2012, the
U.S. Forest Service (USFS) included $3.5 million for the Salmon-Selway
Initiative in Idaho in the President's budget. Furthermore, USFS ranked
this initiative as the second-highest LWCF priority in the country. I
am pleased that this funding was included in the request and urge the
Congress to provide the full President's budget amount for LWCF so that
this important project can receive this needed funding.
Located in central Idaho, the Salmon-Selway ecosystem, totaling
almost 4 million acres, is one of the largest and wildest habitats in
the continental United States. A rugged complex of mountains, rivers,
and forests, it includes the Selway-Bitterroot and the Frank Church-
River of No Return wilderness areas, five national forests, numerous
rivers, and the Sawtooth National Recreation Area. The area provides
unique habitats critical for fish and wildlife including threatened and
endangered species such as Chinook salmon, steelhead trout, bull trout,
bald eagle, lynx, and gray wolves. Each year in late summer, salmon and
steelhead trout return to the high reaches of the Salmon and Clearwater
rivers, traveling 900 miles and climbing 7,000 feet from the Pacific
Ocean to the mountain tributaries of their birth--the highest salmon
spawning grounds on earth.
The Salmon-Selway Ecosystem also offers unparalleled public
recreation opportunities for hunting, fishing, hiking, cross-country
skiing, whitewater rafting and kayaking, camping, and bicycling.
Funding from the LWCF in fiscal year 2012 will protect two key
properties to help conserve the wild character of the region, ensure
public access for recreation, and protect wildlife habitat and water
quality.
morgan ranch, middle fork of the salmon wild & scenic river
Over the past decade, USFS has been working to protect key
resources along the Salmon River and its tributaries by securing
interests in critical inholdings from willing sellers. Some tracts have
been conveyed into USFS ownership, and other properties have stayed in
private ownership under conservation easements designed to maintain
traditional uses while preventing incompatible development.
The Middle Fork of the Salmon WSR is among the most renowned
rafting destinations in the world, enjoyed by an estimated 10,000
rafters every summer. Available for protection in fiscal year 2012 is
phase II of the Morgan Ranch property, a 160-acre inholding on Sulphur
Creek at the confluence with the Middle Fork of the Salmon Wild and
Scenic River (WSR) corridor and within the Frank Church-River of No
Return Wilderness. The Morgan Ranch property is located just 2.5 miles
downstream from the Boundary Creek campground, a popular launch site
for rafters and trailhead for the many hikers and equestrians who use
the Middle Fork Trail. Rafters from the Boundary Creek put-in, 1 of 2
main launching sites along the Middle Fork, float right past Morgan
Ranch on their way to the first rapids at Sulphur Slide.
Apart from its scenic and recreational importance, Morgan Ranch is
a significant resource for fish and wildlife. The valuable wetlands and
riparian habitat along Prospect and Sulphur Creek drainages constitute
about half the property and support a wide diversity of wildlife
including gray wolf, wolverine, moose, elk, sandhill crane, bald eagle,
mountain lion, and mule deer. Sulphur Creek provides significant
spawning and rearing habitat for Chinook salmon, steelhead trout, and
bull trout, all federally listed endangered species. The area drainages
also support westslope cutthroat trout and provide critical habitat for
the only remaining wild run of Chinook salmon on the Snake River
system. A combination of fee and conservation easement acquisition of
Morgan Ranch will ensure permanent protection of this sensitive
property while eliminating the threat of incompatible backcountry
development.
rodeo grounds ranch, sawtooth national recreation area (nra)
The Sawtooth NRA offers some of the finest and most renowned
outdoor recreation in the world including fishing, white-water sports,
hiking, Nordic skiing, and backcountry camping. Its mountains form the
headwaters of six important rivers that feed the Snake River and offer
vital habitat for area wildlife and four threatened and endangered
salmonid species. More than 1,000 lakes and glacial tarns are also
found inside the recreation area. With a proud ranching tradition
stretching back for more than a century, traditional land uses have
long been interwoven with the public values here, and stewardship of
these natural and recreational assets has been outstanding. To protect
the historic uses and compatible public recreation values of this
remarkable landscape, the USFS has utilized LWCF appropriations dating
back to 1972 to acquire conservation easements protecting some 17,000
acres of private land within the national recreation area.
Available for acquisition at the Sawtooth NRA in fiscal year 2012
is a conservation easement on the 160-acre Rodeo Grounds Ranch. Located
just 5 miles from the historic town of Stanley, the property is a well-
known and prominent component of the viewshed along Idaho Route 21--the
Ponderosa Pine Scenic Byway--that connects the Sawtooth NRA to Boise.
With substantial frontage on Valley Creek, a major Salmon River
tributary, the ranch provides habitat for all four fish species listed
as threatened or endangered in the Sawtooth NRA:
--Chinook salmon;
--sockeye salmon;
--bull trout; and
--steelhead.
USFS has identified Valley Creek as one of the most important
tributaries in the Upper Salmon River watershed for the recovery of the
Chinook salmon, especially for rearing and spawning habitat.
The conservation easement on Rodeo Grounds Ranch will allow for
continued historic use and private ownership of the property, while
conserving its natural values and recreational access by anglers to
Valley Creek. This access would likely be lost if the property were to
be developed, converted from existing use, or fragmented into smaller
holdings. Moreover, incompatible development of this key Sawtooth
gateway property would irreparably compromise a scenic landscape that
draws hundreds of thousands of visitors each year. The easement will
protect the historic ranch structures and the scenic landscape of the
valley.
The LWCF is our Nation's premier Federal program to acquire and
protect lands at national parks, forests, refuges, and public lands and
at State parks, trails, and recreational facilities. These sites across
the country provide the public with substantial social and economic
benefits including promoting healthier lifestyles through recreation,
protecting drinking water and watersheds, improving wildfire
management, and assisting wildlife and fisheries adaptation.
I want to thank the chairman and the members of the subcommittee
for this opportunity to testify on behalf of this nationally important
protection effort in Idaho, and I appreciate your consideration of this
funding request.
The Sawtooth Society, formed in 1997, is a nonprofit and
nonpartisan organization dedicated exclusively to:
--serving as an advocate for the SNRA;
--preserving open space in the SNRA; and
--enhancing recreation facilities and services in the SNRA.
______
Prepared Statement of the St. Vincent National Wildlife Refuge, Florida
Mr. Chairman and honorable members of the subcommittee: I, Landy
Luther, am the current president of the Supporters of St. Vincent
National Wildlife Refuge (NWR). Our organization was established to
promote better understanding, appreciation, and conservation of the
natural history and environment of St. Vincent NWR. Our goals are:
--Increase the public awareness of the Refuge;
--provide financial support to the Refuge; and
--to support Refuge projects.
We feel that our mission and goals are consistent with the
acquisition of the property that is the subject of this testimony.
I appreciate the opportunity to present this testimony in support
of the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) in the fiscal year 2012
Interior, environment, and related agencies appropriations bill. In an
historic embrace of conservation, the President's budget request
includes full funding of LWCF in fiscal year 2012. The proposed $900
million is the congressionally authorized amount for the program and
seeks to renew focus on the promise of the LWCF: that it is right and
wise to reinvest proceeds from offshore drilling receipts in the
protection of natural resources and recreational access for all
Americans.
I recognize that this subcommittee will face many demands in this
tight fiscal climate. However, far-sighted investment in LWCF is one
that will permanently pay dividends to the American people and to our
great natural and historical heritage. As LWCF is funded from Outer
Continental Shelf revenues, not taxpayer dollars, these funds should go
to their intended and authorized use.
As part of the full commitment to LWCF in fiscal year 2012, the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) included $1.35 million for the
acquisition of land in St. Vincent NWR in Florida in the President's
budget. I am pleased that this funding was included in the request and
urge the Congress to provide the full President's budget amount for
LWCF so that this important project can receive this needed funding.
St. Vincent NWR encompasses a 12,500-acre undeveloped barrier
island lying opposite the mouth of the Apalachicola River in the Gulf
of Mexico. Located just off the Florida panhandle in western Franklin
and Gulf counties, the island is 4 miles across at its widest point and
9 miles long. This triangular island is larger and wider than most of
the northern gulf coast barrier islands. Prior to becoming a refuge,
St. Vincent NWR was used primarily as a private hunting and fishing
preserve. Established in 1968, the refuge was originally intended as a
sanctuary for waterfowl, the majority of which are resident wood ducks
and migrating blue-winged teal. Since then, however, the refuge mission
has been broadened to include the protection of habitat for endangered
species and to provide a variety of recreational activities.
St. Vincent NWR provides a sanctuary for a number of threatened,
endangered, and recovering species. Loggerhead sea turtles come ashore
to nest on the island's pristine beaches. Indigo snakes inhabit gopher
tortoise burrows in the dunes. Wood stork and peregrine falcons stop on
the island during their seasonal migrations, and bald eagles nest in
the pines near the island's freshwater lakes and marshes. In 1990, St.
Vincent became one of several Southeastern coastal islands where
endangered red wolves are being bred. Once weaned, the wild pups raised
here are taken to reintroduction sites such as Alligator River NWR in
North Carolina. These solitary animals once roamed the Southeast, but
predator control programs and habitat loss have decimated their
populations.
St. Vincent NWR serves as an important stop-off point in the Gulf
of Mexico region for neotropical migratory bird species. Seaside
sparrows nest in huge numbers and various other neotropical birds stop
for food and shelter during spring and fall migrations. More than 260
bird species have been logged on the refuge and Christmas bird counts
by the Audubon Society typically include more than 100 species.
Wildlife is attracted to the island's diversity of habitat types. Ten
separate habitat types ranging from tidal marsh to scrub oak and pure
stands of cabbage palm have been identified on the island. Plants on
the island include 15 species that are listed as threatened by the
State of Florida.
Currently, the refuge staff travels to and from the undeveloped and
uninhabited island using a boat that is docked on a mainland marina at
Indian Pass. The dockage rights are subject to a month-to-month lease
from a private landowner who has recently indicated an intent to sell
and/or develop the property. Faced with the loss of this facility, the
refuge staff must find another location to dock the boat, as it is
critical for the management of the refuge to secure appropriate access
to the island.
Available for acquisition in fiscal year 2012 is the 3.21-acres
Schoelles tract. Located close to the refuge's administrative offices
in the city of Apalachicola, the site includes a boat ramp and marina
to accommodate the refuge boat. Properties available for purchase with
pre-existing facilities are rare in this area. It is very difficult to
obtain permitting for new marinas and ramps in Florida, making this
property prime for development if it is not obtained by the refuge. Not
only will the property's existing wet-slip marina and boat ramp provide
immediate access for the refuge staff's motorized boat, it will also
allow future recreational access to nonmotorized boats such as canoes
and kayaks.
Conserving this property will prevent its development into a
coastal residential subdivision. Limiting coastal development is
critical to reducing the costs associated with storm and hurricane
damage as well as to protecting the quality of adjacent waters. Bounded
to the north by Highway 30A and to the south by St. Vincent Sound, the
inclusion of the parcel within refuge boundaries would provide a small
buffer zone along the sound, designated a Class II Florida Outstanding
Waterway. St. Vincent Sound supports endangered species communities,
important recreational and commercial fisheries, and sea grass beds
that provide significant waterfowl habitat. The ecological significance
of these waters is underscored by the fact that they are protected as
part of the Apalachicola National Estuarine Reserve.
A $1.35 million allocation from the LWCF in fiscal year 2012--as
recommended by the President's budget--will maintain necessary access
to St. Vincent Island for FWS staff; improve access to St. Vincent
Sound for fishermen, oystermen, and recreational boaters; and protect
additional natural resources along the mainland shore.
The LWCF is our Nation's premier Federal program to acquire and
protect lands at national parks, forests, refuges, and public lands and
at State parks, trails, and recreational facilities. These sites across
the country provide the public with substantial social and economic
benefits including promoting healthier lifestyles through recreation,
protecting drinking water and watersheds, improving wildfire
management, and assisting wildlife and fisheries adaptation.
I want to thank the chairman and the members of the subcommittee
for this opportunity to testify on behalf of this nationally important
protection effort in Florida, and I appreciate your consideration of
this funding request.
______
Prepared Statement of the Travis Audubon Society
On behalf of the Travis Audubon Society I would like to express my
appreciation for this opportunity to submit our testimony. Travis
Audubon urges you to complete the land acquisition for Balcones
Canyonlands National Wildlife Refuge in Central Texas. As a first step
toward that goal, we are requesting $5 million from the Land and Water
Conservation Fund (LWCF) for 2012. Completing the Refuge is anticipated
to cost approximately $87 million in today's dollars, so acting now is
especially important for monetary reasons and because of the intense
pressure from urban expansion that is occurring within the Refuge
acquisition boundary.
Given the devastating impacts to wildlife from the Deep Water
Horizon oil spill, it seems very timely for the Congress to pass
legislation to permanently fund the LWCF at $900 million. Created in
1965 with monies from off-shore oil drilling receipts and authorized at
$900 million per year, the LWCF is our most important land acquisition
tool. More than 8 million acres are unprotected within existing refuge
boundaries including approximately 22,000 acres within the Balcones
Canyonlands Refuge acquisition boundary. This makes funding the LWCF
more important than ever. Travis Audubon urges you to fully fund the
LWCF and to appropriate $5 million of the $900 million for land
acquisition at Balcones Canyonlands National Wildlife Refuge.
Balcones Canyonlands Refuge, although 19 years old, is only
slightly more than 50 percent complete. It is important to act now as
time is a critical consideration in completing the Refuge. Because of
the proximity of the Refuge to the Austin metropolitan area, urban
expansion is a serious threat to habitat needed by the Refuge. There
are already four real estate developments within the acquisition
boundary of the Refuge and more are expected.
An appropriation of $5 million will allow the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service to acquire approximately 1,550 acres of prime habitat
for Balcones Canyonlands Refuge. Two of the three tracts to be
purchased are key Golden-cheeked Warbler habitat and the third is
potential Black-capped Vireo habitat. Both of these birds are on the
endangered species list, and habitat protection and management are
critical to their survival. In addition, protection of the third tract
will help preserve the ranching heritage of the Texas Hill Country. The
$5 million appropriation will fund purchase of the 350-acre 3 Creeks
Ranch (second phase of this acquisition), the Penn property, and 1,000
acres of the Sunset Ranch, one of the last remaining large tracts of
land with high-quality Golden-cheeked Warbler habitat left within the
Refuge acquisition boundary. The rolling hills and steep canyons on
this ranch provide nesting habitat for the Golden-cheeked Warbler and
potential for Black-capped Vireo habitat management. The purchase of
this large tract will also protect habitat for additional endemic
species in the Hill Country as well as the unusual Karst topography of
the Edwards Plateau. The ranch is situated near other Refuge property
which makes it even more valuable as we attempt to protect large
contiguous tracts of land. The properties have been appraised, and the
sellers are willing. These acquisitions would be a significant step
toward the long range goal of completing the Refuge. As mentioned
earlier, acting now is particularly important, as the window of time is
closing rapidly as a result of urban expansion, and the opportunity for
protecting these species is at risk.
Balcones Canyonlands Refuge is located in the Texas Hill Country
northwest of Austin, Texas and resides in Burnet, Travis, and
Williamson counties. The Refuge was formed in 1992 to conserve habitat
of the endangered Golden-cheeked Warbler as a step towards recovery and
eventual delisting of the species. In addition to the Golden-cheeked
Warbler, the Refuge serves to protect the habitat of the endangered
Black-capped Vireo and numerous other wildlife species.
State-sponsored biological studies show that to stabilize and
sustain these endangered songbirds, Balcones Canyonlands needs a total
of 46,000 acres of habitat. It presently has some 23,000 acres. The
Refuge augments a similarly named Preserve in Austin, comprised of
nearly 30,000 acres and operated by the city and Travis County. The two
parts were established for the same purpose and together are intended
to provide habitat needed to enable recovery of these species.
In addition to the recovery of these endangered species, Balcones
Canyonlands Refuge is a source of eco-tourism for the surrounding area.
Over the longer term, the Balcones Refuge is expected to become a major
draw for birders interested in viewing the endangered Warbler and
Vireo, for which this area provides unique habitat. The Refuge has been
described as one of the Last Great Places by the Nature Conservancy and
as an ``Important Bird Area'' by two national conservation groups based
on its ``global importance'' to the endangered Warbler and Vireo.
Also, Balcones Canyonlands offers central Texas a variety of
recreational opportunities compatible with wildlife protection. Once
completed, Balcones Canyonlands will be a step toward providing
additional accessible public outdoor areas, identified as a critical
need in a study by Texas Parks and Wildlife.
The Travis Audubon Society is a nonprofit, bird conservation
organization with more than 2,000 members and supporters. Our vision is
to inspire conservation through birding, and our logo is the Golden-
cheeked Warbler. We were involved in the development of the Habitat
Conservation Plan which created the Balcones Canyonlands Preserve in
Travis County and the Balcones Canyonlands National Wildlife Refuge in
Burnet, Travis, and Williamson counties. We care passionately about the
Golden-cheeked Warbler and the Black-capped Vireo and about completing
the Refuge which will protect critical habitat for these endangered
songbirds. Because of all the reasons listed above, we strongly
recommend that you set aside $5 million from the LWCF for Balcones
Canyonlands Refuge for fiscal year 2012.
In closing, thank you for considering our request of $5 million.
Your actions in support of our request will significantly improve our
chances for creating a fully functioning Refuge. We very much
appreciate your attention to this matter and thank you for the
opportunity to present this statement to the subcommittee.
______
Prepared Statement of the Friends of the Tampa Bay National Wildlife
Refuges, Inc.
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee: On behalf of the 162
members of the Friends of the Tampa Bay National Wildlife Refuges,
including Egmont Key National Wildlife Refuge (NWR), Passage Key NWR,
and Pinellas NWR, I want to thank you for your leadership and strong
support for the National Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS) through
increased funding over the past few years. We realize that in this time
of budget cuts, it may be difficult to justify increasing the NWRS
funding, but once the refuge habitats start to decline it will cost
many times more than these small increases to return them to a
condition that will fulfill their mandates. I further thank you for the
opportunity to offer comments on the fiscal year 2012 Interior,
environment, and related agencies appropriations bill. We respectfully
request that the subcommittee support the following:
--Increase the funding levels to $511 million for fiscal year 2012
for the operations and management of the NWRS;
--Fund $27 million for refuge revenue sharing;
--Fully fund the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) at $900
million;
--Fund $20.2 million for Landscape Conservation Cooperatives (LCC) in
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS);
--Fund $20 million for inventory and monitoring for refuges;
--Fund $37 million for the NWRS construction account for large scale-
restoration, visitor center, and energy-efficient projects;
--Fund $80 million for NWRS visitors services;
--Fund $39 million for refuge law enforcement;
--Fund $5 million for the management of the new Pacific Marine
Monuments;
--Fund $65 million for the FWS' partners for fish and wildlife
programs;
--Fund $95 million for the State & Tribal Wildlife Grants programs;
--Fund $50 million for the North American Wetlands Conservation Fund;
--Fund $$6.5 million for the Neotropical Migratory Bird Fund;
--Fund $8.4 million for Wildlife Without Borders; and
--Fund 8.5 million for the National Fish & Wildlife Foundation in the
FWS's resource management general administration appropriation.
The Cooperative Alliance for Refuge Enhancement (CARE) has
determined that the NWRS needs a budget of at least $900 million
annually in operation and maintenance (O&M) funding in order to
properly administer its 150 million acres as mandated in the Refuge
Improvement Act. The current budget is far short of the amount actually
required to effectively operate and maintain the refuges. An $8 million
increase more than fiscal year 2010 levels to $511 million for the
fiscal year 2012 appropriation will allow the refuges to maintain
status quo without drastic cuts. This is a reduced amount from the $526
million that the NWRS actually requires just for O&M capabilities. In
this time of tight budgets, we feel that an $8 million increase to $511
would be appropriate and appreciated.
The Tampa Bay Refuges (TBRs) are located at the mouth of Tampa Bay
on the west central gulf coast of Florida. The budget increases in the
past few years have meant increased management, protection, and
restoration of the Refuges and the ability to better meet the
Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) goals. In 2008, the TBRs had one
staff person who was split duty manager/law enforcement. It was very
difficult for that one person to have the time to adequately manage the
resources much less have time to patrol. Because of the incremental
increases to the refuge budgets over the last few years, the TBRs have
a full-time manager, a full-time law enforcement officer every weekend
during the summer nesting season, and a Student Temporary Employment
Program summer hire. Due to the past increases in budget and personnel
the TBRs are able to do long-range planning for big-picture issues such
as erosion and increased public use. With decreases in budget, these
will fall by the wayside and the wildlife will have a degraded or
useless habitat.
Egmont Key NWR has the Fort Dade Guardhouse that has been restored
and will make a great visitor center. Without funding, staff will not
be sufficient to keep the center open to the public. This will
compromise outreach and education goals for the TBRs. Even now with the
incremental increases, the TBRs find themselves short of funds to keep
up with invasive species and predators that threaten the wildlife that
the refuge system is mandated to protect. With smaller budgets, there
will also be less money for facilities maintenance which will then cost
more to restore in the future. If the TBRs were to again lose ground on
their budgets they would not be able to meet many of their CCP goals
due to decreased staffing. Keeping the NWRS budget status quo with an
increase to $511 million for fiscal year 2012 will keep the TBRs from
losing too much ground.
The LWCF was created in 1965 and authorized at $900 million. These
funds are used for land acquisition to protect wildlife and their
habitats. With the effects of a changing climate, it is more important
now than ever to establish key wildlife corridors between protected
areas so wildlife can migrate to more suitable habitat as their
historic ones changes. The price of real estate is low at this time and
the $900 million can go much further in protecting habitats than it can
in a higher real estate market. When we start to lose species due to
lack of food, water, shelter, or space, we are changing the balance of
nature. The FWS is in the planning stages for the new Everglades
Headwaters NWR and Conservation Area through the center of the State of
Florida. Funding to set aside these critical lands is urgently needed.
With the new legislations enacted in Florida, it is all too easy for
developers to wipe out environmentally sensitive lands. We will lose
the possibility of these wildlife corridors forever if the areas are
developed. We urge you to pass legislation to permanently fund the LWCF
at $900 million per year as it was originally authorized to give
wildlife a shot at having suitable habitats as our climate changes.
Funding refuge revenue sharing at $27 million will also allow FWS to
offset loss of local taxes on lands put into conservation, making it
affordable for communities to help set aside lands for wildlife.
With the BP Deepwater Horizon oil spill still fresh in our minds,
the Friends of the Tampa Bay NWR's are extremely aware of the necessity
for wildlife inventory and monitoring. We urge you to appropriate $20
million for inventory and monitoring on refuges. Without historic data
on flora and fauna, we cannot see trends in numbers and species to know
how to adjust management of the lands. When disaster strikes--like an
oil spill--we need to know what is on the public lands in order to help
protect species and claim for losses. Friends of the Tampa Bay NWR's
volunteers have been providing Pinellas Refuges with monthly bird
survey data for many years and have recognized trends in usage.
Through partnerships including State & Tribal Wildlife Grants, the
FWS is able to work together with the States to protect wildlife. This
increases the amount of protection that can be afforded to wildlife. By
funding the State & Tribal Wildlife Grants program at $95 million, you
are helping fulfill the responsibility to keep our wildlife from
becoming endangered or extinct.
The North American Wetlands Conservation Acts grants will also help
create space, clean water, food, and shelter for wildlife by acquiring
and restoring critical wetlands. Funding of this program at $50 million
in fiscal year 2012 will create additional habitat for wildlife. This
partnership through acquisition and restoration of critical wetlands
also improves water quality and carbon sequestration.
The Friends of the Tampa Bay National Wildlife Refuges, a 501(c)3
organization, is 1 of 230 Friends groups who support the NWRs. As
Friends groups, we provide assistance to the NWRs through volunteer
labor and education. In fiscal year 2010, there were more than 40,000
friends and volunteers who provided services for the NWRS equal to 648
full-time equivalents (FTE), saving taxpayers millions of dollars. The
interest in our NWRS is significant and we are proving it with our
donated time and funds. The administration's proposal to cut $2.3
million from the visitor services budget will also decrease the amount
of volunteer services that can be provided, causing an even greater
impact to the refuges. We request $80 million appropriation for visitor
services. Refuges are economic engines for the community. It is
estimated that for each $1 the Congress spends towards a refuge, $4 is
returned to the community in economic activity. Without volunteers, you
lose many visitor services that fuel this economic activity.
In conclusion, the Friends of the Tampa Bay National Wildlife
Refuges believes the NWRS can meet its important conservation
objectives only with strong and consistent funding leveraged by the
valuable work of refuge staff and volunteers. We again extend our
appreciation to the subcommittee for its ongoing commitment to our
NWRS. We encourage you to approve a $511 million for the fiscal year
2012 NWRS O&M budget managed by the FWS and to approve $900 million for
fiscal year 2012 for the LWCF land acquisition budget, approve funding
the State Wildlife Grants Program at $95 million and the North American
Wetlands Conservation Act grants at $50 million, as well as the other
important programs and projects outlined above. Each of these programs
is an important part of keeping our planet healthy with a broad
diversity of species.
______
Prepared Statement of the Taos County Board of Commissioners
Chairman and honorable members of the subcommittee: I appreciate
the opportunity to present this testimony in support of the Land and
Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) in the fiscal year 2012 Interior,
Environment, and Related Agencies appropriations bill. In an historic
embrace of conservation, the President's budget request includes full
funding of the LWCF in fiscal year 2012. The proposed $900 million is
the congressionally authorized amount for the program and seeks to
renew focus on the promise of the LWCF: that it is right and wise to
reinvest proceeds from offshore drilling receipts in the protection of
natural resources and recreational access for all Americans.
I recognize that this subcommittee will face many demands in this
tight fiscal climate. However, far-sighted investment in the LWCF will
permanently pay dividends to the American people and to our great
natural and historical heritage. As the LWCF is funded from Outer
Continental Shelf revenues, not taxpayer dollars, these funds should go
to their intended and authorized use.
As part of the full commitment to LWCF in fiscal year 2012, the
administration has included funds in the President's budget request for
two projects in Taos County. The U.S. Forest Service (USFS) designated
$3.442 million for the Miranda Canyon property in the Carson National
Forest and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) proposed $1 million for
the acquisition of the Martinez property along the Rio Grande National
Wild and Scenic River (WSR). I am pleased that this funding was
included in the overall request and urge the Congress to provide the
full President's budget amount for LWCF so that these important
projects can receive this needed funding.
The public lands in Taos County provide significant benefits to
residents. The protected landscapes attract visitors from around the
country who seek great open spaces, rushing river canyons, and abundant
wildlife. This economic activity sustains our county, provides jobs,
and makes Taos County a unique place to live, work, and visit. These
lands also ensure water supply and quality. Development within
forestlands burdens watersheds, fragments wildlife habitat, and places
a strain on fire management. The landscapes also keep our western
heritage in place and in view for all to see.
carson national forest--miranda canyon
The 4,990-acre Miranda Canyon property is located 10 miles south of
Taos on the spurs of Picuris Peak, a 10,801-foot mountain. There are
also numerous meadows and riparian vegetation that provide excellent
habitat for wildlife. The landscape has numerous ridges and peaks that
provide breathtaking views of the Rio Grande Gorge to the west and of
Wheeler Peak, the highest peak in New Mexico, to the north.
The Miranda Canyon property holds significant recreational,
economic, and historic value in the region. The property is crossed by
popular hiking trails--one of which reaches the summit of Picuris Peak.
These trails provide access to the adjacent Carson National Forest and
increase opportunities for camping, hunting, and horseback riding. The
property also contains historical features such as the Old Spanish
Trail, a pack mule trail that served as a link between land-locked New
Mexico and coastal California between 1829 and 1848, after which other
routes became more popular. Recognizing the national significance of
this historic trade route, the Congress designated it the Old Spanish
National Historic Trail in 2002. Increased recreational access to the
forest and surrounding lands has a great positive impact on the local
economy.
With the property on the forested slopes of Picuris Peak, it is
highly visible below in the valley. The property's development would
have serious consequences for the scenic and water resources of our
county. The subdivision of the nearly 5,000-acre tract would have
marred the prominent landscape and threatened the area's watersheds and
water supplies.
The landowner is fortunately working to conserve the tract through
USFS ownership, which has tremendous support from the community and
residents of Taos County. The $3.442 million included in the
President's budget will start the multi-phase acquisition of the tract.
rio grande national wild and scenic river--martinez
The 61-acre Martinez property is located 15 miles northwest of Taos
on the eastern rim of the Rio Grande Gorge. It is also just 1.5 miles
north of the Rio Grande Gorge Bridge. The span, which carries the U.S.
Route 64 roadway 650 feet above the river, is the fifth-highest bridge
in the Nation and is listed on the National Register of Historic
Places.
This acquisition would continue the BLM's efforts to protect land
along the Rio Grande; to date more than 19,000 acres have been
protected. This conservation initiative has protected the gorge,
expanded recreational access to the river and a network of trails along
the gorge rim, and conserved habitat for bald eagles, peregrine
falcons, and other birds.
The Rio Grande is one of the greatest natural resources in New
Mexico. Every year 300,000 visitors come to the Rio Grande WSR.
Thousands of people stop and admire the Rio Grande Gorge Bridge on
their way to and from Taos on U.S. 64. Public lands, including the wild
and scenic river, national forests, and BLM lands, provide
opportunities for hiking, camping, hunting, fishing, horseback riding,
wildlife watching, and photography. Whitewater rafting is particularly
popular: Class III and IV rapids challenge rafters in the 17-mile Taos
Box and 5-mile Racecourse sections of the river.
Second, the river is essential to water supplies in New Mexico.
About 1.3 million people, or nearly 70 percent of the State's
population, live in the 10 counties along the river. The Rio Grande
provides vital drinking water to these residents and irrigation water
for agricultural purposes.
Like Miranda Canyon, the Martinez tract is prominently located and
visible to many. Development of the tract would damage the landscape
and hinder recreational access in the river corridor. On July 6, 2010,
the Taos County Commission unanimously passed a resolution in support
of this acquisition.
The LWCF is our Nation's premier Federal program to acquire and
protect lands at national parks, forests, refuges, and public lands and
at State parks, trails, and recreational facilities. These sites across
the country provide the public with substantial social and economic
benefits including promoting healthier lifestyles through recreation,
protecting drinking water and watersheds, improving wildfire
management, and assisting wildlife and fisheries adaptation. In New
Mexico, the LWCF definitely protects our local economy and water
resources, our heritage, and our fantastic landscapes.
I want to thank the chairman and the members of the subcommittee
for this opportunity to testify on behalf of this nationally important
protection effort in New Mexico, and I appreciate your consideration of
this funding request.
______
Prepared Statement of the Tanana Chiefs Conference
My name is Jerry Isaac and I am submitting this testimony as
president of the Tanana Chiefs Conference (TCC). The TCC is an
intertribal consortium of 42 Alaska Native tribes situated in the
interior of Alaska and spanning a largely roadless area of 235,000
square miles--almost equal to the State of Texas. I am submitting this
testimony to address two specific issues relating to the fiscal year
2012 budget:
--staffing for joint venture (JV) facilities; and
--contract support costs (CSC).
As my testimony explains, the TCC believes that:
--JV staffing should be increased by an additional $25 million more
than the President's budget, in anticipation of several JV
projects coming on line in fiscal year 2013; and
--CSC funding to the Indian Health Service (IHS) should be increased
to $615 million, and to the BIA should be increased to $228
million, in order to meet the agencies' legal obligations under
their contracts and compacts with the tribes.
staffing for jv facilities
Last year, the TCC entered into a JV agreement with the IHS. Under
the contract, the TCC agreed to secure its own financing to build a new
desperately needed facility in Fairbanks, Alaska, to meet the growing
needs of our villages. In return, the IHS signed a contract agreeing to
provide the funds necessary to staff the facility at 85 percent of
capacity. (The IHS says it does not staff any facilities at more than
85 percent of capacity). Under the JV agreement, the TCC will continue
to administer all IHS-funded healthcare in our region out of the new
facility, operating under our self-governance compact.
The new facility will cost approximately $72 million. All of this
will be borrowed. As you can imagine, the debt service on these funds
will be substantial. However, taking on this debt is feasible because
once the facility is staffed and operational--as the IHS has
contractually committed to do--the TCC make its debt payments out of
program revenues.
In all of these respects, the TCC is no different than many other
tribes and tribal organizations around the Nation that have in recent
years benefited from the joint venture authority provided under section
818(e) of the Indian Health Care Improvement Act: the tribes secure
funding to construct facilities which the IHS agrees are necessary and
should be built but, which, as a practical matter, the IHS cannot build
due to severely limited construction appropriations.
I am deeply concerned that, when all of the JV facilities come on
line in fiscal year 2013, the increased required national appropriation
for staffing ($100 million) and associated contract support ($25
million) will be too high for the Congress to address at one time. For
that reason, and because we need to start hiring in fiscal year 2012 to
be operational on October 1, I strongly recommend that the Congress
consider adding to the fiscal year 2012 budget $25 million of the
staffing requirements for these JV projects. Either by this means or
otherwise, it is imperative that the follow-on fiscal year 2013 budget
include sufficient funds for the IHS to fully meet its commitment that
year to the TCC and the other JV participants that will operate
completed construction projects in fiscal year 2013.
Honoring the IHS's contractual commitment to tribes and tribal
organizations like the TCC--a commitment upon which the TCC has relied
in the course of taking on substantial debt--must be the IHS's first
priority.
csc
The imperative to fully fund the IHS's CSC requirements comes from
the same source: binding Government contracts that the IHS has entered
into with the TCC and hundreds of other tribes and tribal contractors
across the country.
At the end of fiscal year 2010 the TCC was suffering from a $3.2
million shortfall in its CSC requirements with the IHS. Had those funds
been paid, the TCC would have been able to fill or create more than 70
positions. But because the IHS failed to meet its contractual
obligation to pay the TCC's fixed costs incurred to operate the IHS's
programs, the TCC had no choice but to cover those fixed costs by
diverting direct service funds. Positions were then left vacant.
The same is true of the BIA contracts that we operate. In fiscal
year 2010, the BIA's data reports that TCC was underpaid more than $1
million in CSCs, forcing vacancies in all of our BIA-funded compact
programs.
This has been going on for years, and it is finally time that it
stop.
The President's budget for fiscal year 2012 admits that, at the
requested $462 million funding level, the IHS will be unable to cover
$153 million in contract support costs it owes self-governance and
self-determination tribes and tribal organizations. To be clear, that
means a $153 million cut in tribally administered programs in fiscal
year 2012, just as the TCC was required to cut $3.2 million in fiscal
year 2010 from its own compacted programs. The same is true for our BIA
compact, where another $1 million in programs was cut last year, and
will be cut again next year absent full funding of our contracts.
It is not only illegal, but immoral for the IHS and the BIA to
structure their budgets in such a way that they cut only tribally
administered IHS and BIA programs--not IHS--administered or BIA-
administered programs, but only tribally administered programs--in
order to meet the agencies' overall budget targets. The thousands of
Alaska Native patients and clients who we serve should not be punished
because those services are administered under self-governance compacts
instead of directly by the IHS or the BIA.
I am particularly concerned about this issue as we plan for fiscal
year 2013. In fiscal year 2013, TCC will have a significantly increased
contract support cost requirement associated with operating the new IHS
JV clinic. We project the requirement will likely exceed $6 million. As
it is, the IHS has only committed to staff the TCC's clinic at 85
percent of capacity. If none of the TCC's contract support cost
requirements to operate the new clinic are covered, the resulting $6
million cut in staffing will drop the clinic to 65 percent of staffing
capacity. This will severely compromise the TCC's ability both to
administer the new IHS facility and to meet its debt obligations. Worse
yet, services to our people will be gravely compromised.
We understand that the dollars required to finally close the gap in
CSC requirements are large, but this is only because the problem has
been allowed to snowball over so many years. Once a budget correction
is made to finally close the CSC gap inside both agencies, maintaining
full funding of CSC on a going-forward basis will be much more
manageable.
This is why the TCC respectfully requests that the IHS
appropriation for CSC be increased by $153 million above the
President's recommended level, to $615 million, and that the BIA
appropriation for CSC for fiscal year 2012 be similarly increased by
$33 million to $228 million.
Thank you for the opportunity to present this testimony.
______
Prepared Statement of the Theatre Communications Group
Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the subcommittee, Theatre
Communications Group--the national service organization for the
American theatre--is grateful for this opportunity to submit testimony
on behalf of our 488 not-for-profit member theatres across the country
and the 30 million audience members that the theatre community serves.
We urge you to support a funding level of $167.5 million for the
National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) for fiscal year 2012.
Indeed, the entire not-for-profit arts industry stimulates the
economy, creates jobs, and attracts tourism dollars. The not-for-profit
arts generate $166.2 billion annually in economic activity, support 5.7
million jobs and return $12.6 billion in Federal income taxes. Art
museums, exhibits and festivals combine with performances of theatre,
dance, opera and music to draw tourists and their consumer dollars to
communities nationwide. Federal funding for the arts creates a
significant return, generating many more dollars in matching funds for
each Federal dollar awarded, and is clearly an investment in the
economic health of America. In an uncertain economy where corporate
donations and foundation grants to the arts are diminished, and
increased ticket prices would undermine efforts to broaden and
diversify audiences, these Federal funds simply cannot be replaced.
Maintaining the strength of the not-for-profit sector, along with the
commercial sector, will be vital to supporting the economic health of
our Nation.
Our country's not-for-profit theatres develop innovative
educational activities and outreach programs, providing millions of
young people, including ``at-risk'' youth, with important skills for
the future by expanding their creativity and developing problem-
solving, reasoning and communication abilities--preparing today's
students to become tomorrow's citizens. Our theatres present new works
and serve as catalysts for economic growth in their local communities.
These theatres also nurture--and provide artistic homes for the
development of--the current generation of acclaimed writers, actors,
directors and designers working in regional theatre, on Broadway and in
the film and television industries. At the same time, theatres have
become increasingly responsive to their communities, serving as healing
forces in difficult times, and producing work that reflects and
celebrates the strength of our Nation's diversity.
Here are some recent examples of NEA grants and their impact:
From the NEA's Access to Artistic Excellence Program
La Jolla Playhouse in California was awarded a $25,000 Access to
Artistic Excellence grant to present the world premiere play``Shah
Mat'', by playwright Naomi Iizuka. San Diego is home to many military
installations and the corporate headquarters of several major defense
contractors. It is also home to the third-largest Iraqi refugee
community in the United States and a burgeoning Afghani community.
``Shah Mat'' will utilize extensive interviews with members of all of
these communities, alongside original scenes and monologues, to examine
the impact of the current wars in Iraq and Afghanistan on a city that
serves as a microcosm of the Nation as a whole. Playing an important
role in attracting tourism to the region, more than 100,000 people,
20,000 of whom were from outside the county, attended performances in
2010. In addition, the Playhouse's flagship education touring
initiative brought a musical for young audiences to 43 schools across
the county, reaching 15,500 children through 66 performances. La Jolla
Playhouse is not only a vital cultural resource for the County of San
Diego, but also a provider of hundreds of jobs. In 2010, alone, the
Playhouse employed more than 450 people and engaged 1,085 volunteers.
Imagination Stage in Bethesda, Maryland was awarded $20,000 to
support the commission and world premiere musical adaptation of
``George and Martha: Tons of Fun'' by playwright/composer/lyricist Joan
Cushing. Based on a children's book written by James Marshall, the fun
new musical will add to the vitally needed canon of children's
theatrical literature. Imagination Stage produces theatre and arts
education programs which nurture, challenge, and empower young people
of all abilities. It offers a year-round season of professional shows
(adult actors performing for families and classes), after-school
programs and summer camps for ages 1-18, and arts-integration
professional development training for teachers, students, schools and
families. All programs are informed by a core belief in making the arts
inclusive and accessible to all children, regardless of their physical,
cognitive, or financial status.
Trinity Repertory Company in Providence, Rhode Island was awarded
$20,000 to support a production of ``Twelfth Night'' by William
Shakespeare. Associate Director Brian McEleney will direct and star in
the cast, comprised of company members and graduate students from the
Brown University/Trinity Rep Consortium. The Brown University/Trinity
Rep MFA Programs were formed in the belief that graduate theatre
training is most effective when it combines in-depth studio work with
rigorous academic study and an ongoing relationship to a working
professional theatre. For more than 40 years, Trinity Rep has been a
leader in arts education, believing that theater has a unique power to
enrich and transform young people's lives.
CENTERSTAGE in Baltimore, Maryland was awarded $30,000 to support
the American premiere of ``Let There Be Love'', a new play by British
playwright Kwame Kwei-Armah. The production will be accompanied by
outreach opportunities, including postshow discussions and community
engagement sessions. CENTERSTAGE is an artistically driven institution
committed to engaging, educating, and expanding the horizons of diverse
audiences through challenging, bold, thought-provoking classical and
contemporary theater.
Milwaukee Public Theatre in Milwaukee, Wisconsin was awarded
$10,000 to support performances of ``Winter Voices: Native Stories to
Warm the Heart'', featuring storyteller, musician, and dancer Thirza
Defoe. The organization will partner with Wisconsin Tribal Services to
tour the production and accompanying workshops to multiple sites
targeting American Indian families. Milwaukee Public Theatre has its
roots in a profound belief in the arts as a healing resource that must
be available to all people, regardless of age, ability/disability,
culture, ethnicity, or income level. From its beginnings as a 2-person
company of mime/musician/storytellers, it has grown into a multi-
faceted outreach arts organization working yearly with more than 100
artists from all cultures and arts disciplines and reaching more than
100,000 people with highly diverse programming that tours throughout
the community and beyond.
These are only a few examples of the kinds of extraordinary
programs supported by the NEA. Theatre Communications Group urges you
to support a funding level of $167.5 million for fiscal year 2012 for
the NEA, to maintain citizen access to the cultural, educational, and
economic benefits of the arts, and to advance creativity and innovation
in communities across the United States.
The arts infrastructure of the United States is critical to the
Nation's well-being and its economic vitality. It is supported by a
remarkable combination of government, business, foundation, and
individual donors. It is a striking example of Federal/State/private
partnership. Federal support for the arts provides a measure of
stability for arts programs nationwide and is critical at a time when
other sources of funding are diminished. Further, the American public
favors spending Federal tax dollars in support of the arts. The NEA was
funded at $167.5 million in the fiscal year 2010 budget; however, it
has never recovered from a 40 percent budget cut in fiscal year 1996
and its programs are still under-funded. We urge the subcommittee to
maintain funding at $167.5 million to preserve the important cultural
programs reaching Americans across the country.
Thank you for considering this request.
______
Prepared Statement of The Nature Conservancy
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I appreciate this
opportunity to present The Nature Conservancy's recommendations for
fiscal year 2012 appropriations. My name is Thomas J. Cassidy, Jr. and
I am director of Federal Land Programs. 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.
This is an unusual budget year and a challenging fiscal
environment. The Conservancy recognizes that there is a need for fiscal
austerity. However, we do not believe that conservation programs should
suffer from disproportionate and extreme reductions, as did important
wildlife and land conservation programs in the House-passed H.R. 1. Our
budget recommendations this year do not exceed the President's budget
request except for a few instances in which we recommend fiscal year
2010 funding levels. Moreover, as a science based and business oriented
organization, we believe strongly that the budget levels we support
represent a prudent investment in our country's future that will reduce
risks and ultimately save money based on the tangible benefits natural
resources provide each year to the American people. We look forward to
working with you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the subcommittee, as you
address the ongoing needs for conservation investments to sustain our
Nation's heritage of natural resources that are also important to the
economic vitality of communities across this country.
Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF).--The Conservancy is an
enthusiastic supporter of the President's request to fully fund the
LWCF and the mix of programs it funds. We are especially interested in
the proposed competitive stateside program. We are hopeful that
increased funding for the LWCF can be the catalyst for the kind of
cooperative and community based conservation called for in the
President's America's Great Outdoors Initiative.
This year, the Conservancy is specifically supporting 29
biologically rich land acquisition projects totaling $75.13 million.
Priorities include continuing phased acquisitions of projects at
Oregon's Hell's Canyon National Recreation Area, Montana Legacy
Project; Arizona's Shield Ranch; South Carolina's Cape Romain National
Wildlife Refuge (NWR) and the Silvio O. Conte National Fish and
Wildlife Refuge. We are also pleased to support the administration's
proposals for investing in conservation easements on the working
ranches of the Kansas' Flint Hills Legacy Conservation Area and
Montana's Rocky Mountain Front Conservation Area. Both of these
projects exemplify landscape scale conservation through the cost
effective means of conservation easements.
Forest Legacy Program.--We support $150 million for this program,
and are specifically supporting nine projects totaling $26.485 million.
We hope this year to complete the phased acquisition of Kentucky's Big
Rivers Corridor, Idaho's Boundary Connections project and the phased
acquisitions of New York's Follensby Pond and Tennessee's Northern
Cumberlands.
Endangered Species.--The Conservancy enthusiastically supports the
President's request of $100 million for the Cooperative Endangered
Species Conservation Fund (CESCF). The Conservancy and its partners
have used the Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) and Recovery Land
Acquisition Programs to secure key habitat for numerous threatened,
endangered and at-risk species and, thus, to help avoid conflicts over
Endangered Species Act issues. It has been an important catalyst for
several local government-led HCPs that facilitate urban development and
streamline permitting of essential transportation and energy
infrastructure. In one part of Riverside County, California alone, a
single HCP has facilitated development of transportation infrastructure
that alleviates congestion and creates jobs in this rapidly growing
area. The plan facilitates development on more than 700,000 acres
through acquisition of 153,000 acres in new conservation lands. In
recent years, CESCF funds have also been used to provide permanent
habitat protection through conservation easement on high-priority
private lands, such as in northern Idaho's Kootenai Valley, providing a
critical link between higher elevation public lands of the Selkirk
Mountains and Montana's Blackfoot Valley. 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.
Climate Change.--Fish, wildlife, and their habitats are and will
continue to be profoundly impacted by climate change, regardless of our
successes in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. If we are to get out
ahead of such change to avoid disastrous losses in critical habitat and
the species that depend on that habitat, we must develop the place-
based science to make informed, cost-effective management investments.
The Conservancy appreciates the President's commitment to respond to
the global climate challenge, and this subcommittee's sustained
leadership in supporting cooperative, science-based programs to respond
to the global climate challenge help ensure resilient land and
seascapes. In particular, we welcome this subcommittee's commitment to
both the United States Geological Survey (USGS)-led Climate Science
Centers and Department of the Interior's Landscape Conservation
Cooperatives. The investments to date have catalyzed a critical program
of work that will require continuing support as our knowledge and
understanding of adaptation needs grow.
Wildland Fire Management.--Hazardous fuels reduction funding and
projects are essential for protecting communities, watersheds, and
habitats. We support the President's budget overall funding level for
hazardous fuels reduction, however are concerned that an arbitrary
ratio for funds going to Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) and non-WUI
projects will constrain the ability of the Forest Service (USFS) and
Department of the Interior agencies to fund fuels projects that protect
communities, watersheds, special habitats, and other values critical to
the agency's missions. We also support continued use of the FLAME
account to ensure there is adequate funding for high-cost wildfire
seasons.
Integrated Resource Restoration.--The Conservancy supports the
President's fiscal year 2012 proposal for the Integrated Resource
Restoration budget and notes the significant improvements over the
fiscal year 2011 proposal. We strongly support full funding of $40
million for the Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Program. We
also support creation of the Restoration and Management of Ecosystems
line item with $659 million by combining a variety of programs that
were formerly separate functions, including Wildlife and Fisheries
Habitat Management, Forest Products, Hazardous Fuels Reduction in
Wildlands, and postfire Rehabilitation and Restoration. Separate
funding for these and other activities led to inefficient,
uncoordinated activities in wildlife, fisheries, timber, water source
improvement, fuels reduction, and postfire rehabilitation that did not
necessarily contribute to restoration goals. This new budget will
enhance the USFS' ability to provide and measure important natural
services, such as clean and abundant water, renewable energy from
biomass, restored wildlife and fish habitat, and reduced risk of
damaging wildfire in overgrown forests. A pilot of at least two
regions, for 3 years, would be a reasonable step toward the
administration's objective of integrated, efficient restoration
funding.
Forest Health Management.--America's forests are threatened by a
growing number of non-native pests and diseases. The Conservancy
appreciates the subcommittee's leadership in consistently providing
funding above the President's request. The Forest Health Management
Program should receive an increase to the fiscal year 2010 level of
$138 million to effectively address economically and ecologically
damaging pests, including the Asian Longhorned Beetle, Emerald Ash
Borer, Hemlock Woolly Adelgid, Sudden Oak Death, thousand-canker
disease (threatening walnut trees), and the goldspotted oak borer.
USFS Research Program.--We support the President's request for the
Forest Service Research Program to maintain funding of research to
improve detection and control methods for the Asian Longhorned Beetle,
Emerald Ash Borer, Hemlock Woolly Adelgid, goldspotted oak borer, and
other non-native forest pests and diseases.
State Wildlife Grants.--The Conservancy endorses the Teaming with
Wildlife Coalition's support of the President's request. 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 strongly support the
proposed $20 million competitive grant program as a subset of the
program.
NWR Fund.--The Conservancy shares the chairman's concern that the
administration's request eliminates the discretionary funding of this
important program that offsets the loss of tax revenues to counties due
to the refuge system. We recommend funding this program at the fiscal
year 2010 enacted level.
Migratory Bird and Partnership Programs.--The subcommittee has
consistently provided vitally important investments for a number of
migratory bird programs. Such investments are essential to reverse
declines in bird populations through direct conservation action,
monitoring and science. We urge the subcommittee to fund the
President's request for such established and successful programs as the
North American Wetlands Conservation Act (NAWCA) and the Joint
Ventures, and the Migratory Bird Management Program. We support the
President's request for the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) Coastal
Program and Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program and request $10
million for the National Fish Habitat Initiative.
International Programs.--There are large unmet needs for
international conservation. When well-managed conservation contributes
much to human welfare in developing countries and globally. Recognizing
that the current fiscal situation requires a measure of austerity, we
support the President's request for the FWS' Multinational Species
Conservation Funds, the international wildlife trade programs, Wildlife
Without Borders and the Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Fund.
Each of those programs face substantial cuts from the fiscal year 2010
enacted levels. We also support a line item and funding for the USFS'
International Programs at its fiscal year 2010 enacted level of $9.818
million.
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Climate Change, Ecoregional
Assessments and Resource Management.--The Conservancy supports the
administration's recommended funding for the BLM's Climate Change
Adaptation Initiative. This will enable completion of ecoregional
assessments, a key information tool for the Bureau to respond to the
growing challenges of climate change and energy development. We also
recommend robust funding for the BLM resource management and
transportation planning activities. These funds are needed to complete
ongoing planning efforts and to initiate new planning efforts in key
places, without which the Bureau cannot make informed mitigation and
siting decisions for traditional and renewable energy proposals and
take the management actions necessary to improve priority wildlife and
aquatic habitats, ensure water quality, control invasive species, and
manage off-road vehicle use. The BLM should also be encouraged to use
existing data sets when available so that funding can be focused on
critical data needs instead of creating duplicitous data sets.
USGS: Water Resources.--We support increased funding levels for the
National Streamflow Information Program and the Cooperative Water
Program, including work on water availability studies and work to
implement a national water use and assessment program. As climate
change, drought, and population growth increase the demands on water
resources, it is critical to invest in the integration of State and
Federal water resource data and to better understand water needs of
human communities and the environment.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).--The EPA's programs make
important contributions to the Nation's conservation agenda. National
estuary, wetland, and watershed programs protect vital water resources
that are essential to community health and economic prosperity.
Targeted geographic programs support scientific research, planning, and
cost-effective actions to improve water quality and restore aquatic
ecosystems. Targeted grant programs provide funding for states and
localities to proactively protect their water supplies through
traditional infrastructure improvements and through innovative green
infrastructure protection strategies that are more cost effective in
the long run. We support the President's request for the EPA's Water
Ecosystem Programs and Geographic Programs, including the Great Lakes,
Chesapeake Bay, Puget Sound, as well as the estuary and wetlands
programs, and the Sustainable Community/Ecosystem research. We also
support the President's request for the Clean Water State Revolving
Fund and Categorical Grants for Non-Point Source and Pollution Control,
with the added recommendation that the EPA allocate a significant
portion of these funds to State and local projects that achieve habitat
protection and restoration in aquatic ecosystems.
Thank you for the opportunity to present The Nature Conservancy's
recommendations for the fiscal year 2012 Interior, environment, and
related agencies appropriations bill.
______
Prepared Statement of the Town of Ophir
Mr. Chairman and honorable members of the subcommittee: I
appreciate the opportunity to present this testimony in support of the
Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) in the fiscal year 2012
Interior appropriations bill. In an historic embrace of conservation,
the President's budget request includes full funding of LWCF in fiscal
year 2012. The proposed $900 million is the congressionally authorized
amount for the program and seeks to renew focus on the promise of the
LWCF: that it is right and wise to reinvest proceeds from offshore
drilling receipts in the protection of natural resources and
recreational access for all Americans.
I recognize that this subcommittee will face many demands in this
tight fiscal climate. However, far-sighted investment in LWCF will
permanently pay dividends to the American people and to our great
natural and historical heritage. As LWCF is funded from Outer
Continental Shelf (OCS) revenues, not taxpayer dollars, these funds
should go to their intended and authorized use.
As part of the full commitment to LWCF in fiscal year 2012, the
U.S. Forest Service (USFS) included $4.04 million for the acquisition
of land in the Uncompahgre National Forest in Colorado in the
President's budget. I am pleased that this funding was included in the
request and urge the Congress to provide the full President's budget
amount for LWCF so that this important project can receive this needed
funding.
Located in the heart of southwestern Colorado's San Juan Mountains,
the Ophir Valley project area in the Uncompahgre National Forest is one
of the San Juans' hidden gems. A short detour of only a mile off of
Highway 145--part of the nationally acclaimed 236-mile San Juan Skyway
Scenic Byway--brings visitors into a compact valley ringed by 13,000-
foot peaks and serrated ridge lines.
Against a backdrop of unsurpassed alpine scenery, Ophir Valley
offers an abundance of recreational opportunities for residents and
visitors, including hiking, camping, mountain biking, cross-country
skiing, four-wheeling, and fishing. In addition, the valley supports
habitat for the Canada lynx, a federally listed threatened species, and
provides important habitat for the endangered Uncompahgre fritillary
butterfly and other sensitive species. It also contains the headwaters
of Howard Fork, a key tributary to the San Miguel River, which The
Nature Conservancy has called ``one of the last naturally functioning
rivers in the West''. The San Miguel sustains a globally rare
narrowleaf cottonwood-Colorado blue spruce/black twinberry plant
community.
While much of the Ophir Valley is in public ownership, the region's
mining heritage also created hundreds of privately owned patented
mining claims scattered across the landscape like matchsticks. These
private inholdings once were vital to sustaining 19th-century efforts
to find and extract mineral wealth. Now, however, at a time when hard
rock mining in southwestern Colorado appears increasingly less viable
economically, many former mining districts, such as Ophir, are seeing
these private inholdings develop into sites for second homes. As a
result, more and more of the Ophir Valley's subalpine and alpine
environments are at risk of being developed, potentially creating
significant management issues for the USFS, fragmenting wildlife
habitat, and spoiling the scenic splendor and recreational
opportunities so important to residents and visitors.
Currently, the USFS has the opportunity to acquire all of the
remaining acres out of a total 1,145 acres of patented mining claims
that had been under one ownership in the Ophir Valley. Prior to this
acquisition effort, these claims represented approximately 90 percent
of the valley's privately owned inholdings. Federal appropriations
provided in previous years have allowed the USFS to begin acquiring
these mining claims, and the requested $4.04 million in fiscal year
2012 will allow the agency to purchase the final 445 acres. This
project resolves many land use and access conflicts that stem from the
development of private inholdings within public lands, while promoting
effective land management practices by the USFS. In particular, the
ongoing acquisition protects critical habitat, maintains high-quality
recreational opportunities on public lands, protects water quality, and
helps maintain the quality of life of the region's residents.
This protection effort is a natural extension of the successful Red
Mountain project, located just to the north and east of the Ophir
Valley along a different portion of the San Juan Skyway. It will also
complement other land protection and recreation enhancement efforts
along and adjacent to the San Juan Skyway, 1 of only 27 All-American
Roads in the National Scenic Byway program. In recent years, for
example, Great Outdoors Colorado Trust Fund has pledged $5.7 million
for land protection in the area. In fiscal year 2012, an allocation of
$4.04 million from the LWCF--as recommended in the President's budget
request--is needed to enable the USFS to complete the protection of
these critical inholdings.
The LWCF is our Nation's premier Federal program to acquire and
protect lands at national parks, forests, refuges, and public lands and
at State parks, trails, and recreational facilities. These sites across
the country provide the public with substantial social and economic
benefits including promoting healthier lifestyles through recreation,
protecting drinking water and watersheds, improving wildfire
management, and assisting wildlife and fisheries adaptation.
I want to thank the Chairman and the members of the subcommittee
for this opportunity to testify on behalf of this nationally important
protection effort in Colorado, and I appreciate your consideration of
this funding request.
______
Prepared Statement of the Timucuan Trail Parks Foundation, Inc.
Mr. Chairman and honorable members of the subcommittee: I
appreciate the opportunity to present this testimony on behalf of the
Timucuan Trail Parks Foundation in support of the Forest Legacy Program
(FLP) in the fiscal year 2012 Interior, Environment, and Related
Agencies appropriations bill. The FLP works with landowners, the
States, and other partners to protect critical forestlands with
important economic, recreation, water quality, and habitat resources
through conservation easement and fee acquisitions. For several years
this United States Forest Service (USFS) program has been funded under
the umbrella of the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF).
In an historic embrace of conservation, the President's budget
request includes full funding of the LWCF in fiscal year 2012. The
proposed $900 million is the congressionally authorized amount for the
program and seeks to renew focus on the promise of the LWCF: that it is
right and wise to reinvest proceeds from offshore drilling receipts in
the protection of natural resources and recreational access for all
Americans. Of that $900 million, the President requested $135 million
for the FLP.
I recognize that this subcommittee will face many demands in this
tight fiscal climate. However, far-sighted investment in the FLP is one
that will permanently pay dividends to the American people and to our
great natural and historical heritage. As LWCF is funded from Outer
Continental Shelf revenues, not taxpayer dollars, these funds should go
to their intended and authorized use.
As part of the full commitment to the LWCF and the FLP in fiscal
year 2012, the USFS included $3.5 million for the Thomas Creek--
Northeast Florida Timberlands project in Florida in the President's
budget. I am pleased that this funding was included in the request and
urge the Congress to provide the full President's budget amount for the
FLP so that this important project can receive this needed funding.
It goes without saying that the State of Florida has experienced
tremendous growth in recent decades, and one of the results of that
growth has been the diminution of the State's forested lands. Among the
goals of Florida's FLP is the mitigation of the rapid loss of
environmentally important forests through the conservation of these
forested communities. Statewide this effort is focused specifically on
lands threatened by permanent conversion to nonforest uses and where
partnerships complement existing land conservation efforts. In north
Florida, FLP goals are expanded to include the support of sustainable
forestry practices, a focus on riverine systems, the conservation of
critical fish and wildlife habitat, and outreach to private
nonindustrial forest landowners. This year the State of Florida has
submitted a FLP project, Thomas Creek-Northeast Florida Timberlands,
which meets these important State and regional goals.
Northeastern Florida is home to a diverse coastal ecosystem of
marshes, wetlands, river corridors, forests, and uplands. The landscape
has featured centuries of history through the Pre-Columbian, European
colonization, and American periods. Given the presence of the large and
growing population of Jacksonville in the center of the dynamic
ecosystem, much of the conservation in the region is a cooperative
effort among Federal, State, and local agencies, private landowners,
and interested organizations. A centerpiece of this cooperative
approach is the Timucuan Ecological and Historic Preserve (EHP), a
unique preserve created by the Congress in 1988 that extends more than
46,000 acres at the mouths of the St. Johns and Nassau rivers.
The city of Jacksonville is leading an initiative with the National
Park Service, the State of Florida, and private partners to protect a
1,780-acre forested property south of Thomas Creek and adjacent to the
Timucuan EHP. Within this larger effort, 588 acres have been proposed
for acquisition by the city of Jacksonville as part of the FLP. In
fiscal year 2011, the President's budget includes the first 294-acre
phase of this FLP property, which has a one-half mile border with
Jacksonville's Bear Branch Preserve on its western side. On its
northern flank lies State-owned conservation land within the Timucuan
EHP along Thomas Creek. The property also includes a portion of the
site of the 1777 Battle of Thomas Creek, known as the southernmost
continental encounter between the Americans and British during the
Revolutionary War.
The city plans to manage the FLP property for recreation, wildlife
habitat, water quality protection, and sustainable forestry purposes.
Eight miles of existing logging trails would be available for hiking
and other recreational uses such as camping and hunting. The project
area includes hardwood marshes along one-half mile of Bear Branch, a
tributary of Thomas Creek. The slash pine and loblolly pine found on
much of the tract are currently managed as a working forest. The City
will continue sustainable forestry on the tract, recognizing the
importance of forestry in the economy of northern Florida.
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. The watershed 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. West Indian manatees are known to
frequent the waters of Thomas Creek and the preservation of this land
would aid in protecting the water quality for this endangered species'
habitat. Additionally, a number of Species of Greatest Conservation
Need, as listed in the Florida Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation
Strategy, have been identified on the property, including little blue
heron, snowy egret, tricolored heron, and white ibis.
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 goal of the Reserve is to provide a wildlife and
recreation corridor and a growth boundary for the rapidly growing
Jacksonville area.
In addition to the Timucuan EHP and Bear Branch Preserve, the
larger 1,780-acre property is within the vicinity of several other
public facilities and sites. About a mile to the west is the 526-acre
Jacksonville National Cemetery. Authorized by the Congress in 2003, the
cemetery opened in January 2009. Jacksonville International Airport and
facilities of the Florida Air National Guard are about 1.5 miles to the
south.
This key location also poses significant development threats to the
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. The property also has proximity to Interstate 95, allowing for
easy access to the rest of the Jacksonville metropolitan area. In fact,
zoning is in place to convert the property into a golf course and
residential community of 800 homes. But for the current downturn in the
economy, this land would be well on its way to being developed within
the next 5 years. These threats to the property will only increase in
the future given its accessibility and population and economic growth
trends.
The President's budget recommended an allocation of $3.5 million
from the FLP in fiscal year 2012 for the protection of the
recreational, historical, and natural resources of the Thomas Creek--
Northeast Florida Timberlands property. The city of Jacksonville will
provide $2 million to match the funds provided by the FLP for the
second phase of this project.
I want to thank the Chairman and the members of the subcommittee
for this opportunity to testify on behalf of this nationally important
protection effort in Florida, and I appreciate your consideration of
this funding request.
______
Prepared Statement of The Wildlife Society
The Wildlife Society appreciates the opportunity to provide
testimony on the fiscal year 2012 budget for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (FWS), Bureau of Land Management (BLM), U.S. Geological Survey
(USGS), and U.S. Forest Service (USFS). The Wildlife Society was
founded in 1937 and is a nonprofit scientific and educational
association representing more than 10,000 professional wildlife
biologists and managers, dedicated to excellence in wildlife
stewardship through science and education. Our mission is to represent
and serve the professional community of scientists, managers,
educators, technicians, planners, and others who work actively to
study, manage, and conserve wildlife and its habitats worldwide.
fws
The State and Tribal Wildlife Grants Program is the only Federal
program that supports States in preventing wildlife from becoming
endangered. It is also the primary program supporting implementation of
comprehensive wildlife conservation strategies, known as State Wildlife
Action Plans, which detail conservation actions needed on the ground in
every State to keep common species common. Funding assistance for these
State wildlife agencies is one of the highest-priority needs for
wildlife in order to prevent further declines in at-risk wildlife
populations in every State. These grants also provide key funding to
federally recognized tribal governments for wildlife management and
conservation. We recommend the Congress appropriate $95 million for
State and Tribal Wildlife Grants in fiscal year 2012. We also ask that
the Congress support a reduction in the non-Federal match requirement
from 50 percent to 30 percent, relieving some of the onus of providing
adequate matching funding from severely cashed-strapped States.
The Cooperative Alliance for Refuge Enhancement (CARE) is a diverse
coalition of 22 wildlife, sporting, conservation, and scientific
organizations representing more than 14 million members and supporters.
A comprehensive analysis by CARE determined the National Wildlife
Refuge System (NWRS) needs $900 million in annual operations funding to
properly administer its nearly 150 million acres, educational programs,
habitat restoration projects, and much more. Many years of stagnant
budgets have increased the operations and maintenance backlog; refuge
visitors often show up to find visitor centers closed, hiking trails in
disrepair, and habitat restoration programs eliminated. Invasive plant
species are taking over on refuges, requiring $25 million per year to
treat just one-third of its acreage, and illegal activities such as
poaching are on the rise, requiring an additional 209 officers ($31.4
million) to meet law enforcement needs. We recommend that the Congress
provide $511 million in fiscal year 2012 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. This program has remained drastically underfunded despite
its demonstrated effectiveness. We recommend a small increase over the
fiscal year 2010 funding level of $47.6 million, to bring the funding
to $50 million in fiscal year 2012.
The Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Act Grants Program
supports partnership programs to conserve birds in the United States,
Latin America and the Caribbean, where approximately 5 billion birds
representing 341 species spend their winters, including some of the
most endangered birds in North America. The Wildlife Society recommends
the Congress fund the Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Act at
its full authorization level of $6.5 million in fiscal year 2012.
The Wildlife Society supports adequate funding levels for all
subactivities within the Endangered Species Program. Endangered species
recovery efforts can ultimately lead to delisting, resulting in
significant benefits to species through State management efforts.
Currently, all subactivities within the program are understaffed while
the costs for management of listed species continue to rapidly
escalate. We recommend the Congress match the President's request for
the Endangered Species Program and provide $182.7 million in funding in
fiscal year 2012.
The voluntary Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program provides
financial and technical assistance to landowners to restore degraded
habitat on their property. With more than two-thirds of our Nation's
lands held as private property, and up to 90 percent of some habitats
lost, private lands play a key role in preserving our ecosystem. We
urge the Congress to provide $62.19 million in support of the Partners
for Fish and Wildlife Program in order to allow landowners to help
contribute to land and wildlife preservation.
Through its international programs, the FWS works with many
partners and countries in the implementation of international treaties,
conventions, and projects for the conservation of wildlife species and
their habitats. International trade, import, and transportation of
wildlife species can have a huge impact on America's security, economy,
and environment. Careful regulation of imports and implementation of
international policies is an important task. We ask the Congress to
support FWS in protecting our economy, our environment, and our
national security by providing a necessary $12.9 million in support of
FWS international affairs.
blm
The BLM lands 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 currently has only one
biologist per 591,000 acres of land and estimated costs for recovery of
threatened and endangered species on the BLM lands continue to rise. 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 the BLM's energy,
grazing, and other nonwildlife-related programs, eroding both their
ability to conduct proactive conservation activities and their efforts
to recover listed species. This diversion of funding must be stopped.
Given the significant underfunding of the BLM's wildlife programs,
combined with the tremendous expansion of energy development across the
BLM landscape, we recommend the Congress appropriate $40 million for
the BLM wildlife management. This will allow the 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 also needed for the Threatened and Endangered
Species Management Program, to allow the BLM to meet its
responsibilities in endangered species recovery plans. The BLM's March
2001 report to the Congress called for a doubling of the threatened and
endangered species budget to $48 million and an additional 70 staff
positions over 5 years. This goal has yet to be met. In light of this,
we strongly encourage the Congress to increase overall funding for the
BLM's endangered species program to $33 million in fiscal year 2012.
The Wildlife Society appreciates the commitment of the BLM to
addressing the problems associated with wild horse and burro
management. The President has requested an increase of $12 million to
allow the BLM to implement a new strategy for wild horse and burro
management and act on recommendations provided in late 2010 by the
Office of the Inspector General (OIG). The Wildlife Society is
concerned about the BLM's emphasis on fertility control and its
proposals to reduce the number of feral horses roundups held in fiscal
year 2012. Horses are already above appropriate management levels (set
by the BLM) in most areas, so the proposal to reduce the numbers of
horses removed from the range is ill-conceived at best.
Given that horses and burros have been maintained above the
appropriate management level for many years, we believe that additional
funding should be requested to correct the habitat damage that has
occurred due to overpopulation of these animals. The requested $75.7
million should be provided to the BLM if they continue removing excess
horses from the range at a reasonable rate and focus additional
resources on habitat restoration.
usgs
The basic, objective, and interdisciplinary scientific research
that is supported by the USGS is necessary for understanding the
complex environmental issues facing our Nation today. This science will
play an essential role in the decisionmaking processes of natural
resource managers as we adapt to climate change, and it will help
protect our water supply and conserve endangered species. More
investment is needed to strengthen the USGS partnerships, improve
monitoring, produce high-quality geospatial data, and deliver the best
science to address critical environmental and societal challenges. The
Wildlife Society supports funding of at least $1.2 billion for the USGS
in fiscal year 2012.
The Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Units (CFWRUs) conduct
research on renewable natural resource questions, participate in the
education of graduate students, provide technical assistance and
consultation on natural resource issues, and provide continuing
education for natural resource professionals. In fiscal year 2001, the
Congress fully funded the CFWRUs, allowing unit productivity to rise to
record levels. Since then, budgetary shortfalls have caused an erosion
of available funds, resulting in a current staffing vacancy of nearly
one-quarter of the professional workforce. In order to fill current
vacancies, restore seriously eroded operational funds for each CFWRU,
and enhance national program coordination, the fiscal year 2012 budget
for the CFWRUs should be increased to $22 million. This would restore
necessary capacity in the CFWRU program and allow it to meet the
Nation's research and training needs.
The Wildlife Society appreciates the fiscal year 2010 funding of
$15.1 million for the National Climate Change and Wildlife Science
Center. This center will play a pivotal role in addressing the impacts
of climate change on fish and wildlife by providing essential
scientific support. In order for this role to be fully realized,
funding must increase. The Wildlife Society recommends that the
Congress fund the National Climate Change and Wildlife Science Center
at $25 million in fiscal year 2012.
usfs
Our national forests and grasslands are essential to the
conservation of our Nation's wildlife and habitat, and are home to
about 425 threatened and endangered, and another 3,250 at-risk species.
In fiscal year 2011, the USFS combined several programs and budgets,
including vegetation and watershed management, wildlife and fisheries
habitat management, and forest products into a single integrated
resource restoration activity budget. We are concerned with this merger
because it makes accountability to stakeholders and the Congress more
difficult. However, with these reservations noted, we urge the Congress
to support the request of $854.242 million for the integrated resource
restoration program in fiscal year 2012.
Integral to management of our natural resources is a deep
understanding of the biological and geological forces that shape the
land and its wildlife and plant communities. The research being done by
the USFS is at the forefront of science, and essential to improving the
health of our Nation's forests and grasslands. Furthermore, it will
play a key role in developing strategies for mitigating the effects of
climate change. We urge the Congress to provide $312 million in fiscal
year 2012 for forest and rangelands to support this high-quality
research.
white nose syndrome (a crosscutting program)
Finally, we ask the Congress to provide additional funding to fight
White Nose Syndrome (WNS) in bats. The current loss of bat populations
from WNS represents one of the most precipitous wildlife declines in
the past century in North America, and will likely have significant
ecological and economic consequences throughout the United States.
Experts have recommended that $45 million will be needed over the next
5 years to study and combat WNS.
Federal agencies play a critical role in WNS response. The FWS is
the lead agency, coordinating the nationwide effort to combat the
disease and granting Federal monies to State wildlife agencies to
assist in their WNS response. The USGS is conducting research vital to
understanding this previously unknown disease. The National Park
Service, BLM, and USFS are involved on their lands in monitoring and
surveying bat populations, implementing decontamination measures with
visitors, managing and closing caves, improving bat habitat, educating
the public about WNS, and other activities. The Department of Defense
monitors, surveys, and implements conservation measures for bat
populations on its lands as well. We request a total funding level of
$11.1 million for WNS research, monitoring, and response among these
agencies in fiscal year 2012.
Thank you for considering the recommendations of wildlife
professionals.
______
Letter From the Upper Peninsula Public Access Coalition
March 28, 2011.
Hon. Jack Reed,
Chairman, Subcommittee on the Interior, Environment, and Related
Agencies, Washington, DC.
Hon. Lisa Murkowski,
Ranking Member, Subcommittee on the Interior, Environment, and Related
Agencies, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Reed and Senator Murkowski: On behalf of the Upper
Peninsula Public Access Coalition (UPPAC), I appreciate the opportunity
to present this testimony in support of the Land and Water Conservation
Fund (LWCF) in the fiscal year 2012 Interior, environment, and related
agencies appropriations bill. In an historic embrace of conservation,
the President's budget request includes full funding of LWCF in fiscal
year 2012. The proposed $900 million is the congressionally authorized
amount for the program and seeks to renew focus on the promise of the
LWCF: that it is right and wise to reinvest proceeds from offshore
drilling receipts in the protection of natural resources and
recreational access for all Americans.
UPPAC is a volunteer organization comprised of concerned citizens
dedicated to the protection and preservation of the region's
environmental quality and way of life. The common thread that connects
us all is our appreciation for the aesthetic beauty of undisturbed
shorelines as well as our use, enjoyment, and deep concern for the
lakes, streams, rivers, and woodlands of Michigan's Upper Peninsula.
I recognize that this subcommittee will face many demands in this
tight fiscal climate. However, far-sighted investment in LWCF is one
that will permanently pay dividends to the American people and to our
great natural and historical heritage. As LWCF is funded from Outer
Continental Shelf revenues, not taxpayer dollars, these funds should go
to their intended and authorized use.
As part of the full commitment to LWCF in fiscal year 2012, the
U.S. Forest Service (USFS) included $1.5 million for the acquisition of
land in the Hiawatha National Forest in Michigan in the President's
budget. I am pleased that this funding was included in the request and
urge the Congress to provide the full President's budget amount for
LWCF so that this important project can receive this needed funding.
With its pristine rivers, winding streams, and vast wilderness
areas, Michigan's Upper Peninsula shapes the rugged character of the
upper Great Lakes region. Ensuring the lasting protection of this
region's diverse ecosystems, preserving sensitive wildlife habitat, and
securing lasting recreational opportunities are important conservation
objectives identified by the USFS that further the goals of the Great
Lakes Restoration Initiative, established by Presidential Executive
order in February 2009.
The Great Lakes, Great Lands--Upper Peninsula conservation project
was ranked by the Eastern region of the USFS as its top acquisition
priority in fiscal year 2012. This project will greatly advance the
objectives of the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative and the Northwoods
Climate Change Response Framework by incorporating more than 3,500
acres of private land in the Upper Peninsula into the Ottawa and
Hiawatha national forests.
The fiscal year 2012 Great Lakes, Great Lands request builds on
past conservation successes in the Upper Peninsula. In fiscal year
2010, the Congress appropriated $1.3 million to protect the Prickett
Lake parcel, which is immediately adjacent to the iconic Sturgeon River
Gorge Wilderness and located within the Ottawa National Forest. Another
Great Lakes, Great Lands property in the Ottawa National Forest is the
Victoria Lake parcel that will protect important lands along the West
Branch of the Ontonagon Wild and Scenic River and, like the Prickett
Lake tract, is traversed by portions of the North County National
Scenic Trail. Pending approval of the fiscal year 2011 Federal budget
with funding to acquire the Victoria Lake property, the Great Lakes,
Great Lands conservation focus will turn to protecting important
inholdings within the Hiawatha National Forest referred to as the
Hiawatha Watershed Health Project.
The Hiawatha Watershed Health Project is a landscape-scale
conservation project focusing on the restoration and maintenance of
watersheds that serve the central and eastern portions of the Upper
Peninsula. The Hiawatha National Forest is seeking to acquire strategic
inholdings from Plum Creek Timber Company that will result in the cost-
effective consolidation of Federal ownership, the protection and
conservation of the watersheds of Lakes Superior, Michigan, and Huron,
and the promotion of the local tourist economy as new lands are
permanently opened for the public to explore.
With more than 400 lakes and five National Wild and Scenic river
ways, protecting land in the Hiawatha offers an unparalleled
opportunity for watershed protection. Nearly 46 percent of the Hiawatha
is wetland and approximately 775 miles of rivers and streams on the
forest empty into the Great Lakes. Conservation of the Hiawatha
inholdings will permanently protect lands within the Whitefish Wild and
Scenic River watershed including a parcel situated at the northernmost
section of Davies Lake that runs alongside the popular Bay de Noc to
Grand Island Trail. The Stonington inholdings in the southern Hiawatha
are bisected by the Big and Ogontz Rivers that drain into Ogontz Bay in
Lake Michigan. The Hiawatha Watershed Health Project also aims to
protect habitat for a number of species facing extinction. The tracts
to be acquired offer secluded older forests, whose habitat favors the
recovery of the endangered Eastern grey wolf, the threatened Canada
lynx, and other imperiled species like the northern goshawk and the
red-shouldered hawk.
Adding more than 2,500 acres of private land to the Hiawatha
National Forest will bolster the Upper Peninsula's outdoor recreation
economy. With more than 800,000 acres to explore and more than 1.5
million visitors per year, the Hiawatha is an exceptional outdoor
recreation destination. Every spring and fall, hunters and anglers
flock to the forest to hunt for bear and white-tailed deer and fish for
steelhead and brook trout. The summer season attracts hikers, anglers,
mountain bikers, campers, and sightseers, and in the winter, the ``lake
effect'' drops an average of 200 inches of snow for snowmobilers and
cross-country skiers to enjoy. The forest also includes more than 2,000
miles of forest road that are open for motorized use. Acquisition of
the Hiawatha inholdings proposed in fiscal year 2012 will prevent the
possible subdivision and development of key tracts, thus allowing
traditional uses to continue unimpeded. Permanently opening private
lands in the Hiawatha for the public to enjoy will enhance recreational
opportunities in the forest and help support local recreational and
related industries.
Protecting watersheds and forestland in the Hiawatha National
Forest will also add important value to efforts by the Northwoods
Climate Change Response Framework as these landscapes play an
increasingly important role in sequestering carbon. The Northwoods
Climate Change Response Framework, led by the USFS, is working to
develop adaptive management strategies to help the region's forests
thrive in a changing climate. Consolidating Federal ownership in the
Hiawatha will secure large forest blocks where new science-based
management protocols can be tested and applied.
The Great Lakes, Great Lands--Upper Peninsula project represents a
substantial step toward achieving landscape-scale conservation and
supporting the objectives of the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative. An
allocation of $1.5 million from the LWCF in fiscal year 2012 to acquire
private inholdings within the Hiawatha National Forest will provide
significant watershed protection, safeguard substantial wildlife
habitat, and cement the Upper Peninsula's reputation as a premier
outdoor recreation destination.
The LWCF is our Nation's premier Federal program to acquire and
protect lands at national parks, forests, refuges, and public lands and
at State parks, trails, and recreational facilities. These sites across
the country provide the public with substantial social and economic
benefits including promoting healthier lifestyles through recreation,
protecting drinking water and watersheds, improving wildfire
management, and assisting wildlife and fisheries adaptation.
I want to thank the chairman and the members of the subcommittee
for this opportunity to testify on behalf of this nationally important
protection effort in Michigan, and I appreciate your consideration of
this funding request.
Sincerely,
Nancy Warren.
______
Prepared Statement of the USGS Coalition
summary
The USGS Coalition appreciates the opportunity to provide testimony
about the President's budget request for the United States Geological
Survey (USGS) for fiscal year 2012. The USGS Coalition urges the
Congress to appropriate at least $1.2 billion for the USGS in fiscal
year 2012.
The USGS is uniquely positioned to address many of the Nation's
greatest challenges. The USGS plays a crucial role in reducing risks
from earthquakes, tsunamis, floods, landslides, wildfires, and other
natural hazards, assessing water quality and quantity, providing
emergency responders with geospatial data to improve homeland security,
assessing mineral and energy resources (including rare earth elements
and unconventional natural gas resources), 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.
The USGS budget has been reorganized to reflect the agency's new
structure. The fiscal year 2012 budget is now organized along the six
crosscutting themes from the USGS science strategy, Facing Tomorrow's
Challenges--U.S. Geological Survey Science in the Decade 2007-2017
(USGS, 2007). The budget request also includes a new National Land
Imaging account that focuses on operation of Landsat satellites.
The USGS Coalition is an alliance of more than 70 organizations
united by a commitment to the continued vitality of the USGS to provide
critical data and services. 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.
essential services for the nation
Established by the Congress as a branch of the Department of the
Interior in 1879, the USGS has a truly national mission that extends
beyond the boundaries of the Nation's public lands to positively impact
the lives of all Americans. The USGS plays a crucial role in protecting
the public from natural hazards, assessing water quality and quantity,
providing geospatial data, and conducting the science necessary to
manage our Nation's living, mineral, and energy resources. Through its
offices across the country, the USGS works with more than 2,000
partners to provide high-quality research and data to policymakers,
emergency responders, natural resource managers, civil and
environmental engineers, educators, and the public. A few examples are
provided.
A failure to prevent natural hazards from becoming natural
disasters will increase future expenditures for disaster response and
recovery. Recent natural disasters provide unmistakable evidence that
society remains vulnerable to staggering losses. The magnitude 9.0
earthquake and tsunami that devastated Japan on March 11, 2011, the
magnitude 7.0 earthquake that killed more than 200,000 people in Haiti
on January 12, 2010, and the small volcanic eruptions in Iceland that
disrupted global air traffic in April 2010, provide compelling evidence
that the United States must have the data to inform further actions to
reduce risks from natural hazards.
Providing the information necessary to mitigate the impacts of
natural hazards is a core function of the USGS. The USGS operates
seismic networks and conducts seismic hazard analyses that are used to
formulate earthquake probabilities and to establish building codes
across the Nation. It monitors volcanoes and provides warnings about
impending eruptions. Data from the USGS network of stream gages enable
the National Weather Service to issue flood warnings. The USGS and its
Federal partners monitor seasonal wildfires and 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.
The USGS assessments of mineral and energy resources--including
rare earth elements, unconventional natural gas resources, and
geothermal resources--are essential for making informed decisions about
the Nation's future. Widespread deployment of new energy technologies
can reduce greenhouse gas emissions, mitigate climate change, and
reduce dependence on foreign oil. Many emerging technologies depend on
rare earth elements and other scarce elements that currently lack
diversified sources of supply. China accounts for 95 percent of world
production of rare earth elements although it has only 36 percent of
identified world reserves (USGS, 2010). A renewed Federal commitment to
innovative research, information, and education on mineral and energy
resources is needed to address these issues.
The USGS provides scientific information on water availability and
quality of the United States to inform the public and decisionmakers
about the status of freshwater resources and how they are changing over
time. During the past 130 years, the USGS has collected streamflow data
at more than 21,000 sites, water-level data at more than 1 million
wells, and chemical data at more than 338,000 surface-water and
groundwater sites. This information is needed to effectively manage
fresh-waters, both above and below the land surface, for domestic,
public, agricultural, commercial, industrial, recreational, and
ecological uses.
The USGS plays a critical role in bioinformatics and managing
natural resources, activities that are essential to our economy,
security, and environment. The USGS provides fundamental scientific
data that informs management of natural resources, control of invasive
species, and monitoring of wildlife diseases that can cause billions of
dollars in agricultural losses. The USGS provides critical information
for resource managers as they develop adaptive management strategies
for restoration and long-term use of the Nation's natural resources.
funding shortfall
The USGS budget has been nearly stagnant in real dollars since 1996
(Figure 1). The USGS budget for fiscal year 2010 is lower than the USGS
budget for fiscal year 2001 in real dollars. The decline in funding for
the USGS during this time period would have been greater if the
Congress had not repeatedly restored proposed budget cuts. Federal
funding for non-Defense Research and Development has increased
significantly while funding for the USGS stagnated for more than a
decade.
President Obama's fiscal year 2012 budget request for the USGS is
$1.118 billion, a decrease of $15 million or 1.3 percent below the USGS
budget request for fiscal year 2011. Although there is a $6 million
increase in the total USGS budget request for fiscal year 2012 compared
to the fiscal year 2010 enacted level, the fiscal year 2012 budget
request contains significant cuts in many programs that are offset by
increases in other areas, including a $48 million increase in a new
National Land Imaging account that focuses on operation of Landsat
satellites.
It appears that responsibilities for Landsat satellites have been
transferred from NASA to USGS without a corresponding transfer of
budget authority. In the USGS budget request for fiscal year 2012,
budget increases for national land imaging are offset by budget
decreases for core USGS science programs. This trend cannot continue
without compromising the mission of the USGS. Past experience indicates
that the cost of operating Landsat is likely to rise significantly in
future years with the launch of Landsat 8, 9, and 10.
The USGS budget request for fiscal year 2012 includes $89.1 million
in program reductions in valuable, long-standing programs. The proposed
budget cuts would have significant negative impacts on core scientific
capabilities of the USGS. Proposed budget cuts in the fiscal year 2012
USGS budget request include:
---$9.8 million for biological information management and delivery;
---$9.6 million for mineral resources;
---$8.9 million for National Water Quality Assessment;
---$6.5 million for Water Resources Research Act Program; and
---$4.7 million for earthquake hazards.
The USGS Coalition urges the Congress to appropriate at least $1.2
billion for the USGS in fiscal year 2012, a level that will support
critical USGS programs that improve health and safety and provide the
basis for future jobs and economic growth.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The USGS Coalition is grateful to the Senate Interior, Environment,
and Related Agencies Appropriations Subcommittee for its past
leadership in strengthening the USGS.
______
Prepared Statement of the United Tribes Technical College
For 42 years, United Tribes Technical College (UTTC) has provided
postsecondary career and technical education, job training, and family
services to some of the most impoverished, high-risk Indian students
from throughout the Nation. We are governed by the five tribes located
wholly or in part in North Dakota. We are not part of the North Dakota
State college system and do not have a tax base or State-appropriated
funds on which to rely. We have consistently had excellent retention
and placement rates and are a fully accredited institution. Bureau of
Indian Education (BIE) funds represent about one-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. The requests of the UTTC board for the fiscal year
2012 BIE/Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) budgets are:
--$6.4 million in BIE funding for UTTC for our Indian Self-
Determination Act contract, which is $2 million more than the
fiscal year 2010 enacted level and the President's fiscal year
2012 request. This is our base funding.
--One-time funding to forward fund UTTC and Navajo Technical College
who were inadvertently left out of the forward funding of the
tribal colleges in fiscal year 2010. We estimate the cost to be
$5 million.
--$4.375 million toward phase I of a planned Northern Plains Indian
Police Academy located at UTTC. (BIA funding)
Base Funding.--UTTC administers its BIE funding under an Indian
Self-Determination Act agreement, and has done so for 34 years. Funds
requested above the fiscal year 2010 level are needed to:
--maintain 100-year-old education buildings and 50-year-old housing
stock for students;
--upgrade technology capabilities;
--provide adequate salaries for faculty and staff (who have not
received a cost of living increase for the past 2 years and who
are in the bottom quartile of salary for comparable positions
elsewhere); and
--fund program and curriculum improvements, including at least three
4-year degree programs.
Acquisition of additional base funding is critical as UTTC has more
than tripled its number of students within the past 8 years while
actual base funding for educational services, including Carl Perkins
Act funding, have not increased commensurately (increased from $6
million to $8 million for the two programs combined). Our BIE funding
provides a base level of support while allowing the college to compete
for desperately needed discretionary contracts and grants leading to
additional resources annually for the college's programs and support
services.
Forward Funding.--There was a glitch in the fiscal year 2010
appropriations process which resulted in UTTC (and Navajo Technical
College (NTC)) not receiving BIE forward funding. There is authority
for forward funding for tribal colleges under the Tribally Controlled
Colleges and Universities Act, 25 U.S.C. 1810(b)(1) and (2). This
authority applies to all colleges funded under that act, including UTTC
and NTC. When the administration requested $50 million for forward
funding its fiscal year 2010 budget, they asked for it under the line
item of ``tribally controlled colleges and universities''--that line
item includes 26 tribally controlled colleges. However, UTTC and NTC
are funded under a different line item which is ``tribal technical
colleges'' and thus when the Congress provided the requested $50
million for forward funding, UTTC and NTC were left out of the picture.
Forward funding requires a one-time extra appropriation of three-
quarters of a year's funding; hence, we are requesting, in addition to
our regular fiscal year 2012 appropriation, $3,330,750 in the fiscal
year 2012 appropriations bill to forward fund UTTC. (75 percent of
$4,441,000, the fiscal year 2010 BIE appropriation for UTTC, is
$3,330,750). The total BIE fiscal year 2010 appropriation for ``tribal
technical colleges'' was $6,669,000 ($4,4441,000 for UTTC and
$2,228,000 for NTC). To forward fund both institutions would require
$5,001,750 in addition to the regular fiscal year 2012 appropriation.
Northern Plains Indian Law Enforcement Academy.--We have been
working toward the establishment of a police training academy on our
campus. We have done this with the encouragement of our congressional
delegation and tribes, especially those in the Northern Plains. Toward
that end we signed a Memorandum of Understanding in 2008 with the BIA
and the American Indian Higher Education Consortium to provide
supplemental in-service training to BIA and tribal police officers as
maybe agreed upon by the BIA.
In fiscal year 2010, $250,000 was appropriated to the BIA and
designated as special initiative of the Indian Police Academy (IPA) in
New Mexico to work with UTTC on law enforcement training matters. This
is just the beginning of what is really needed. The only Indian police
academy now is in Artesia, New Mexico which, while doing excellent
work, can train only three classes of 50 persons annually. The BIA
estimates that tribal police officers are staffed at only 58 percent of
need, indicating that the need for police officers in Indian country is
far greater than can be supplied just by the IPA in Artesia. To satisfy
that need, the BIA needs to establish a full-fledged law enforcement
academy in the Northern Plains. An academy at UTTC would allow tribal
people in the Plains areas a more affordable choice of training
locations, minimizing the distance and long separation of trainees from
their families. Our campus has many built-in services and resources to
meet the needs of trainees.
Our request of $4.375 million is for phase I of the police academy
facility, which will include the basic building for instruction of
35,000 square feet, enough to train up to 165 law enforcement officers
per year. We have entered into discussions with Federal, local, and
State officials to ensure the facility and the training we offer will
meet all requisite standards, and to coordinate what portion of the
facility should be placed at UTTC and which portions may be placed
elsewhere, in order to share the cost.
Fourteen more things we want you to know about UTTC: We have:
--A dedication to providing an educational setting that is geared to
the full range of student needs, thus enhancing chances for
success--educational, cultural, necessary life skills.
--Services including campus security, a Child Development Center,
family literacy program, wellness center, area transportation,
K-8 elementary school, tutoring, counseling, and family and
single student housing.
--A semester completion rate of 80-90 percent.
--A graduate placement rate of 94 percent (placement into jobs and
higher education).
--A projected return on Federal investment of 20-1 (2005 study).
--Unrestricted accreditation from the North Central Association of
Colleges and Schools.
--More than 30 percent of our graduates move on to 4-year or advanced
degree institutions.
--A student body representing 87 tribes who come mostly from high-
poverty, high-unemployment tribal nations in the Great Plains;
many students have children or dependents.
--81 percent of undergraduate students receive Pell Grants, the
highest percentage of Pell Grant recipients of any North Dakota
college.
--21, 2-year degree programs, 8, 1-year certificates and 3 bachelor
degree programs pending final accreditation this spring.
--An expanding curricula to meet job-training needs for growing
fields including law enforcement, energy auditing, and health
information management. We have also broadened our online
program offerings.
--A critical role in the regional economy. Our presence brings $31.8
million annually to the economy of the Bismarck region.
--A workforce of more than 300 people.
--An award-winning annual powwow which last year had participants
from 70+ tribes, featuring more than 1,500 dancers and
drummers, and drawing more than 20,000 spectators. We annually
feature indigenous dance groups from other countries.
The Duplication or Overlapping Issue.--The Government
Accountability Office in March of this year issued two reports
regarding Federal programs which may have similar or overlapping
services or objectives (GAO-11-474R and GAO-11-318SP). Funding from the
BIE and the Department of Education's Carl Perkins Act for Tribally
Controlled Postsecondary Career and Technical Education were among the
programs listed in the reports. The full GAO report did not recommend
defunding these programs; rather, consolidation of these programs was
recommended to save administrative costs. We are not in disagreement
about possible consolidation of our funding sources, so long as program
funds are not cut.
BIE funds represent about 54 percent of UTTC's core operating
budget. The Perkins funds supplement, but do not duplicate, the BIE
funds. It takes both sources of funding to frugally maintain the
institution. In fact, even these combined sources do not provide the
resources necessary to operate and maintain the college. Therefore,
UTTC actively seeks alternative funding to assist with academic
programming, deferred maintenance of its physical plant and scholarship
assistance, among other things.
Second, as mentioned, UTTC and other tribally chartered colleges
are not part of State educational systems and do not receive State-
appropriated general operational funds for their Indian students. The
need for postsecondary career and technical education in Indian country
is so great and the funding so small, that there is little chance for
duplicative funding.
There are only two institutions targeting American Indian/Alaska
Native career and technical education and training at the postsecondary
level-UTTC and NTC. Combined, these institutions received less than $15
million in fiscal year 2010 Federal funds ($8 million from Perkins; $7
million from the BIE). That is not an excessive amount of money for two
campus-based institutions who offer a broad (and expanding) array of
programs geared toward the educational and cultural needs of their
students and toward job-producing skills.
UTTC offers services that are catered to the needs of our students,
many of whom are first-generation college attendees and many of whom
come to us needing remedial education. We also provide services for the
children and dependents of our students. Although BIE and section 117
funds do not pay for remedial education services, UTTC must make this
investment with our student population through other sources of funding
to ensure they succeed at the postsecondary level.
Federal funding for American Indian/Alaska Native employment and
training is barely 1 percent of the annual Federal employment and
training budget but has an enormous impact on the people and
communities it serves.
Our BIE and Department of Education Perkins funds provide for
nearly all of our core postsecondary educational programs. Very little
of the other funds we receive may 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 these funds. Thank you
for your consideration of our requests.
______
Prepared Statement of the Wildlife Conservation Society
Chairman Reed, Ranking Member Murkowski, members of the
subcommittee: Thank you for the opportunity to submit testimony on
fiscal year 2012 Interior, environment and related agencies
appropriations act. My name is John F. Calvelli, Executive Vice
President of Public Affairs with the Wildlife Conservation Society
(WCS), which was founded with the help of Theodore Roosevelt in 1895
with the mission of saving wildlife and wild places worldwide. Today,
the WCS manages the largest network of urban wildlife parks in the
United States led by our flagship the Bronx Zoo. The WCS fieldwork
helps address threats to more than 25 percent of Earth's biodiversity
in 60 countries around the world, employing more than 4,000 full-time
staff including 170 Ph.D. scientists and 100 veterinarians. Our
domestic facilities generate $414 million in economic activity
annually, according to a 2008 study.
At the outset, I recognize the subcommittee's responsibility in
addressing the Nation's current fiscal climate while balancing
priorities embedded in the American tradition of conservation. The
pressures on our planet are mounting and conservation is a major
antidote to unsustainable pressures on natural resources. The
Department of the Interior (DOI) reports that in 2008 more than 400
million people visited national parks, refuges and public lands,
generating more than 300,000 jobs and $25 billion in economic activity.
Additionally, revenues generated by the DOI continue to exceed its
annual appropriation. In fiscal year 2012, DOI projects revenues from
nature-based activities at approximately $14.1 billion, in contrast to
the administration's fiscal year 2012 budget request for the entire
department of $12.2 billion. On a global level, by supporting
conservation, the United States is making a direct contribution to our
national security. For example, in Afghanistan and Pakistan, where the
WCS is the only United States-based conservation organization at work,
environmental degradation, including desertification from unsustainable
land use, erosion caused by deforestation, and water contamination,
have devastated the region's inhabitants. In March 2009, President
Obama's strategic review of Afghanistan identified ``sustainable
economic development'' and ``restor[ing] Afghanistan's once vibrant
agriculture sector'' as major ingredients in American's overall effort
to sap the strength of the insurgency. Reversing the environmental
trends is a key component to achieving those goals. Investments in
foreign assistance particularly in conservation activities comprise a
small piece of the Federal budget. Yet, this funding has a tremendous
impact helping to reduce conflict around scarce resources and
preventing costly military interventions. As communities and countries
stabilize and grow more prosperous, they become potential trade
partners for U.S. goods. In fact, 11 of the 15 largest importers of
American goods are past recipients of U.S. foreign assistance. This
testimony will highlight both domestic and international programs at
DOI and the Department of Agriculture (USDA) that are shaping the
future of conservation.
department of the interior-wide initiatives
America's Great Outdoors (AGO).--The WCS is pleased with the
administration's agenda to protect and effectively manage our natural
areas by encouraging American citizens, community groups, and all
levels of government to share a leadership role in preserving our
natural heritage. The WCS supports the AGO Initiative's emphasis on
landscape-scale conservation promoting landscape connectivity and the
protection of wildlife corridors. This connectivity is particularly
important for some of the wide-ranging species that are conservation
priorities for the WCS, such as the wolverine, Pronghorn antelope, and
grizzly bear. Fully-funding the Land and Water Conservation Fund
(LWCF), as the fiscal year 2012 President's budget requests, would also
invest in Federal and State land acquisition that could help protect
these critical wildlife corridors. The WCS applauds the DOI's goal of
encouraging youth to connect with nature as a key component of the AGO
Initiative. The Youth in Natural Resources Initiative includes a $2
million increase in funding for the National Fish and Wildlife
Foundation to, in part, foster youth education programs in classrooms
through public-private partnerships with non-governmental organizations
and others with a focus on preserving and protecting priority species
and their habitats. According to the DOI, Federal funding will leverage
at least an equal amount of private contributions, with a historical
ratio of 2 to 1, or more.
bureau of land management (blm)
Eco-regional Assessments.--As energy development, urban growth, and
climate change continue to negatively impact wildlife and their
habitat, a landscape-scale conservation strategy is needed.
Unfortunately, BLM land-use policies historically have been driven by
local considerations with decisions made at the field office level. The
WCS is keenly interested in the BLM's planned efforts to assess the
regional impacts on wildlife in high-priority energy development areas
such as the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and along the
Path of the Pronghorn in Wyoming. The WCS has a long history of working
to ensure a balance of both wildlife protection for migratory birds,
caribou, and musk oxen in key areas of the NPR-A. Our goal is to help
the oil and gas industry minimize potential impacts to wildlife as they
begin to pursue development in Arctic Alaska. The WCS recommends a
permanent prohibition on leasing in the ``Special Areas'' of Teshekpuk
Lake, Utukok River Uplands, and the Colville River. At the same time,
Special Areas should remain open for managed subsistence hunting by
Native Alaskans. The WCS conservationists also seek to address
disturbances to wildlife migration patterns, such as the Path of the
Pronghorn, as energy development degrades and fragments wintering
habitat across the Upper Green River Valley in western Wyoming.
Proactive and strategic regional assessments by the BLM are critical to
supporting the agency in properly managing these ecosystems. Through
the Healthy Landscapes Program, these assessments will improve
understanding of the existing condition of BLM landscapes at a broader
level. The WCS believes this is an important strategy to address major
stressors on wildlife and recommends continued significant funding for
landscape-scale habitat conservation through the Healthy Landscapes
Initiative. The WCS is also encouraged by the new Wild Lands Policy,
which aims to ensure that all BLM lands with wilderness characteristics
have been accurately inventoried. Additionally, the WCS appreciates the
opportunity to weigh in with other public stakeholders on the
designation of Wild Lands.
u.s. fish and wildlife service (fws)
FWS State and Tribal Wildlife Grants (SWG) Program.--The State and
Tribal Wildlife Grants program gives States and tribes funding to
develop and implement comprehensive conservation plans to protect
declining wildlife and habitats before protection under the Endangered
Species Act is necessary. This important program is supported by more
than 6,200 organizations that have formed a national bipartisan
coalition called Teaming with Wildlife of which the WCS is a steering
committee member. The WCS recommends that the Congress at least
maintain funding at $95 million in fiscal year 2012 for SWGs to
implement State Wildlife Action Plans. In helping to leverage these
funds, the WCS continues its highly successful Climate Adaptation Fund
grants program with support from the Doris Duke Charitable Foundation.
The Fund provides grants to nonprofit conservation organizations and
State wildlife agencies working to ensure the ability of wildlife to
adapt to a changing climate through applied, on-the-ground projects
that demonstrate effective conservation actions. Since 2006, this WCS-
administered fund has awarded 81 grants for $7.2 million to a wide
variety of stakeholder groups that impact wildlife conservation in 46
States, including funding the State of Idaho's work to protect wildlife
corridors. The WCS is doing its part to leverage Federal funding for
this program by providing private funding opportunities. At the same
time, a greater need remains. In addition to the domestic investments
by DOI, the WCS supports the department's international programs that
have a broad global impact. The remainder of my testimony will focus on
international investments at DOI and USDA.
Multinational Species Conservation Fund (MSCF).--The United States
has a legacy of leading international wildlife conservation efforts and
the MSCF Program exemplifies this by being the only dedicated source
for global species conservation by any Government donor. The MSCF has
been catalytic in paving the way for long-term investments in a
particular landscape. It contributed to the discovery of more than 1.2
million animals in Southern Sudan, including 8,000 African elephants.
This discovery has triggered the creation of Boma National Park in the
world's youngest nation--one that has survived human conflict and
decades of war. The MSCF has made similar investments throughout its
existence since 1990. The world celebrated the Year of the Tiger in
2010 while the remaining 3,000 wild tigers continued to battle dire
circumstances. The Rhino-Tiger Fund is trying to reverse the decline of
the tiger that is threatened by loss of prey, habitat loss, climate
change, poaching for the illegal trade in tiger parts, and disease. The
FWS is doing its part in showcasing the United States as a leader in
tiger conservation as evidenced at the International Tiger Summit in
St. Petersburg, Russia, which was the first-ever Heads of State summit
dedicated to a single species. This signals strong commitment from the
international community to saving the last remaining iconic species, an
aspect exemplified by the MSCF Program which has had a history of
making strategic investments. From 2005-2009, a little more than $45
million in grants for rhinos, tigers, elephants, great apes, and
turtles to 256 national and international groups leveraged more than
$75 million in additional support. As for doing our part, the WCS's
Bronx Zoo Congo Gorilla Forest exhibit, which opened in 1999, has
attracted visitors to allocate a portion of their admission fee--a
total of more than $10.6 million--directly to field conservation
projects in Central Africa's Congo Basin. The WCS remains committed to
find similar ways to support this U.S. Government investment despite
times of financial crisis. We support the fiscal year 2010 enacted
levels ($11.5 million) for this program in fiscal year 2012 while
seeking an additional $1 million to address the plight of tigers.
Wildlife Without Borders (WWB) Global and Regional Programs.--The
FWS administered WWB Programs are a great investment in addressing
cross-cutting threats to ecosystems and wildlife such as disease
outbreaks in amphibians, providing solutions to protein-source crisis
for food-scarce rural communities through addressing bushmeat issues,
etc. WWB is making lasting impacts through capacity building, technical
support and training, local community education, and citizen science.
From 2005-2009, the WWB program across Africa, Latin America, the
Caribbean and the Russian Far East awarded more than $12 million and
leveraged an additional $22 million in direct conservation assistance.
In recent years, this program has established a Critically Endangered
Species Conservation Fund, which has begun investing in modest level
support to the most dire species in need such as Andean cats and
Ethiopian wolves. Other noteworthy efforts supported by this program
include the Bushmeat-free Eastern Africa Network (BEAN) and MENTOR
Fellowship Program which has supported wildlife professionals from
Eastern African nations to gain skills to address conservation
challenges such as bushmeat. The WCS recommends that the overall
funding for the WWB Global and Regional Programs receive $8.4 million
in fiscal year 2012.
u.s. forest service, international program (fsip)
The Forest Service International Program (FSIP) is an essential
U.S. agency in combating the flow of illegal timber into the global
marketplace. Illegal logging impacts to several U.S. forestry
industries translates to approximately $1 billion in losses annually as
American business are undersold by the cheaper illegal supply. Not only
is illegal logging damaging to the environment, but it is also
undercutting the U.S. forest products industry. Legally and sustainably
harvested U.S. timber cannot compete with cheap illegal wood, and it is
costing American jobs. The FSIP is one of the most important entities
representing the U.S. forest products industry in international trade
agreements, and its unmatched expertise is required by the Department
of State and the U.S. Trade Representatives. Besides being uniquely
positioned to promote forest conservation around the globe by drawing
on the agency's diverse workforce of scientists, resource managers,
international specialists and conservation biologists, the FSIP has
increasingly leveraged modest funding from the Congress to make a big
impact for the U.S. taxpayer. For every Federal $1 invested in the
FSIP, an additional $4 are leveraged in matching funds and other
contributions from partners. In recent years, the FSIP has helped
researchers in the Russian Far East to monitor the populations of Amur
leopards and Siberian tigers by ensuring a healthy and abundant prey
base or food source for the big cats. The fiscal year 2012 President's
budget request eliminates the line-item for this vital program.
Restoring support for this program at a minimum at fiscal year 2010
enacted levels of $9.8 million is needed to sustain and enhance these
important activities.
u.s. national park service (nps), international program
In 1961, the U.S. Government initiated its first international
conservation program with the creation of the Office of International
Affairs (OIA). Since then, this office has facilitated technical
assistance and exchange projects with counterpart agencies globally
building on the legacy of American leadership in national parks
management. Thanks to this program, the NPS is working on collaborative
areas of trans-frontier concern, including at the Beringia Shared
Heritage Initiative (United States-Russia), and Big Bend/Rio-Bravo
(United States-Mexico). The international work conducted by the NPS is
not only about helping other countries protect their parks and
heritage. It is about bringing home best practices and learning from
international engagement that could benefit the American national park
system. The WCS recommends $1 million for this office in fiscal year
2012 and encourages a strategic conversation with stakeholders that
would draw on common objectives of parks and protected area management
particularly in trans-frontier collaborative initiatives.
In conclusion, I appreciate the opportunity to share the WCS's
perspectives and make a case for increased investment in conservation
in the fiscal year 2012 Interior, environment, and related agencies
appropriations act. Conservation of public lands is an American
tradition and, as far back as 1909, Theodore Roosevelt recognized that
the management of our natural resources requires coordination between
all nations. Continued investment in conservation will improve our
economic and national security while reaffirming our global position as
a conservation leader. Thank you.
______
Prepared Statement of the Washington Wildlife Recreation Coalition
Mr. Chairman and honorable members of the subcommittee: I
appreciate the opportunity to present this testimony in support of the
Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) in the fiscal year 2012
Interior, environment, and related agencies appropriations bill. In an
historic embrace of conservation, the President's budget request
includes full funding of the LWCF in fiscal year 2012. The proposed
$900 million is the congressionally authorized amount for the program
and seeks to renew focus on the promise of the LWCF: that it is right
and wise to reinvest proceeds from offshore drilling receipts in the
protection of natural resources and recreational access for all
Americans.
I recognize that this subcommittee will face many demands in this
tight fiscal climate. However, far-sighted investment in the LWCF will
permanently pay dividends to the American people and to our great
natural and historical heritage. As the LWCF is funded from Outer
Continental Shelf revenues, not taxpayer dollars, these funds should go
to their intended and authorized use.
As part of the full commitment to the LWCF in fiscal year 2012, the
administration included nine project funding requests for the
protection of land across the State of Washington in the President's
budget. I am pleased this funding was included in the President's
budget and urge the Congress to provide the full amount requested so
that these important projects in Washington State will receive their
share of funding.
Washington is fortunate to have outstanding public lands supporting
its conservation and recreation heritage. From most high points in
Seattle a resident or visitor is beckoned by the sight of the snow
covered peak to the south sometimes hovering in the sky through the
haze of the afternoon. Mount Rainier is one of our State's great
symbols and has been protected in a national park since 1899. Across
Puget Sound, a major water and economic resource of its own, the same
viewer can see the jagged outlines of the Olympic Mountains,
particularly stunning as the sunsets turn the mountains purple and the
sky into layers of orange. The long line of the Cascades from the
Canadian border to the Columbia River Gorge is protected in four
national forests and is accessible via the Pacific Crest National
Scenic Trail. Along not only Puget Sound, the Pacific Coast, and the
Columbia River, but also the hills and open lands of eastern Washington
lie exceptional habitats protected within national wildlife refuges for
a diversity of species.
These parks, forests, refuges, and trails are generators for
Washington's economy. The Outdoor Industry Foundation (OIF) estimates
that outdoor recreation throughout the State contributes $11.7 billion
annually to Washington's economy. This activity supports 115,000 jobs
and produces $8.5 billion annually in retail sales and services--3.5
percent of the gross State product. The OIF found that 44 percent of
Washingtonians view wildlife, 39 percent use trails, 36 percent camp,
and 32 percent ride bicycles for recreational purposes.
In addition to fueling these economic engines for Washington's
gateway communities, the LWCF improves the management of the public
lands in our State. These measures make for better recreational
experiences on the land, sustain habitats for wildlife, and ensure
quality water supplies. They also reduce costs in fighting fires,
controlling invasive species, and maintaining property boundaries. The
LWCF accomplishes these management improvements largely because most of
the funds go towards the acquisition of inholdings, private lands
bordered on two, three, or four sides by existing public lands.
Washington has two excellent examples of the LWCF purchases
reducing costs and improving public land experiences. First, in 2004,
the Congress passed a law to expand the boundaries at the northwestern
entrance of Mount Rainier National Park. For many years flooding would
wipe away parts of the Carbon River Road and make the trailheads,
campsites, and other visitor facilities inaccessible. The expansion and
subsequent purchase of land via LWCF funding has allowed the National
Park Service (NPS) to begin the process of moving facilities to higher
ground, removing the future costs and burdens from frequent floods.
Second, in the central Cascades, much of the land ownership pattern
resembles a checkerboard. Public lands are interspersed with private
lands. For many years the LWCF funds have been used by the Forest
Service (USFS) to acquire priority checkerboard properties that
increase recreational access, improve segments of the Pacific Crest
Trail, and safeguard consolidated blocks of prime mountain and forest
wildlife habitat and river watersheds that supply population centers
like Seattle and Tacoma.
Within the fiscal year 2012 President's budget, there are requests
for the LWCF funds at three Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) refuges,
two NPS units, and four USFS sites in Washington:
fws
Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge ($1.5 Million).--These funds
would be used to acquire lands at the Black River Unit and along the
Nisqually River Delta into Puget Sound in order to consolidate
holdings, preserve wintering habitat for migratory birds, and protect
wetlands habitat for fisheries.
Willapa National Wildlife Refuge ($500,000).--The proposed
properties are surrounded by refuge lands and would protect upland
forests and wetlands for migratory and shorebirds.
Turnbull National Wildlife Refuge ($500,000).--The acquisition
protects water sources, wetlands, and wildlife habitat from the growing
pressures of development from nearby Spokane and Cheney.
nps
Ebey's Landing National Historic Reserve ($1.5 Million).--The
preserve protects a portion of Whidbey Island in Puget Sound that has
an historic land use pattern of prairie and farming largely unchanged
since settlement in the 1850s.
Olympic National Park ($3.551 Million).--Funds would be used to
acquire a tract adjacent to Grandy Creek, an important fish-bearing
tributary stream to Lake Quinault threatened by enhanced development.
usfs
Washington Cascades Ecosystem ($1.5 Million).--The request
continues the acquisition of checkerboard forest ownerships that
prevent further habitat fragmentation, ensures access, and protects
water supplies.
Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area ($1.23 Million).--Funds
are for acquisitions in Washington and Oregon to protect tracts as the
unit celebrates the 25th anniversary of its creation in 2011.
Pacific Crest National Scenic Trail ($2.939 Million).--The
multistate request for the trail includes checkerboard parcels in the
central Cascades that would improve trail stewardship and access.
Pacific Northwest Streams ($2.265 Million).--This USFS program
acquires key riparian tracts in Washington and Oregon to protect waning
populations of anadromous fish, including salmon.
We support these requests for the LWCF funds to acquire critical
tracts in the parks, refuges, and forests of Washington.
I want to thank the Chairman and the members of the subcommittee
for this opportunity to testify on behalf of these nationally important
protection efforts in Washington, and I appreciate your consideration
of these funding requests.
______
Prepared Statement of the Yukon-Kuskokwim Health Corporation
My name is Gene Peltola and I write on behalf of the Yukon-
Kuskokwim Health Corporation (YKHC) to strongly endorse testimony
submitted to the subcommittee by the National Tribal Contract Support
Cost Coalition. As the Coalition's testimony notes, it is absolutely
imperative that in fiscal year 2012 the Indian Health Service (IHS)
finally meet its legal obligation to pay in full the contract support
costs which it owes under our self-governance compact and annual
funding agreement, as well as the amounts owed to all other tribes and
tribal organizations carrying out contracts with the IHS. According to
the IHS, in fiscal year 2012 this will require an appropriation of $615
million, an increase of $153 million more than the President's budget
request.
The YKHC last year suffered a nearly $4 million shortfall in the
contract support costs which the IHS owed us under our self-governance
compact and funding agreement, and we will experience the same
shortfall this year. This is an enormous financial penalty,
particularly when you consider that the YKHC contracts with the Federal
Government to administer Federal healthcare services to 58 federally
recognized tribes located across a roadless area covering 75,000 square
miles, nearly the size of Idaho and almost twice the size of Virginia.
Cutting almost $4 million out of our direct care budget every year in
order to cover the fixed costs which, by law and by contract, the IHS
is obligated to pay, causes untold hardship for our tribal communities
struggling with some of the most severe healthcare conditions in the
United States.
While we appreciate that there are many priorities competing for
the Congress's attention, we do not think it is too much to ask that
the Government honor a contract that we at the YKHC have honorably
carried out in full, year in and year out, and with far greater results
and standards of excellence than were ever present when the healthcare
system in our area was operated by the IHS.
The YKHC therefore strongly supports the testimony submitted to the
subcommittee by the National Tribal Contract Support Cost Coalition.
LIST OF WITNESSES, COMMUNICATIONS, AND PREPARED STATEMENTS
----------
Page
Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium, Prepared Statement of the 218
Alliance for Community Trees, Prepared Statement of the.......... 195
Alliance to Save Energy, Letter From the......................... 229
American:
Association of Petroleum Geologists, Prepared Statement of
the........................................................ 187
Bird Conservancy, Letters From the.........................191, 193
Forest & Paper Association, Prepared Statement of the........ 205
Forest Foundation, Prepared Statement of the................. 195
Geological Institute, Prepared Statement of the.............. 207
Geophysical Union, Prepared Statement of the................. 210
Indian Higher Education Consortium, Prepared Statement of the 214
Institute of Biological Sciences, Prepared Statement of the.. 212
Lung Association, Prepared Statement of the.................. 216
Public Gardens Association, Letter From the.................. 262
Public Power Association, Prepared Statement of the.......... 221
Society for Microbiology, Prepared Statement of the.......... 230
Society of Civil Engineers, Prepared Statement of the........ 224
Wild Horse Preservation Campaign, Prepared Statement of the.. 238
Americans for the Arts, Prepared Statement of.................... 203
Amigos de la Sevilleta, Prepared Statement of the................ 200
Animal Welfare Institute, Prepared Statement of the.............. 242
Appalachian Trail Conservancy, Prepared Statement of the......... 236
APS Four Corners Power Plant:
Letter From.................................................. 222
Prepared Statement of........................................ 223
Arctic Slope Native Association, Prepared Statement of the....... 233
Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes of the Fort Peck Reservation,
Prepared Statement of the...................................... 233
Association of:
American Universities, Prepared Statement of the............. 188
Art Museum Directors, Prepared Statement of the.............. (183)
Community Tribal Schools, Inc., Prepared Statement of the.... 196
State Drinking Water Administrators, Prepared Statement of
the........................................................ 226
Atkinson, Kathleen Budget Director, Forest Service, Department of
Agriculture.................................................... 135
Aurora Water:
Letter From.................................................. 222
Prepared Statement of........................................ 223
Bat Conservation International, Prepared Statement of............ 245
Bennett, Barbara J., Chief Financial Officer, Environmental
Protection Agency.............................................. 71
BHP Navajo Coal Company:
Letter From.................................................. 222
Prepared Statement of........................................ 223
Blunt, Senator Roy, U.S. Senator From Missouri:
Statement of................................................. 6, 76
Prepared Statement of........................................ 6
Botanic Gardens Conservation International, Letter From the...... 262
Botanical Society of America, Prepared Statement of the.......... 248
California Forest Pest Council, Prepared Statement of the........ 195
Center for Plant Conservation:
Letter From the.............................................. 262
Prepared Statement of the.................................... 260
Central:
Council of the Tlingit and Haida Indian Tribes, Prepared
Statement of the........................................... 252
Utah Water Conservancy District:
Letter From.............................................. 222
Prepared Statement of.................................... 223
Chicago Botanic Garden, Letter From the.......................... 262
Children's Environmental Health Network, Prepared Statement of
the............................................................ 254
Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma, Prepared Statement of the............ 258
Chugach Regional Resources Commission, Prepared Statement of the. 271
Citizens Committee to Complete the Refuge, Prepared Statement of
the............................................................ 251
City of:
Chicago Department of Streets and Sanitation, Bureau of
Forestry, Prepared Statement of the........................ 195
Farmington:
Letters From the.......................................222, 260
Prepared Statement of.................................... 223
Civil War Trust, Prepared Statement of the....................... 273
Coalition For Healthier Schools and Partners, Letter From the.... 256
Cochran, Senator Thad, U.S. Senator From Mississippi:
Prepared Statements of..................................33, 76, 138
Questions Submitted by......................................59, 115
Statements of...........................................22, 76, 138
Collins, Senator Susan, U.S. Senator From Maine:
Questions Submitted by......................................62, 116
Statements of................................................ 7, 77
Colorado:
River:
Basin Salinity Control Forum, Prepared Statement of the.. 265
District:
Letter From.......................................... 222
Prepared Statement of................................ 223
Energy Distributers Association:
Letter From.......................................... 222
Prepared Statement of................................ 223
Water Conservation District:
Letter From.......................................... 222
Prepared Statement of................................ 222
Springs Utilities:
Letter From.......................................... 222
Prepared Statement of................................ 223
Water Congress:
Letter From.............................................. 222
Prepared Statement of.................................... 223
Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission, Prepared Statement
of the......................................................... 267
Cooperative Alliance for Refuge Enhancement, Prepared Statement
of the......................................................... 249
Copper River Native Association, Inc., Prepared Statement of the. 270
Council of Western State Foresters, Prepared Statement of the.... 272
Defenders of Wildlife, Prepared Statement of the................. 278
Denver Water:
Letter From.................................................. 222
Prepared Statement of........................................ 223
Dolores Water Conservancy District:
Letter From.................................................. 222
Prepared Statement of........................................ 223
Doris Day Animal League, Prepared Statement of the............... 319
Dzilth-Na-O-Dith-Hle Community Grant School, Prepared Statement
of the......................................................... 276
1854 Treaty Authority, Prepared Statement of the................. 416
Enewetak/Ujelang Local Government, Prepared Statement of the..... 281
Feinstein, Senator Dianne, U.S. Senator From California,
Questions Submitted by........................................42, 171
Fond du Lac Band of Lake Superior Chippewa, Prepared Statement of
the............................................................ 285
Forest County Potawatomi Community, Prepared Statement of the.... 283
Friends of:
Alaska National Wildlife Refuges, Prepared Statement of the.. 287
Back Bay, Letter From the.................................... 289
Balcones Canyonlands National Wildlife Refuge, Letter From
the........................................................ 291
Maine Seabird Islands, Prepared Statement of the............. 295
Rachel Carson National Wildlife Refuge, Letters From the...298, 299
Virgin Islands National Park, Prepared Statement of the...... 304
Wallkill River National Wildlife Refuge, Prepared Statement
of the..................................................... 305
Friends of the:
Chassahowitzka National Wildlife, Prepared Statement of the.. 292
Desert Mountains, Prepared Statement of the.................. 293
National Wildlife Refuges of RI, Inc., Prepared Statement of
the........................................................ 296
Savannah Coastal Wildlife Refuges, Inc., Prepared Statement
of the..................................................... 301
Tampa Bay National Wildlife Refuges, Inc., Prepared
Statements of the........................................302, 457
Gathering Waters Conservancy, Prepared Statement of the.......... 317
Geological Society of America, Prepared Statement of the......... 315
Glacier National Park Fund, Prepared Statement of the............ 313
Grand Valley Water Users Association:
Letter From.................................................. 222
Prepared Statement of........................................ 223
Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission, Prepared
Statement of the............................................... 307
Green Mountain Club, Prepared Statement of the................... 311
Green Ravens Environmental Club, Prepared Statement of the....... 314
Greenspace--The Cambria Land Trust, Prepared Statement of the.... 195
Hayes, David, Deputy Secretary, Department of the Interior....... 1
Haze, Pam K., Deputy Assistant Secretary for Budget, Finance,
Performance, and Acquisition, Department of the Interior....... 1
Humane Society Legislative Fund, Prepared Statement of the....... 319
Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), Prepared Statement of
the............................................................ 319
Independent Tribal Court Review Team, Prepared Statement of the.. 324
Inter Tribal Buffalo Council, Prepared Statement of the.......... 327
Interstate Mining Compact Commission, Prepared Statement of the.. 322
Izaak Walton League of America, Prepared Statement of the........ 330
Jackson, Hon. Lisa P., Administrator, Environmental Protection
Agency......................................................... 71
Prepared Statement of........................................ 80
Summary Statement of......................................... 78
Jamestown S'Klallam Tribe, Washington State, Prepared Statement
of the......................................................... 332
Jicarilla Apache Nation:
Letter From.................................................. 222
Prepared Statement of........................................ 223
Johnson, Senator Tim, U.S. Senator From South Dakota, Questions
Submitted by................................................... 44
Kennesaw Mountain National Battlefield Park, Georgia, Letter From
the............................................................ 335
Kodiak Area Native Association, Prepared Statement of the........ 218
Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians, Prepared
Statement of the............................................... 339
Landrieu, Senator Mary L., U.S. Senator From Louisiana:
Questions Submitted by....................................... 46
Statement of................................................. 5
League of American Orchestras, Prepared Statement of the......... 337
Leahy, Senator Patrick J., U.S. Senator From Vermont:
Questions Submitted by.................................40, 108, 174
Statement of................................................. 75
Little River Band of Ottawa Indians, Prepared Statement of the... 346
Ludlow's Island Resort, Letter From.............................. 344
Lummi Indian Business Council, Prepared Statement of the......... 342
Lyon Arboretum, Letter From the.................................. 262
Maine Appalachian Trail Land Trust, Prepared Statement of the.... 348
Marine Conservation Biology Institute, Letter From the........... 350
Massachusetts Association of Campground Owners, Prepared
Statement of the............................................... 195
Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida, Prepared Statement of the 352
Missouri Forest Products Association, Prepared Statement of the.. 195
Montana Wildlife Federation, Prepared Statement of the........... 355
Murkowski, Senator Lisa, U.S. Senator From Alaska:
Questions Submitted by.................................64, 121, 177
Statements of............................................3, 73, 136
National:
Audubon Society, Letter From the............................. 193
Assembly of State Arts Agencies, Prepared Statement of the... 363
Association of:
Abandoned Mine Land Programs, Prepared Statement of the.. 357
Clean Air Agencies, Prepared Statement of the............ 360
State:
Energy Officials, Prepared Statement of the.......... 366
Foresters, Prepared Statements of the..............195, 367
Historic Preservation Officers, Prepared Statement of
the................................................ 374
Congress of American Indians, Prepared Statement of the...... 370
Cooperators' Coalition, Prepared Statement of the............ 373
Fish and Wildlife Foundation, Prepared Statement of the...... 378
Ground Water Association, Prepared Statement of the.......... 380
Humanities Alliance, Prepared Statement of the............... 381
Indian Health Board, Prepared Statement of the............... 387
Parks Conservation Association, Prepared Statement of the.... 393
Plant Board, Prepared Statement of the....................... 195
Recreation and Park Association, Prepared Statement of the... 396
Tribal:
Contract Support Cost Coalition, Prepared Statement of
the.................................................... 400
Environmental Council, Prepared Statement of the......... 402
Tropical Botanical Garden, Letter From the................... 262
WH&B Advocate Team, Prepared Statement of the................ 408
Wildlife Refuge Association, Prepared Statement of the....... 413
Nelson, Senator Ben, U.S. Senator From Nebraska, Questions
Submitted by................................................... 111
New Hampshire Fish and Game Department, Prepared Statement of the 385
New Mexico Interstate Stream Commission, Prepared Statement of
the............................................................ 390
Nez Perce Tribal Executive Committee, Prepared Statement of the.. 405
North:
American Maple Syrup Council, Inc., Prepared Statement of the 195
Carolina Botanical Garden, Letter From the................... 262
Northern:
Colorado Water Conservancy District:
Letter From.............................................. 222
Prepared Statement of.................................... 223
Forest Center, Letter From the............................... 377
Sierra Partnership, Prepared Statement of the................ 398
Northwest:
Indian Fisheries Commission, Prepared Statement of the....... 410
Portland Area Indian Health Board, Prepared Statement of the. 391
Orchard Mesa Irrigation District:
Letter From.................................................. 222
Prepared Statement of........................................ 223
Oregon Water Resources Congress, Letter From the................. 417
Pacific Salmon Commission, Prepared Statement of the............. 430
Partnership for the National Trails System, Prepared Statement of
the............................................................ 424
Performing Arts Alliance, Prepared Statement of the.............. 418
Pinon Community School, Inc., Prepared Statement of the.......... 422
PNM Resources, Inc.:
Letter From.................................................. 222
Prepared Statement of........................................ 223
PRBO Conservation Society, Letter From the....................... 193
Pueblo of Zuni, Prepared Statement of the........................ 428
Purdue University, Department of Entomology, Prepared Statement
of the......................................................... 195
Quinault Indian Nation, Prepared Statement of the................ 431
Ramah Navajo School Board, Inc., Prepared Statement of the....... 434
Reed, Senator Jack, U.S. Senator From Rhode Island:
Opening Statements of....................................1, 71, 135
Questions Submitted by.................................50, 106, 167
Riverside-San Bernardino County Indian Health, Inc., Prepared
Statement of the............................................... 437
Sac and Fox Nation of Oklahoma, Prepared Statement of the........ 438
Salazar, Hon. Ken, Secretary, Department of the Interior......... 1
Prepared Statement of........................................ 11
Summary Statement of......................................... 8
San Juan Water Commission:
Letter From.................................................. 222
Prepared Statement of........................................ 223
Santa Barbara Botanic Garden, Letter From the.................... 262
Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy, Prepared Statement of the.... 447
Sawtooth Society, Prepared Statement of the...................... 452
Shoshone-Paiute Tribes, Prepared Statement of the................ 448
Society of Municipal Arborists; The Davey Institute, Prepared
Statement of the............................................... 195
Sonosky, Chambers, Sachse, Endreson & Perry, LLP, Letter From.... 442
Southcentral Foundation, Prepared Statement of the............... 440
SouthEast Alaska Regional Health Consortium, Prepared Statement
of the......................................................... 443
Southern Ute Indian Tribe:
Letter From.................................................. 222
Prepared Statement of........................................ 223
Southwestern Water Conservation District, Letter From............ 222
Southwestern Water Conservation District; State of New Mexico,
Prepared Statement of.......................................... 223
Squaxin Island Tribe, Prepared Statement of the.................. 444
St. Vincent National Wildlife Refuge, Florida, Prepared Statement
of the......................................................... 454
Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, Prepared Statement of the............. 449
State of:
New Mexico, Letter From...................................... 222
Wyoming:
Letter From.............................................. 222
Prepared Statement of.................................... 223
Tanana Chiefs Conference, Prepared Statement of the.............. 460
Taos County Board of Commissioners, Prepared Statement of the.... 459
Tester, Senator Jon, U.S. Senator From Montana:
Questions Submitted by....................................... 57
Statement of................................................. 139
The Nature Conservancy and Western Resources Advocates:
Letter From.................................................. 222
Prepared Statement of........................................ 223
The Nature Conservancy, Prepared Statements of the.............195, 463
The Navajo Nation:
Letter From.................................................. 222
Prepared Statement of........................................ 223
The Wildlife Society:
Letter From the.............................................. 193
Prepared Statement of........................................ 469
Theatre Communications Group, Prepared Statement of the.......... 462
Tidwell, Tom, Chief, Forest Service, Department of Agriculture... 135
Prepared Statement of the.................................... 141
Summary Statement of......................................... 139
Timucuan Trail Parks Foundation, Inc., Prepared Statement of the. 467
Town of Ophir, Prepared Statement of the......................... 466
Travis Audubon Society, Prepared Statement of the................ 455
Tri County Water Conservancy District:
Letter From.................................................. 222
Prepared Statement of........................................ 223
Uncomahgre Valley Waters Users Association:
Letter From.................................................. 222
Prepared Statement of........................................ 223
United Tribes Technical College, Prepared Statement of the....... 476
Upper Peninsula Public Access Coalition, Letter From the......... 472
USGS Coalition, Prepared Statement of the........................ 473
Utah Water Users Association:
Letter From.................................................. 222
Prepared Statement of........................................ 223
Virginia Forestry Association, Prepared Statement of the......... 195
Washington Wildlife Recreation Coalition, Prepared Statement of
the............................................................ 482
Wildlife Conservation Society, Prepared Statement of the......... 479
Wyoming Water Association, Prepared Statements of the..........222, 223
Yukon-Kuskokwim Health Corporation, Prepared Statement of the.... 483
Zuber, Morey, Prepared Statement of.............................. 357
SUBJECT INDEX
----------
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Forest Service
Page
Access to Alaska Lands........................................... 181
Additional Committee Questions................................... 167
Agricultural Mediation Service................................... 159
Air Tankers...................................................... 165
Alaska Subsistence Program....................................... 179
Angeles National Forest, Mount Wilson............................ 173
Budget Trends.................................................... 156
Community-based Stewardship...................................... 144
Enhancing Water Resources........................................ 142
Facilities Maintenance........................................... 178
Flood Damage--Homochito National Forest.......................... 153
Forest Health Program.....................................170, 174, 176
Blood Run Project............................................ 152
Grazing:
Associations--Freedom of Information Requests................ 161
Management--Wildlife Habitat................................. 160
Integrated Resource Restoration:
Changes to Proposal.......................................... 149
Combining Line Items......................................... 148
Jobs in Rural Communities........................................ 145
Land Acquisition................................................. 178
Lady C Ranch................................................. 152
Prioritization............................................... 153
Land:............................................................
And Water Conservation Fund--Priority List................... 161
Management Planning Rule..................................... 179
Marijuana Cultivation on Public Lands............................ 171
New Headquarters Green Mountain National Forest.................. 177
New Plane Acquisition............................................ 172
Night Flying..................................................... 173
Night-flying Helicopters and Airtankers Strategy................. 172
Pesticide Regulations--Clean Water Act........................... 157
Priority Watersheds and Job Stabilization Program................ 162
Redesign Process................................................. 167
Research and Development.......................................154, 175
Responding to Climate Change..................................... 143
Rural Development Program........................................ 176
Secure Rural Schools...........................................161, 164
Staffing Levels.................................................. 176
10-year:
Average...................................................... 147
Timber Sales................................................. 177
Thousand Cankers Disease......................................... 158
Tongass Roadless Settlement:
Hydropower................................................... 150
Timber Sales...............................................151, 164
Tongass Land Management Plan................................. 165
Wildland Fire Management..................................146, 147, 155
Workforce Management............................................. 156
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Additional Committee Questions................................... 40
Alaska Conveyance Cuts--Tribal Contracting Impacts............... 66
America's Great Outdoors Initiative/Environmental Education...... 57
BLM/Environmental Protection Agency Hardrock Mining Financial
Assurances..................................................... 66
BOEMRE Reorganization............................................ 36
Budget Request Compared to 2008..................................29, 30
Bureau of Indian Affairs......................................... 61
Contract Support Costs....................................... 67
Cadiz............................................................ 42
Central Valley Aquifer........................................... 43
Chukchi Supplemental EIS......................................... 24
Coastal Impact Assistance Program................................ 68
Conservation..................................................... 10
Deepwater Drilling Permits....................................... 25
Energy........................................................... 9
Fee Increases................................................ 64
Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Plans..................... 43
Gulf of Mexico Drilling.......................................... 59
Humanities and Preservation Funding Cuts......................... 60
Impact on USGS Programs.......................................... 53
Implementation of the Indian Land Consolidation Program..........
57.............................................................
Interior's Budget in Context..................................... 13
Investments for the Future....................................... 14
Izembek Wildlife Refuge Environmental Impact Statement........... 66
Land:
Acquisition.................................................. 28
And Water Conservation Fund.................................. 69
And Conservation Easements............................... 59
Landsat..........................................................33, 53
Mandatory Proposals.............................................. 19
Monuments and Refuges............................................ 27
Offshore:
Permitting................................................... 37
Wind:
Development.............................................. 56
Energy................................................... 31
Oil:
Spill........................................................ 29
And Gas:
Inspections.............................................. 23
Revenues................................................. 22
Permtting........................................................ 40
Re-examination of Proposal....................................... 55
Reimbursement of Costs........................................... 54
Renewable Energy Development..................................... 58
Strategic Petroleum Reserve...................................... 35
2010--A Year of Challenge and Success............................ 12
2012 Budget...................................................... 8
U.S. Geological Survey:
Data Preservation Program.................................... 68
Landsat Funding.............................................. 53
National Land Imaging (Landsat).............................. 67
Wildlands Policy................................................. 39
Wolves........................................................... 26
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Additional Committee Questions................................... 105
Agricultural Dust................................................ 97
Alaskan Native Villages Program.................................. 105
ARNI and COE..................................................... 99
Boiler MACT...................................................... 102
Rules........................................................ 101
BP Oil Spill..................................................... 91
Bristol Bay Watershed Assessment................................. 121
CAA.............................................................. 84
Combined Sewer Mandates.......................................... 111
Community Water Systems Training and Technical Assistance........ 116
Cooling Towers................................................... 104
Cost-benefit Analysis............................................ 96
CWA Permits...................................................... 88
Designation Within Regions....................................... 100
Diesel Emission Reduction Act Funding Elimination................ 107
Emergency Preparedness........................................... 118
Emission Standards for Heavy-duty Vehicles....................... 117
Ethanol-blended Gasoline......................................... 92
Fairbanks Air Quality............................................ 132
Federal Numeric Nutrient Criteria................................ 111
Forest Roads..................................................... 129
Formaldehyde Standards........................................... 110
Fuel-efficiency Standards........................................ 94
GHG:
Regulation Under CAA......................................... 98
Regulations.................................................. 93
Great Lakes Restoration Initative................................ 127
Greenhouse Gases................................................. 83
Gulf Coast Restoration........................................... 90
Healy Clean Coal Plant........................................... 132
H.R. 1........................................................... 85
Impact of H.R. 1 Preventing the EPA From Issuing New CWA Guidance 108
Implementation of North American Emission Control Area in Alaskan
Waters......................................................... 132
Inspector General Reform Act..................................... 121
Lake Champlain................................................... 109
Lead Paint Rule.................................................. 130
Long-term 2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule................ 129
Misfueling of Vehicles and Engines With E15...................... 107
Nebraska Pesticide Application................................... 89
New Source Review................................................ 103
Nitrogen Dioxide Standards....................................... 87
OSC Permits...................................................... 85
Pesticide Application............................................ 89
Platte and Republican River Basins............................... 89
Recommended Elements of a State Framework for Managing Nitrogen
and Phosphorus Pollution....................................... 114
Regulatory:
Impact Analysis for the Boiler MACT.......................... 103
Review....................................................... 120
Rhode Island Narragansatt Bay Estuary--Funding Reduction......... 106
Rural Water Technical Assistance................................. 119
Sewer Separation Project......................................... 90
Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasures Rules and Milk.... 97
State:
Grant Funds.................................................. 106
Revolving Loan--Funds Cuts................................... 95
Superfund........................................................ 109
National Priority List....................................... 115
Tax Reauthorization.......................................... 127
Water Infrastructure Funding..................................... 117
-